collaborative problem solving effectively … problem solving effectively implementedy but not...

Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 185-209.®2009 Council for Exceptional Children.

Exceptional Children

Collaborative ProblemSolving Effectively ImplementedyBut Not Sustained: A Casefor Aligning the Suny theMoony and the Stars

TANYA SANTANGELORowan University

ABSTRACT:r: This 2-year qualitative case study examined factors influencing implementation and

sustainability of collaborative problem-solving programs. One selected elementary school served as

the focus site. Using a participant—observer field-based approach, data were collected via observa-

tions, interviews, mute evidence, and field notes. During Year 1 ofthe study, implementation in-

tegrity was high, participants' perceptions of the process were positive, professional collaboration was

enhanced, students' academic and behavioral concerns were effectively addressed, and special edu-

cation rates were reduced. However, successful implementation was not sustained during Year 2 fol-

lowing a dramatic reduction in support from the school district. Analysis revealed district-level

decisions exert a significant and cascading effect on procedures, perceptions, and ultimately, student

outcomes. Within that context, implications for practice are offered.

The concept of teams of teachers Christenson, 1985). Although there are differ-

and other school professionals enees among these models (e.g., team composi-working together to address stu- tion, meeting structure, and the process ofdent concerns was introduced implementing interventions), all share a com-over 30 years ago. Since then, rnon, preventive goal of "eliminating inappropri-

various names have been used to describe these ate referrals, while increasing the legitimacy ofteams such as (a) mainstream assistance (D. those that are initiated and reducing future stu-Fuchs, Fuchs, Bahr, Fernstrom, & Stecker, 1990); dent problems by strengthening the teacher's ca-(b) instructional consultation (Rosenfield & pacity to intervene effectively with a greater rangeGravois, 1996); (c) instructional support (Ko- of children" (D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, ôc Young,valeski, Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999); and 2003, p. 160). In this article the generic term col-(d) prereferral intervention (Graden, Casey, & laborative problem solving (CPS) describes theseExceptional Children 18S

models and practices because it de-emphasizes thecommon, though inaccurate, assumption thatprereferral intervention is part of an inevitablepath toward special education (Bahr & Kovaleski,2006).

The use of CPS has shown to have many ben-efits. These include (a) a decrease in the number ofstudents who are screened, tested, and found eligi-ble to receive special education services (Burns &CSymington, 2002; McDougal, Clonan, &Martens, 2000; McNamara & HoUinger, 2003);(b) a reduction in disproportionalicy (Gravois &Rosenfield, 2006; Marston, Muyskens, Lau, &Canter, 2003); and (c) academic and behavioralimprovements among referred students (D. Fuchs,Fuchs, Harris, &C Roberts, 1996; Kovaleski et al.,1999; Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000).Benefits to teachers include enhanced professionalsupport and collaboration (Bahr, Whitten, Dieker,Kocarek, & Manson, 1999; Ormsbee & Haring,2000; Welch, Brownell, & Sheridan, 1999) as wellas an expanded repertoire of skills related to in-structional strategies, behavior management, andassessment (Batsche & Knoff, 1995; Ingalls &Hammond, 1996).

However, research does not document un-equivocal success. Specifically, referral concernsare not always successfiilly addressed (Knotek,2003; Rock &c Zigmond, 2001); teachers and ad-ministrators express varied levels of support(Athanasious, Geil, Hazel, & Copeland, 2002;Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004); and it is diffi-cult to sustain successful implementation (D.Fuchs et al., 1996; Rubinson, 2002). These diver-gent findings reflect a growing understanding thatCPS is influenced by complex interactions amongmultiple factors. Thus, rather than looking togenerically classify CPS as effective or ineffective,it is more useful to examine factors shown to in-fluence implementation and sustainability (e.g..Rock & Zigmond).

SUCCESSFULLY

IMPLEMENTING CPS

Multiple factors are shown to influence whetherCPS is efl̂ ectively implemented and, in turn, facil-itate appropriate outcomes among referred stu-dents. First, when participants believe the

overarching goal of CPS is to prevent inappropri-ate referrals for special education, the team ismore likely to engage in meaningfiil, interven-tion-oriented problem solving (Bahr & Kovaleski,2006; McNamara & Hollinger, 2003). In con-trast, when members view CPS as just one ofmany required steps that must be completed be-fore special education eligibility screening occurs,team efforts and interactions focus on validatingand confirming the presence of a disabilityiKfippek, 2003). Second, when participants at-tribute referral concerns primarily to student in-ternal factors such as skill deficits, psychologicalconditions, or difficult circumstances at home,team recommendations are more likely to focuson actions that students and families need to take(e.g., private therapy and medication; Athana-sious et al., 2002; Knotek; Rubinson, 2002). Incontrast, when the locus of the problem is at-tributed to external factors such as those relatedto the curriculum, instructional strategies, or theclassroom environment, team recommendationstend to reflect interventions that school personnelwill implement (e.g., supplemental instructionand behavioral support). Third, general and spe-cial education teachers' perceptions about theirrole in CPS influence their level of engagement(Rubinson; Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004).Specifically, they are more likely to actively partic-ipate when they believe their concerns are takenseriously, their input is valued, and they canmeaningfully contribute to each stage of theproblem-solving process. Fourth, beliefs and ac-tions of the school principal influence implemen-tation. Success is facilitated when the principal isactively involved in the process (Kovaleski et al.,1999); offers positive feedback and recognition toparticipants (Kruger, Struzziero, Watts, & Vacca,1995); and provides necessary resource support(e.g., reallocating staff time and resources, provid-ing release time for meetings, and securing clericalsupport for record keeping; McDougal et al.,2000). Fifth, student outcomes are more positivewhen the CPS model is comprehensive, well de-fined, and implemented with integrity (Kovaleskiet al.; McNamara & Hollinger; Telzrow et al.,2000). This includes using multiple sources ofdata to accurately identify and understand referralconcerns and writing intervention plans thatidentify appropriate performance goals, research-

1 8 6 Winter 2009

based strategies, and comprehensive evaluationprocedures (Flugum & Reschly, 1994; Marston etal., 2003). Finally, student outcomes are depen-dent on whether recommended interventions areimplemented with integrity (Noell et al., 2005).Implementation integrity is increased when teach-ers possess adequate knowledge and skills, whenassessment data is used to monitor studentprogress, and when necessary support is providedto teachers (D. Fuchs et al., 1990; McDougal etal.; Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996).

SUCCESSFULLY

SUSTAINING CPS

In contrast to successful implementation, there isless research focused on describing the factors thatinfluence CPS sustainabiliry. Hammond and In-galls (1999) repotted that 8 out of 10 multidisci-plinary CPS teams remained in operation over an8-year period. Feedback from team members sug-gested sustainability was, achieved through (a) sys-tematic training designed to match each team'sunique needs (e.g., develop a vision and goals forteam operations; identify team strengths, barriers,and goals; and identify a team leader and roles/responsibilities for each team member); (b) partic-ipants' appreciation for the skills and contribu-tions of other team members; (c) membershiprotation among general education teachers; and(d) a tracking system used to assure team effortsare recognized, utilized, and implemented acrosstime and settings.

McDougal et al. (2000) reported that CPSteams at four elementary schools achieved highlevels of process integrity, favorable acceptabilityratings from teachers and administrators, andmeaningful reductions in special education refer-ral rates over a 2-year period. Success was at-tributed to four factors: (a) district administratorsdemonstrated consistent involvement with andsupport for CPS (i.e., regular updates to theboard of education, routine planning meetingswith the Director of Special Education, and bud-getary allocations to support implementation); (b)building principals demonstrated consistent in-volvement with and support for CPS teams (i.e.,reallocation of staff time and resources andscheduling space and time for meeting); (c) par-

ticipants were provided with effective and highly-relevant CPS training opportunities; and (d) theCPS model was revised formatively in response toparticipants' concerns.

Rubinson (2002) examined 12 high schoolCPS teams from their establishment through IViyears of implementation and found considerablevariability with regard to the evolution of func-tions and outcomes. Six teams engaged in directinterventions that increased services to referredstudents (e.g., counseling, remedial teaching, andmentoring); two teams focused their efforts oncreating systematic interventions (e.g., attendingSaturday school programs and implementingblock schedules); and four teams evidenced littleprogress or success. Factors that inhibited efficacyinclude (a) resistance to use instructional strate-gies that are individualized or varied because theyconflict with teachers' desires to maintain uni-form, high standards associated with credit-driveninstruction; (b) overrepresentation of support staffmembers on teams due to difficulty enlisting par-ticipation among teachers; (c) team members' be-liefs that teacher assistance is integrally involvedwith administrative supervision; (d) attributingstudents' difficulties to within-child factors suchas family concerns, lack of motivation and skilldeficiencies, and ignoring the role of classroomand instructional variables; (e) mistrustful rela-tionships among staff members; (f) limitedknowledge about classroom instruction amongsupport staff members; and (g) stability in theschool environment and team membership.

Finally, although D. Fuchs et al. (1996) didnot intend to investigate factors associated withsustaining CPS, their project with the NashvillePublic School District highlighted the significantimpact of district policies and actions. Over amultiyear period, university-based staff providedextensive CPS training for over 150 educators in34 elementary schools, supported implementationof CPS teams, and documented the consistentlypositive impact CPS teams had on referred stu-dents. However, almost immediately after theuniversity partnership ended, all CPS teamsceased operation. Fuchs et al. concluded that this"disappearing act" (p. 264) resulted from numer-ous systemic factors including high pupil-teacherratios; special education funding formulas thatdiscouraged inclusion; lack of support from dis-

Exceptional Children 187

trict administrators and school principals; and theunavailability of special educators, school psychol-ogists, and guidance counselors for consultation.

P U R P O S E O F T H E S T U D Y

Although many studies explore GPS implementa-tion, and to a lesser degree sustainability, signifi-cant concerns are raised about the overall qualityof research in these areas and critical gaps in theextant literature are identified (for detailed reviewssee Athanasious et al., 2002; Bahr et al., 2006;Burns & Symington, 2002; D. Fuchs et al., 2003;Knotek, 2003; Kovaleski & Glew, 2006; Telzrowet al, 2000; Welch et al., 1999). Previous GPS re-search relied heavily on surveys and post hoc anal-ysis of district supplied data. These methods havethe inherent limitation of not revealing actualschool practices and not allowing for the investiga-tion of factors such as interactions among teammembers. Thus, much remains to be learnedabout the true impact of, and relationshipsamong, system and process variables that enhanceGPS implementation and outcomes over time.

Previous GPS research is also predominatedwith data reflecting the perceptions and experi-ences of general education teachers and district-level administrators. Thus, much remains to belearned about how school administrators and in-dividuals representing various educational special-ties perceive, impact, and participate in GPS. Thisis particularly salient given that principals andother key individuals have been shown to signifi-cantly infiuence the sustainability of reform ini-tiatives (e.g., L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Purcell,Horn, &c Palmer, 2007; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006).

This qualitative case study was conceived andexecuted in response to those concerns. It in-volved an extensive field engagement over a 2-year period; observations of GPS meetings; andinterviews with general education teachers, specialeducation teachers, the principal, and otherschool professionals. This allowed for the develop-ment of a model describing effective GPS imple-mentation; an understanding of what factorsinfluenced implementation and sustainability;and insight about the unique meaning participa-

tion had for teachers, the principal, and otherschool professionals.

Three research questions serve to guide andfocus this study:

1. What does successfiil GPS implementationlook like within a school?

2. What factors contribute to successful GPSimplementation and sustainability?

3. What are the nature, meaning, and impact ofGPS participation for teachers, the principal,and other school professionals involved withimplementation?

The findings fi-om this investigation supportearlier research and offer new understandings rele-vant for practice and policy.

METHOD

A qualitative research design was selected for thisstudy because it is systematic, yet is a flexible wayto explore "naturally occurring, ordinary events innatural settings, so that we have a strong handleon what 'real life' is like" (Miles & Huberman,1994, p. 10). Within that paradigm, case studiesare particularly well suited to investigate the com-plexity associated with implementing and sustain-ing educational practices (including GPS) becausemultiple factors can be examined (Lincoln &Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman). This method-ology also allows for responsive design modifica-tions "if we come across interesting circumstancesor if theories that arise in the initial round of theinvestigation merit taking a sidetrack from theoriginal plan" (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger,Pugach, & Richardson, 2005, p. 198). One over-arching goal of this study was to provide a com-prehensive description of the "particularity andordinariness" related to GPS implementation at asite of interest (Stake, 2005, p. 445). A secondgoal was to use the school's experiences to eluci-date recommendations to inform future policyand practice.

SETTING

Pleasant Valley Elementary School (PVES).PVES was selected for this case study using theo-retical sampling (Eisenhardt, 2002); pseudonyms

I 88 Winter 2009

are used for all people, places, and programs refer-enced in this article. District and school personnelanticipated PVES to be an exemplary implemen-tation site based on four factors: (a) the principal'sinitial willingness to implement the district's newCPS model, (b) the enthusiasm and commitmentexpressed by key school professionals to partici-pate in CPS, (c) the effective use of inclusivepractices at the school, and (d) the perceived skillsamong general and special education teachers atthe school.

PVES is part of a large school district locatedjust outside a major metropolitan city. It is awarm and welcoming school that, by nature of itsgeographic location, serves a more rural commu-nity than other schools within the district. Whenthis study began, PVES had approximately 470students enrolled in grades kindergarten throughfifth grade where the demographics of studentsare 85% Caucasian, 7% Hispanic, 6% AfricanAmerican, and 2% Asian. Seventeen percent ofthe students are eligible for free or reduced meals,and 11% of students receive special education ser-vices. According to the principal, the majority ofstudents are from blue collar or working classfamilies with many children being raised on farmswhere their parents are laborers.

PVES has one principal, 20 general educa-tion teachers, three special education teachers,and several other nonteaching professionals onstaff The average class size is 26 students in eachfirst and second grade and 25 students in eachthird, fourth, and fifth grade. Special educationservices are delivered using what the district calls ahome—school inclusion model; the majority ofacademic and behavioral support for studentswith individualized education programs (IEPs) isprovided by special education teachers in generaleducation classrooms using a variety of co-teach-ing strategies.

Problem Solving Together (PST). PVES is oneof six schools in the district to voluntarily pilot aCPS model called PST. PST was developed as anintegral component of a partnership agreementwith the Department of Education's Office ofCivil Rights to ensure that "disproportionalitydoes not result from disparate treatment of the af-fected students by the district's special educationidentification, evaluation, and placement proce-dures or practices" (District, 2002, p. 8). PST, de-

signed by district personnel, is based on a synthe-sis of ideas and elements in existing CPS models(e.g., Batsche & Knoff, 1995; McDougal et al.,2000; Rosenfield & Cravois, 1996). It is one ofseveral initiatives aimed at facilitating the district'sability to effectively utilize response-to-interven-tion approaches.

PST, founded on seven assumptions, is de-signed to improve the multidisciplinary referralprocess used by the district for the previous 20years (District, 2002).

1. All students can learn, and when they are notlearning, it is the responsibility of educatorsto analyze what might inhibit students' aca-demic achievement and therefore target in-tervention(s) appropriately.

2. The process of learning is viewed as a uniqueinteraction between the student and the in-structional environment. Consequently,problem solving should analyze and addressfactors such as classroom features; instruc-tional methods; curricular demands; individ-ual student and teacher characteristics; home,school, and community issues; social skills;and peer-to-peer and peer-to-adult interac-tions.

3. Because many variables infiuence learning,assessment needs to be comprehensive andtarget multiple factors involving the student,teacher, classroom, home, and community.

4. Participation in PST should lead to imple-mentation of situation-specific interventionsthat improve student achievement.

5. Services provided with PST are need-basedrather than eligibility-driven and should bedelivered primarily in the general educationsetting.

6. Assessments should be functionally linked tointervention rather than global in nature.

7. Participation in PST should enhance teach-ers' abilities to understand why a student isexperiencing difficulty and to identify, imple-ment, and evaluate appropriate interven-tions.

PST used grade-based teams of general edu-cation teachers that met at least two times eachmonth to discuss new referrals and monitor the

Exceptional Children 1 8 9

progress of ongoing cases (District, 2002). Eachgrade-level PST team had a designated coach re-sponsible for facilitating the problem-solvingsteps, ensuring that proper paperwork was com-pleted, and evaluating the process. Each schoolalso had a building-level PST team comprised ofmultidisciplinary personnel including the coun-selor, nurse, school psychologist, curriculum spe-cialists, and administrators. When grade-levelPST teams were unable to successfully address theconcerns raised about a student, they referred thecase to the building-level PST team for additionalproblem solving and potentially for special educa-tion eligibility consideration. However, the latterwas only permissible "in severe cases when an ed-ucational disability is suspected and the problemsare consistently resistant to targeted and compre-hensive general education interventions that areimplemented as designed" (p. 24).

The problem-solving model embedded inPST involved four steps: (a) problem identifica-tion, (b) problem analysis, (c) intervention plan-ning and implementation, and (d) interventionplan monitoring and evaluation (District, 2002).During problem identification, the team clarifiedthe referral concerns by collecting informationfrom permanent records, teachers, parents, or in-dependent observers. The goal was to generatecurrent and desired behaviors or academic perfor-mance levels. During problem analysis, the teaminvestigated whether the discrepancy between de-sired and actual performance was the result of askill deficit or a performance deficit. This wasdone by examining the duration, intensity, andfrequency of the problem as well as factors relatedto curriculum, instructional strategies, class envi-ronment, and home situations. Data were gath-ered using a variety of techniques includingcurriculum-based assessment, behavioral ratingscales, classroom observations, record reviews, andinterviews. During intervention planning and im-plementation, the team identified strategies to ad-dress the referral concerns. Strategies wereempirically proven, conducive to the regular class-room routine, feasible to implement, and easy tomonitor. During this stage, the team also docu-mented who was responsible for each aspect ofthe plan, the criteria for success, and the evalua-tion methods. During the final step, interventionplan monitoring and evaluation, the team docu-

mented student progress in the targeted area(s)and planned for maintenance and generalization.If a student did not respond positively to the rec-ommended interventions, the team revisited theproblem analysis stage.

PARTICIPANTS

This study documented schoolwide PST imple-mentation and sustainability at PVES via exten-sive field engagement (described in the nextsection). However, intimate analysis was achievedby (a) focusing on a core group of eight schoolprofessionals integrally involved with PST teamsat all grade levels and (b) purposefully selectingthe second grade Year 2 PST team as an embed-ded case (Stake, 2005; see Table 1). This team waschosen because the principal at PVES predicted itto be the most successful based on the teachers'knowledge, skills, experience, and philosophicalendorsement of the model. The second grade PSTteam consisted of three Caucasian, female generaleducation teachers, each with approximately 20years of teaching experience. A brief descriptionof each teacher follows; the information reflects acombination of the researcher's observations anddescriptions offered by staff members at PVES.

Rachel Cook is the second grade team leaderfor Year 2. She has an assertive personality andnever hesitates to express her opinion. She is re-garded highly by her colleagues at PVES becauseof her ability to maintain rigorous academic stan-dards as well as to adapt instruction to meet theneeds of individual students. Sylvia Pollack is awell-respected, mild-mannered vvoman whodemonstrates consistent dedication to her workand genuine care towards all her students. Shedisplays more confidence in the classroom thanshe does when interacting with her colleagues atPVES. For example, she frequently hesitated be-fore answering a question and often predicatedher thoughts with caveats such as, "I'm not quitesure, but I think . . ." or "I'm certainly not an ex-pert, so you might want to also check with some-one else." Martha White is one of the mostbeloved staff members at PVES. She is frequentlydescribed as a nurturing and patient teacher whoemphasizes developmentally appropriate tasks andemotional growth. Many students are specifically

Winter 2009

TABLE 1

Study Participants

Pseudonym Position

Meredith Adams

Eric Baldwin

Rachel Cook

Sally Cowell

Dominique D'Amico

Jasmine Dillon

Robyn Kelly

Linda Marker

Steve Palmer

Sylvia Pollock

Barbara Richardson

Martha White

Counselor

Special education teacher

Second grade team leader/

PST team member

School psychologist

Speech and language specialist

StafF development specialist

Principal

Special education teacher

District PST supervisor

Second grade teacher/PST

team member

English as a second languageteacher

Second grade teacher/PSTteam member

Note. PST = Problem Solving Together,

assigned to her classroom when they need extrakindness and positive feedback.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected using a participant-observerfield-based approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).Observations, interviews, mute evidence, andfield notes form the basis for this research.

Observations. Ongoing, informal observa-tions were conducted throughout this study viaan extensive field engagement at PVES (i.e., theauthor spent 5 hr per week at the school over a 2-year period); the interviews facilitated the re-searcher's authentic and intimate understandingof procedures, perceptions, and outcomes associ-ated with PST. Informal observations occurred inclassrooms and other settings (e.g., lunch and re-cess); during PST meetings held by teams otherthan second grade; and during all other PST re-lated meetings held at the school (e.g., amonggrade-level coaches, with district personnel, andat schoolwide faculty meetings). Informal discus-sions and interactions about PST were also fre-quently observed and documented.

Formal observations were used to documentparticipants' behaviors and interactions duringCPS meetings. Specifically, each Year 2 second

grade PST meeting was observed and audiotaped.Each tape was transcribed verbatim and thenchecked for accuracy by a retired educator whowas blind to the purpose of the study (Bogdan &Biklen, 1998; Silverman, 2003). Following eachmeeting, participants completed a written re-sponse probe designed to elicit thoughts and feel-ings that might not have been spontaneouslyshared during the team's discussions (Miles &Huberman, 1994). This probe included threequestions:

1. What are your thoughts about how well thisPST meeting went?

2. Did you feel this meeting was an effective useof your time?

3. How do you feel about the outcomes/strat-egies/follow-up recommended as a result ofthis meeting?

As described in the findings section, the sec-ond grade PST team was expected to meet ap-proximately 15 times during Year 2 based onimplementation during Year 1 of the study. How-ever, they ultimately met only 3 times.

Interviews. Interview data were collected todocument participants' experiences with PST aridto elicit their perceptions of the process. Two in-dividual interviews were conducted with each ofthe three second grade teachers as well as witheach of the eight other school professionals whowere integrally involved with PST teams at allgrade levels. The first interviews occurred at thebeginning of Year 2 and focused on participants'perceptions of Year 1 as well as their expectationsfor Year 2. The second interviews occurred at theend of Year 2 and focused on summative reflec-tions based on 2 years of implementation experi-ence. To broaden the scope and range of theinformation obtained, an interview was also con-ducted with the district's PST supervisor, StevePalmer, during the fall of Year 2 (Lincoln &Guba, 1985).

Interview conversations were structuredusing flexible protocols that consisted of broad,open-ended questions focusing on participants'perceptions of (a) PST participation, (b) out-comes associated with PST, (c) benefits and chal-lenges of PST implementation and sustainability,and (d) suggestions to improve PST (Denizen &


Lincoln, 2005; Fontana & Frey, 2005; Interviewprotocols are available from the author upon re-quest.) Each interview lasted approximately 1 hrand was audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, andchecked for accuracy by the same retired educatorwho reviewed the observation transcripts (Bogdan&C Biklen, 1998; Silverman, 2003).

Mute Evidence. Mute evidence was collectedto document PST implementation procedures,participants' perceptions of PST, and outcomesassociated with PST through sources not directlyinfluenced by the researcher (Hodder, 2003). Spe-cific data sources include written text materialssuch as student referral forms, student interven-tion plans, PST meeting summary logs, e-mailcorrespondence, and mailings sent to parents.Document summary forms recorded the contextand significance of each item (Miles & Huber-man, 1994). In addition, school records of secondgrade students were reviewed for pertinent data(e.g., demographics, report card grades and com-ments, yearly reading achievement levels, stan-dardized test scores, and narrative informationrelated to prior and current educational interven-tion services). A comprehensive educational his-tory including these data and PST-relatedinformation was compiled for each of the 17 sec-ond graders referred to the PST team duringYear 2.

Field Notes. Several strategies were used dur-ing this study to compile comprehensive fieldnotes. Contact summary sheets (Miles & Huber-man, 1994); jottings; and head notes (Emerson,Fretz, & Shaw, 1995) documented interviews andobservations. Asides, commentaries, and memosfacilitated reflection, posed responsive questionsfor inquiry, and promoted ongoing interpretationof the growing data set (Emerson et al.; Miles &Huberman). By the end of the study, approxi-mately 150 typed pages of field notes were com-piled.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Modified analytic induction (Bogdan &C Biklen,1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and contentanalysis (Patton, 2002) were used to analyze andinterpret the data. Together, these approaches al-lowed for an ongoing, flexible, and recursive pro-cess that involved searching for patterns,

integrating and synthesizing emerging themes,seeking additional data to support or challengethe findings, and eventually distilling meaning. Asdata were collected during the fall of Year 1, opencoding identified 19 preliminary codes and cate-gories (Miles & Huberman; Patton). As addi-tional data were gathered through May of Year 2,inductive analysis continued and the initial codesand categories were iteratively refined to reflectemerging patterns of convergence and divergence.Those with minimal data were collapsed or elimi-nated and new ones were created when justified.For example. Benefits was an initial code used todesignate positive outcomes noted for teachersand students. However, data ultimately supportedthe creation of eight subcodes under the Benefitscategory: (a) actual benefits to students Year 1, (b)perceived benefits to students Year 1, (c) actualbenefits to teachers Year 1, (d) perceived benefitsto teachers Year 1, (e) actual benefits to studentsYear 2, (f) perceived benefits to students Year 2,(g) actual benefits to teachers Year 2, and (h) per-ceived benefits to teachers Year 2. Every time acode was developed, it was operationalized with aclear definition that delineated what data shouldand should not be included (Miles & Huber-man). As codes were revised, all previously codeddata were reviewed and recoded accordingly, andall coded data were reviewed and checked for ac-curacy by the retired educator who verified thetranscripts. (A list of initial and final data codes isavailable from the author upon request.)

Computers and coding software (i.e., QSRNVivo) facilitated data analysis and interpreta-tion. This technology, however, was used in con-junction with manual techniques to ensure thatthe richness and context of the data (e.g., conno-tations suggested through voice intonation orbold writing) was not minimized or trivialized(Hesse-Biber, 2004). Throughout this process,four data display formats were used (Miles & Hu-berman, 1994):

1. A time-ordered matrix helped summarize im-portant events that occurred at PVES duringYear 1 and Year 2.

2. A role-ordered matrix that featured the threemembers of the second grade team and theeight other school professionals featured inthis study to help identify salient features of

1 9 2 Winter 2009

each participant noted by the researcher andoffered by other staff members at PVES.

3. A thematic conceptual matrix to help distillthe meaning and importance ofthe data.

4. A causal network to help highlight relation-ships among the factors that influenced PSTimplementation and sustainability.

Collectively, these formats helped structurethe discussion of the findings from this study.

TRUSTWORTHINESS AND AUTHENTICITY

Several techniques enhanced the trustworthinessand authenticity of this study. First, data were tri-angulated by type, source, and method (Lincoln& Guba, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994).Specifically, data were gathered over a 2-year pe-riod in a multitude of Formal and informal set-tings and From participants with diverse roles atPVES. Data reflect PVES staFf members' percep-tions oF PST as well as actual behavior duringPST meetings. Deliberate steps were taken toavoid an overrepresentation oF articulate, high-status, accessible, or conForming participants(e.g., through the use oF written response probesand ongoing, extensive field engagement). Sec-ond, the use oF guiding research questions andpurposeFul sampling ensured data collection, in-terpretation, and analysis were Focused, appropri-ate, and relevant (Denzin, 2004; Lincoln &Guba). Third, the use oF field notes in conjunc-tion with audiotapes yielded a contextually-situ-ated data set consisting oF thick, rich descriptionsand direct quotations inFused throughout the pre-sentation oF this study's Findings (Denzin;Fontana & Frey, 2005; Silverman, 2003). Fourth,participants were given multiple opportunities tooFFer Feedback on whether interpretations werereasonable and valid (Brantlinger et al., 2005). In-Formal member checks occurred regularlythroughout the study within the natural contextoFdiscussing PST at PVES. A final member checkwas conducted with the study's primary partici-pants at the end oF Year 2 and suggested generalagreement with the conclusions that were drawn.Finally, a guiding principle oF this study was thepersistent search For negative evidence, outliers,and unexpected findings (Miles & Huberman, p.271). As data began to suggest a theme or point

towards a conclusion, data contradicting thatfinding were actively sought. For example, thestaFFat PVES directly attributed the divergent im-plementation experiences in Year 1 and Year 2 tothe reduction in district-level support. To pursuethis theme Further, an interview was scheduledwith the district PST supervisor and implementa-tion experiences at other schools were explored.

F I N D I N G S

In this section, a summary oF the findings relatedto PST implementation at PVES is oFFered. First,an overview oF implementation during Year 1 ispresented. Then, two critical events which oc-curred during the summer between Year 1 andYear 2 are discussed. Finally, an overview oF im-plementation during Year 2 is oFFered.

PST AT PVES: YEAR 1

PST Team Membership. During Year 1, therewere Five PST teams at PVES; a combinedkindergarten/first grade team, second grade team,third grade team. Fourth grade team, and fiFthgrade team. Each team consisted oFall the generaleducation teachers at that level (i.e.. Four to sixteachers per grade) and a coach who was assignedby Mrs. Kelly. The building's three special educa-tion teachers, the counselor, and the speech andlanguage specialist served as coaches. In addition,Mrs. Kelly, Mrs. Dillon, and Dr. Cowell attendednearly every meeting, and teams Frequently in-vited others who could oFFer useFul inFormationabout a reFerred student (e.g., a special educationteacher, the nurse, or the reading specialist). Con-sequently, PST meetings held during Year 1 typi-cally consisted oFat least eight participants.

PST Meeting Schedules and Structure. Eachgrade-level PST team met regularly For 2 hr, twicea month, at a predetermined time during the in-structional school day. Thus, grade-level PSTteams met between 15 and 20 times during Year 1.Maintaining this schedule was possible becauseMrs. Kelly used discretionary Funding From thedistrict to pay For substitutes who covered teachers'classes while they attended PST meetings.

Teachers initiated problem solving For a stu-dent by completing the district's reFerral Form andsubmitting it to their team coach. The coaches


used the referral forms, along with their personalknowledge of ongoing cases, to develop and dis-tribute a list of students to be discussed at eachmeeting. Coaches also typically assumed responsi-bility for bringing students' cumulative and confi-dential folders to the meetings.

PST meetings began with participants decid-ing who would assume each of the four meetingroles; (a) facilitator, (b) note taker, (c) timekeeper, and (d) process observer. Next, the teamdesignated how much time was allocated for dis-cussion of each student on the agenda; new refer-rals were typically assigned 30 min and follow-upcases were given 15 min. Throughout the meet-ing, the facilitator guided the team's discussionabout each student and the note taker completedthe appropriate documentation. To conclude themeeting, the process observer offered his or herreflection about the meeting and solicited sugges-tions for future improvement.

The Problem-Solving Process. During Year 1,discussions about referred students were struc-tured around the four problem-solving steps. Stepone, problem identification, involved the refer-ring teacher reviewing the information recordedon the referral form. The facilitator then movedthe team into step two, problem analysis, andused a reference sheet of essential questions toguide the discussion about what factors mightcontribute, or cause, the student's difficulty. Basedon those insights, the team then engaged in stepthree, intervention planning, and developed anintervention plan that identified student goals,strategies to be implemented, responsible staffmembers, and progress review dates. At subse-quent meetings, the team focused on step four,plan monitoring and evaluation, until the con-cerns were adequately addressed or the case wasreferred to the building-level PST team.

Mrs. Dillon explained how PST differed sig-nificantly from the model that had previouslybeen used in the district:

Having experienced the [previous model] forquite some time, I saw [PST] as such agrowth process. It was so much better formany reasons. For one, one of the biggestreasons was it no longer told the teacber,"Oh, we understand you have a problemcbild in your classroom, tbis is wbat weVegoing to do to fix it." Now it's, "Oh, tell us

wbat you're tbinking and we can tell youbave tbougbt about tbis, tbis is wbat weVetbinking, and togetber as a team we're goingto work on strategies to support tbis cbild. 'It's no longer tbe teacber saying, "OK. I'vebit tbis brick wall now it's your problem, fixit. Take it out of my room, fix it in my room,wbatever you do, fix it." Now it's mucb moreof a process tbe way it sbould be. . . . It's re-ally a team of professional educators puttingtbeir tbougbts togetber and looking at tbecbild as a wbole, togetber.

Similarly, Mrs. Cook reflected:

[PST] meetings were a time to just sit downand bring up kids you bad concerns witb.And so for tbat reason, it was a really goodprocess because you were able to say, "Okay,I bave tbis cbild wbo's reading on tbis level,you know, sbe basn't made any movement orminimal amount of progress. I bave con-cerns. Tbese are tbe tbings I've tried; tbeseare tbe strategies I've tried." And so wewould all get togetber and brainstorm, youknow, just good practices. Tbings tbat wouldwork. "Try tbis. Try implementing tbis. Andcall bome and make a bome connection andmaybe see if tbey're supportive at bome. Tbisis wbat tbey can do at bome to reinforcewbat we're doing in scbool." So it was a goodway to get togetber and just brainstorm solu-tions to some problems.

PST Documentation. During Year 1, the PSTteams consistently used the documentation formsdeveloped by the district. These included a com-prehensive referral form and additional forms thatcorresponded with each step of the problem-solv-ing process. They also consistently used a fotmMrs. Kelly developed to summarize the case dis-cussions that took place during each PST meet-ing. The documentation that was maintainedduring Year 1 was thorough and accurate. Thefollowing example is a typical summary statementreflecting the discussion of a first grade student:

Concerns: Can print 16 of 23 PST letters,16/23 lower case letters. Level 1 teading,10/16 Concepts of Print, cannot initiate asentence, difficulty witb following directions,sequencing numbers, and spatial relations.Strengtbs: Draws pictures, can dictate a sen-tence, cooperative, listens attentively to sto-ries, some support at bome, works on

1 9 4 Winter 2009

alphabet at home. Action Items: Gatherbaseline data about current letters and num-bers she knows—goal obtain 3 new lettersand 2 new numbers hy next mtg, contactmom-—discuss homework and how to focuson learning letters, modify homework to en-courage her to practice target numbers andletters. [For each action item, the person re-sponsible was also indicated].

All of the general education teachers indi-cated that the PST documentation used duringYear 1 was beneficial. Specifically, it guided themthrough recording and summarizing initial refer-ral concerns, clarified the specifics of an interven-tion plan (e.g., who would implement certainstrategies, when to review the plan, and how toevaluate a student's progress), and helped avoidthe need to reinvent the wheel every year. Therewere at least four teachers who, along with articu-lating the benefits of documentation, expressedconcerns about the required documentation beingslightly time consuming and labor intensive.However, this perspective was not pervasive and itdid not prevent those with concerns from com-pleting the required forms.

All ofthe general education teachers

indicated that the PST documentationused during Year 1 was beneficial.

The special education teachers, Mrs. Kelly,and Dr. Cowell also saw a direct correlation be-tween use of PST forms and implementation fi-delity with the problem-solving steps; the formshelped guide the discussion and prompted con-sideration of salient questions. In addition, thedocumentation of student progress was viewed asbeneficial if a student was eventually screened forspecial education eligibility because it providedthe building-level PST team with informationabout response to intervention and insights re-lated to additional appropriate assessments.

Data. During Year 1, teachers used multiplesources of data in strategic ways throughout theproblem-solving process. This began when theyinitiated a referral because completing the dis-trict's form required them to compile and recordinformation reflecting the student's current per-

formance levels as well as the educational, medi-cal, behavioral, and familial history. When teach-ers presented a new case to the PST team, theyconsistently brought work samples to highlight astudent's abilities as well as the perceived areas ofneed. After writing an intervention plan, teachersassumed primary responsibility for collecting andgraphing data to document student progress. Mrs.White explained:

You became more structured in the types ofthings you were looking for. With [PST],you knew you were going back to the meet-ing, so you just made sure you were on topof it all the time. Not that you weren't whenyou were trying your own little methods, itwas just that you knew you had to collectthis data and you were responsible for that.

Many teachers indicated this increased levelof involvement with data collection was ben-eficial because they learned new assessmenttechniques that, in turn, helped them planinstruction.

Referrals and Interventions. During Year 1, ap-proximately 100 student referrals were made toPST teams at PVES. The majority of referralswere made for academic concerns (typically withreading and/or math), but students were also re-ferred because of behavioral difficulties in theclassroom. Although referrals represented allgrade levels, the kindergarten/Brst grade team hadthe most referrals. The special education teachers,the principal, and the school psychologist at-tributed this to the fact that teachers in the earlygrades are especially cognizant of the need to in-tervene as soon as a student evidenced difficultywith the acquisition of skills related to phonologi-cal awareness, reading fluency, or reading compre-hension.

In nearly every case, the PST discussion re-sulted in an intervention being implemented by ageneral education teacher. Some of the most com-mon academic interventions were strategies de-signed to improve automaticity with high-frequency words, phonological awareness, readingcomprehension, reading fluency, and under-standing mathematical concepts. Teachers alsodeveloped behavioral contracts; initiated commu-nication logs with parents; used behavior manage-ment techniques (e.g., the think chair); and


implemented a variety of accommodations andmodifications (e.g., repeating and rephrasing di-rections, adjusting the number of repetitions usedto reinforce a concept, and using peer tutors). Re-flecting on the increased use of interventions, Mrs.Pollock explained:

We would give recommendations to go overdirections a second time with the child, or athird, or a fourth. Or, making sure we wereworking one to one with a certain area thechild may be having difficulty in terms ofbreaking a job down so it is not so over-whelming. Or, you know, just getting ideasfor different games for the child to reinforcesomething. . . . With a child who was havingtrouble learning the word wall words, youknow, someone brought up the idea of thesandwich technique. And I hadn't heard thatbefore and that really helped. And you canuse it for other children, not just that onechild.

Mrs. White added:

We came back to our classrooms to try theinformation we collected from that meetingfrom all the teachers and used it by keepingdata whether it be tally marks or writingnotes. And I thought it was effective talkingwith other teachers who may have handledother situations very similar to this. Andeven just refreshing our memory becausesometimes when you're in the middle of asituation, you don't remember everythingand you get refreshed, and you come in andyou have a new look.

Many of the PST-recommended interven-tions implemented by classroom teachers success-fully addressed referral concerns. However, therewere also cases where the intensity and/or severityof a student's need suggested that interventions bythe general education teacher alone were not ade-quate or feasible. For those students, additionalsupport and service from others in the building(termed early intervention support) was deemednecessary and was consistently provided. Early in-tervention support was typically recommended inconjunction with other classroom-based strategiesand was most commonly provided via a smallgroup format. During Year 1, small groups ad-dressed difficulties in math, reading, and writtenlanguage for students at all grade levels. However,

this was used most commonly for implementing astructured phonological awareness program (Wil-son Reading) with emergent readers; 16 groupswere created and systematically implemented. Forsome students, early intervention support wasprovided using co-teaching strategies, and earlyintervention support was predominantly providedby the three special education teachers. However,there were also some instances where the two spe-cial education instructional assistants or the read-ing specialist led instruction.

The StafF at PVES unanimously and enthusi-astically believed that early intervention supportwas beneficial for referred students. For example,Mrs. D'Amico explained:

It was significant support, daily support, es-pecially in the early grades, which was amaz-ing. I mean it was really great for those kids.Kids would not have been whete they werewhen they moved into the next grade. Theywould have been much further behind.

Dr. Cowell concurred with this assessmentand indicated that early intervention supporttranslated into students making "identifiable andconcrete progress" in ways she never experiencedduring her previous 25 years with the district.

Student Outcomes. During Year 1, PST-rec-ommended interventions were credited with pro-ducing laudable achievement gains among nearlyall referred students. This, in turn, led to a signifi-cant decrease in the number of students referredfor special education services. Only two studentswere referred for special education eligibility con-sideration during Year 1, and both were deter-mined to be eligible to receive services. Prior toPST implementation, staff members estimatedthat approximately 25 to 30 students were re-ferred each year, with 10 to 15 of them ultimatelybeing found eligible to receive special educationservices. Many at the school characterized this re-duction as "slashing the rates" and district person-nel frequently cited the "fabulous outcome data"at PVES.

CRITICAL EVENTS BETWEEN YEAR 1

AND YEAR 2

During the summer between Year 1 and Year 2,two district-level decisions significantly and nega-tively impacted PST at PVES. These actions and

1 9 6 Winter 2009

their effects are explained in the discussion sec-tion; they are outlined here to provide back-ground information for the Year 2 findings.

Reduction in Staffing. The first district-leveldecision that significantly impacted PST imple-mentation at PVES was the reduction in theschool's special education staffing allocation.Specifically, one full-time special education teach-ing position and one half-time instructionalassistant position were eliminated to be commen-surate with the number of students classified aseligible to officially receive special education ser-vices during Year 2. During Year 1, PVES hadthree special education teachers and two and ahalf special instructional assistants. For Year 2,this number was reduced to two special educationteachers and two instructional assistants.

Dr. Palmer explained that when schoolsagreed to pilot PST during Year 1, they weregiven specific assurance their special educationstaffing would not be jeopardized if PST resultedin fewer classified students:

We had a commitment from the school sys-tem, right from the top. The associate super-intendent, the then associate superintendent,said that for any school doing [PST], if theoutcome was fewer inappropriate referrals tospecial education, and then follow that to thenext level, if you had less kids on your ros-ters, then you would not be punished by los-ing staff. Because, if you were, it was adisincentive to participate in [PST]. Well,that's not what happened. And what actuallyhappened had nothing to do with [PST]. Ithad to do with who came next, and the waythings got restructured. If you didn't have thenumbers, you didn't get to keep your posi-tions. And that was totally opposite of thepromise.

Despite Dr. Palmer's assertion that the reduc-tion "had nothing to do with [PST]," Mrs. Kellyfervently believed PST implementation causedthe reduction in staffing. Within that context, sheand others in the building were so concernedabout the detrimental impact of this change thatthey sent a lengthy letter requesting reconsidera-tion by the district administrators (in manyplaces, quoting district literature that was used topublicize PST).

Elimination of Eunding. The second district-level decision that significantly and negatively im-pacted PST implementation at PVES involvedthe elimination of the discretionary funding pro-vided to help every school in the district achievethe goals outlined in their school improvementplan. This reduction was uniquely significant forPVES because the school's improvement planduring Year 1 targeted PST implementation, thusMrs. Kelly used that money (approximately$7,000) to pay for substitute teachers so PSTmeetings could occur during the instructionalday. Dr. Palmer explained that this funding wascritical because it enabled teachers to "have thetime to process on a regular basis, in a structuredmanner."

PST AT PVES: YEAR 2

PST Team Membership. During Year 2, therewere still five grade-level PST teams in existenceat PVES. However, the teams no longer includedcoaches because Mrs. Kelly anticipated the specialeducation teachers and other school professionalswho served in this role during Year 1 would nothave time to continue in that capacity during Year2, given the reduction in staffing. In addition,there were only four instances throughout Year 2where other school professionals joined the gen-eral education teachers during meetings: One spe-cial educator attended a meeting of the combinedkindergarten/first grade team, the other specialeducator attended a third grade meeting. Dr.Cowell attended a fourth grade meeting, andMrs. Kelly and the two special education teachersattended a second grade meeting.

PST Meeting Schedule and Structure. DuringYear 2, grade-level PST teams met less frequentlythan during Year 1. At the beginning of theschool year, Mrs. Kelly held a buildingwide staffmeeting and indicated that PST teams were stillexpected to meet twice a month, but meetingswould need to take place during teachers' owntime (e.g., before school, after school, or duringplanning periods) because the district eliminatedfunding used to pay for substitutes. Despite thatdirective, between September and June the firstgrade team met only twice; the kindergarten, sec-ond, fourth, and fifth grade teams each met only


three times; and the third grade team met onlyfour times.

During Year 2, the structure of PST meetingsdiffered significantly from Year 1 on three key ele-ments. First, rather than consistently using prede-termined meeting agendas, teachers typicallyidentified students they wanted to discuss eitherat the beginning of the meeting (on two teams) orat some point throughout the discussion (on threeteams). The lack of structure sometimes had adeleterious effect because not all referral concernswere considered. For example, during the firstPST meeting held by the second grade team, thethree teachers posed concerns about 15 studentsat some point during the 95 min period. How-ever, discussion only occurred for 9 of these stu-dents. In this instance, there was also acumulative impact because the summary log fromthe team's first meeting was used to structure thediscussion during the second meeting. Conse-quently, the 6 students who were mentioned butnot discussed or recorded were not considered atthe next meeting.

Second, whereas files were frequently re-viewed and referenced during Year 1, they wererarely even brought to the meetings during Year2. In some instances, this was an inadvertentoversight because responsibility for that task wasnot designated. On other occasions, an overt deci-sion was made to not review the history, butrather just talk about the services. Third, insteadof designating roles during each meeting, thegrade-level team leader emerged as the personwho structured and controlled the discussion. Inthis capacity, the team leader asked the majorityof questions, was the first to offer an opinionabout what actions should be taken, and had thefinal say about procedures and decisions. Thegrade-level team leader also frequently assumedresponsibility for completing the meeting sum-mary log form. Mrs. Cook somewhat jokingly re-flected on this unexpected level of power andresponsibility by saying, "I feel like the dictator atthe table," during the second grade team's initialYear 2 PST meeting.

The Problem-Solving Process. Discussions thattook place in PST meetings during Year 2 evi-denced minimal adherence to the problem-solv-ing steps. Instead of systematically reviewing theinformation recorded on the referral form and

then engaging in problem analysis similar to Year1, teachers typically introduced a new case with abrief narrative description followed by their opin-ion of what they felt should happen for the stu-dent. For example, Mrs. Pollock presented aninitial referral this way:

She's about a 12 [referring to her readinglevel] and some days are better than others.Sometimes she can't even read a little simpleword like 'my', but other times she doesgreat. Her work habits are pretty good; she'squiet. I think she also needs to be part ofthat small group. With the one-on-one, ormore one-on-one, she'd definitely do well.

Even when a teacher did not immediatelyoffer an intervention suggestion, problem solvingwas frequently truncated before the referral con-cerns were adequately considered and before in-terventions were identified. For example, Mrs.White reported that a student knew her mathfacts, but had mastered only 26 of the 54 ex-pected objectives "because of other things" thatget in the way of her learning (i.e., difficulties athome). Mrs. Cook responded, "Yeah, those otherthings. But we're going to just leave it alone."Mrs. White clarified, "So we're just going to mon-itor her?" and was told, "Uh huh. Continue tomonitor."

Team discussions also rarely focused aroundpossible intervention strategies the referringteacher could implement. For example, Mrs.White offered this elaborate explanation:

He needs directions repeated, like two orthree times. Like for instance, if you say,"How do you spell read?" I say, "You need totell me what the first two letters are." Andthen I go, "rrrrr-eeee" and he'll go, "r- e."And then I say, "The next letter we can'thear, so I'm going to have to tell you thatone. It's 'a'. So what are the first three let-ters?" and he sounds the word out all overagain "r-e-a." And then I say, "What do youheat?" and we do 'd'. Then he goes back tothe computer to write read, and he comesback and asks me how to spell read. So, youknow, there's a short-term memory thing,and I don't want to diagnose it because I'mnot sure, but I don't know what else to do.

However, rather than discussing these con-cerns further or identifying ways to address the

1 9 8 Winter 2009

difficulties, the team spent 8 min discussing thatthey believed the student should have been re-tained and another 6 min questioning whetherhis parents are fluent in English. Ultimately, noclassroom interventions were recommended. Mrs.White was told to check whether the studentpassed his hearing and vision tests, and he wasrecommended to participate in the skills group(which, however, never materialized).

PST Documentation. In September of Year 2,Mrs. Kelly indicated that her expectations relatingto PST documentation remained the same as theywere for Year 1. However, almost immediately,teachers at all grade levels contentiously insistedthat they did not have time to complete the dis-trict's referral form. In response, Mrs. Kelly sim-plified and condensed that form into a one-pageoutline requiring teachers to identify basic infor-mation (e.g., primary language, number of schoolchanges, previous concerns and interventions, andattendance data). She also replaced the district'sforms that corresponded with each problem-solv-ing step with a one-page meeting summary logthat contained five headings: (a) Student, (b) Dis-cussion Summary, (c) Action Items, (d) Person(s)Responsible, and (e) Follow-Up Date.

However, despite these changes in the re-quirements related to PST documentation duringYear 2, the referral form was not used by the sec-ond grade teachers and was rarely used by teach-ers at other grade levels. The meeting log wasused more frequently, but did not consistently in-clude accurate descriptions of the teams' dialogueand decisions. Some of the primary issues in-cluded recording reading levels inaccurately andnot listing recommendations that the team dis-cussed on the form. In one case, informationabout a second-grade student who was discussedfor 20 min was not recorded at all. The overallprecision, breadth, and depth of what wasrecorded also contrasted significantly with thedocumentation maintained during Year 1. For ex-ample, in contrast to Year 1, typical comments forYear 2 in the Discussion Summary column of theforms completed by each grade-level team in-cluded: "inconsistent, trouble with language,stalling, trouble with reading, thick glasses, re-ceived Wilson last year, very chatty, below gradelevel, going to psychiatrist" and "distracting theclass, minimal progress issue, new student 0 back-

ground." Additionally, listed action items in con-trast to Year 1 included, "Can she get more ser-vices?" "Call home," "Look at hearing/vision,""Speak w/ [Mrs. Kelly] about next steps," "Has hebeen to the doctor?" "None at present," "Con-tinue to monitor progress," "Collect data," "Workwith more," and "Contact mom."

Whereas the general education teachers madenegative and disparaging comments about thePST documentation requirements, the special ed-ucation teachers and other nonteaching profes-sionals expressed disappointment in thedifferences they noticed during Year 1 and Year 2.For example. Dr. Cowell reflected:

The kids who had been brought through[PST] last year are kids that I felt comfort-able moving rapidly on, which goes to speakto the value of [PST].. . . I knew what's beentried. I knew the interventions had beendone with some integrity. I knew that if thekids still weren't making progress now afterall those things had been done and docu-mented, that it was appropriate to move for-ward. The kids that have come tbrougb thisyear's, quote-unquote [PST] process, stufflooks a lot more sketchy. The data and docu-mentation are not there.

Data. During Year 2, teachers rarely collectedor used any additional data as part of PST beyondthat which was required by the district for all stu-dents. Consequently, the data considered byteams were not nearly as precise or ideographic(e.g., general reading level versus a student's mas-tery of high-frequency words) as it; was duringYear I. Data were also collected much less fre-quently (e.g., every other month versus weekly).For example, Mrs. Cook described her concernsabout a student's work habits this way:

He has a little 'tude and he won't do hiswork. The other day he defmitely didn't havehis medication. I said, "Put that book downright now," because it was like already thethird time I asked him, and be sat right tbereand read another sentence. He's oppositional.

Mrs. Pollock summarized a student's progressusing this description:

You know, we see him making some progressacademically and he's usually motivated. But,you know, he's below grade level in reading.


and math he's maybe at grade level. Matb ismore of a strength for him. He likes matb alot. He needs more practice witb subtractionwitb regrouping, but bes doing better . . .but at the low end.

When quantitative data were presented, themost commonly referenced metrics were a stu-dent's reading level or math unit test score. Some-times, these were offered as a precise evaluation ofstudent performance (e.g., "He's a fourteen, justfresh today."). However, more frequently it wasapproximated (e.g., "He's a two, maybe. I mean ithasn't progressed."). When a student's specificreading level was not known, descriptions such as"really low," "just making it," and "not as farbelow as these others we're talking about" were of-fered. Behavioral descriptions were characterizedwith vague terms such as "oodles" and "some-times." Data were also rarely used to identify ap-propriate interventions for individual students.For example, even when the information pre-sented about referred students suggested they haddifferent needs (e.g., basic math skills, memoryconcerns, reading difficulties, or attention, issues),recommendations were typically unilateral (e.g.,call parent or refer to skills group).

When asked about the contrast with howdata were used during Year 1, teachers at all gradelevels indicated that it was unrealistic for them tocollect additional data because their time was mo-nopolized by other responsibilities. The writtenresponse probe completed by Mrs. White afterthe initial Year 2 PST meeting illustrates this per-spective:

This meeting took the only planning time fbave on that day. My luncb balf hour wasspent listing tbe concerns for eacb student.Our scbool day is so full and adding addi-tional data collecting can become over-wbelming for tbe large number of studentsinvolved in [PST]. It's a catcb 22 because tbedata is beneficial to tbe cbild and tbe teacher.

Referrals and Interventions. During Year 2, ap-proximately 60 students were discussed by grade-level PST teams. As with Year 1, referral concernsreflected both academic and behavioral difficul-ties, and more referrals were made for students inkindergarten through second grade, as opposed tothose in third grade through fifth grade. A closer

look at the 17 students referred to the secondgrade PST team during Year 2 offers additionalinsight about the nature, severity, and validity ofreferral concerns. (Any student at least mentionedduring a PST meeting is considered to have beenreferred, as this indicated one of the teacherssought help to meet that student's perceivedneeds.) For 14 of these 17 students, the referringteacher identified academic concerns (7 studentsfor reading; 2 students for math; 3 students forreading, math, and written language; and 2 stu-dents for unspecified academic concerns). Four ofthe 14 students referred for academic reasons werealso described as having difficulty sustaining at-tention and focusing in the classroom. For 3 ofthe 17 students, the teacher's primary concernwas behavioral issues (i.e., inattention and exces-sive activity). Nine of the 17 students discussedby the second grade teachers were discussed bythe PST team during the prior year. Four of the17 referred students were already classified as hav-ing a speech and language disability, 1 studenthad a 504 Plan for attention concerns, and 2 re-ferred students received supplemental English as aSecond Language instruction;

The second grade teachers' descriptions ofconcerns were found to be valid. For example, ofthe students referred because of reading difficul-ties, four students were rwo quarters below thedistrict's reading standard, two students werethree quarters below, three students were f yearbelow, and one student was IVi years below thestandards. However, the totality of students' diffi-culties was frequently not identified. For example,one student referred solely for math concerns wasalso more than 1 year below the district's expecta-tion in reading. Similarly, three students referredfor reading concerns and one student referred forbehavioral concerns also experienced significantdifficulties in math. There were also at least sevenother second grade students experiencing signifi-cant difficulties in reading, but were not referredfor problem solving by any of the second gradeteachers.

During Year 2, a PST referral had little or noimpact on students' experiences. This occurredfor three reasons. First, the majority of recom-mendations made during the PST meetings in-volved Action Items (e.g., contact parent, speakwith previous teacher, or consult psychologist).

2OO Winter 2009

Although none of these Action Items were in-tended to directly impact students' experiences, itwas implied that the corresponding informationwould be used to develop an intervention plan atthe team's next meeting. However, the necessaryfollow-up rarely occurred, and in the few in-stances that it did, it was not subsequently used.Second, the few direct interventions recom-mended during PST meetings were rarely imple-mented. For example, participating in a skillsgroup was the recommendation made by the sec-ond grade PST team for eight referred students.However, the skills group never materialized, thusno intervention occurred for those eight students.Third, PST teams no longer had the option torecommend that a student receive early interven-tion support. After the district reduced theschool's staffmg allocation, the special educationteachers focused their efforts on students officiallyeligible to receive services. Thus, whereas early in-tervention support was an integral component ofPST during Year 1, it became a coveted, yet elu-sive, commodity during Year 2. As Mrs. Kelly ex-plained, "teachers are desperate for help" becausethey directly related early intervention supportwith improved student achievement. For example,when discussing a student referred to the PSTteam in First grade, Mrs. White explained:

Last year he was below grade level in reading.He received Wilson starting in March and itreally helped him, I think. But then therehasn't been any this year. That is why he isstruggling and I don't know what to do.

As the school year progressed, the sense ofurgency for getting support increased steadily.This is illustrated by Mrs. Pollock's written re-sponse probe after the third (and last) PST meet-ing held during Year 2: "Outcomes are s-l-o-w.Too many 'let's monitor progress.' It's March!! I'mconcerned about all of the students we've beendiscussing. What can happen in 3 months? Whatwill happen next year?" On the side of the papershe wrote "Extra support" in bold letters and cir-cled it, communicating how important she per-ceived that extra support to be.

Based on their experience with PST duringYear 1, teachers expected that they would be ableto access early intervention support for students ifthe PST team felt it was appropriate. The realiza-

tion that this was not an achievable goal duringYear 2 fostered frustration, anger, and disenchant-ment with PST among teachers at all grade levels.Many even expressed a desire to revert back tousing the model that preceded PST because, asMrs. Cook explained, "[A]fter I had done all mystuff, and unofficially talked to other people, Ijust filled out the form to get the support." Thiscomment clearly distressed Dr. Cowell becauseshe immediately responded, "And the kid wastested and labeled." However, the ultimate goalbehind teachers' calls for a reversion to the oldprocess was not necessarily to find students eligi-ble for special education services. Rather, it was tosecure support from a specialist in the building towork directly with the identified student. Unani-mously,- teachers expressed feeling overwhelmedby district-level demands and the expectationsplaced on them (e.g., implementing a new mathcurriculum). In many instances, they also indi-cated that they did not understand students' diffi-culties, nor did they have any additional ideas forpossible classroom-based interventions. Conse-quently, they maintained that the only way to ef-fectively address the needs of some students waswith additional support, and the only way to getadditional support was to move towards specialeducation classification. Mrs. Cook explained:

I just know that I need support for somekids. I don't give a (care) what you call ¡t orhow I get there. I don't care if you call itPST; I don't care if you call it Blue. But withsome of these kids I feel like I could stand onmy head and spit nickels and it won't matter.And I know some people would say that's anegative attitude, you don't think a child canlearn. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'msaying that I am spent. I have used all of myregular ed, special ed, every ed kind of trickand given them as much as I can give indi-vidually to one of 26. . . . They're not reallyspecial ed kids, but they need 1 hr more aweek or one teacher more a week than theaverage Joe. I have taught for so long andseen the students for so many years, I have agut. And I know these kids' backgrounds, Iknow their families, I know their relatives. Iknow what they get at home, and I knowwhich ones, if I could just prop them up,they could do it. They could succeed. Butthey need the prop. And I can't prop with 26


and with six or seven IEPs that are mostlyunsupported.

Student Outcomes. Given the absence of in-terventions that were actually implemented bygeneral education teachers and the lack of earlyintervention support during Year 2, it is not sur-prising that referred students did not evidence sig-nificant achievement gains over the course of theyear. For example, not 1 of the 10 second-gradestudents referred for reading difficulties madeenough progress to meet the district's grade-levelreading expectations in June. Two students in-creased their rate of progress, but only by onequarter's growth (e.g., reading level was threequarters below average in the fall and two quar-ters below average in Jtxne). The other eight stu-dents did not maintain the expected rate ofprogress, so they were further below the gradelevel expectation in June than in September.

Regarding special education rates at PVES,the significant reductions achieved during Year 1were not maintained during Year 2 due to theschool's deliberate effort to counteract the staffingreduction. In November of Year 2, Dr. Cowell ex-plained:

I just got a list of about 15 or 18 kids theywant evaluated before the end of the year sothat they can rebuild their special ed num-bers so they can get their positions rein-stated. It's so sad, 15 or 18 kids.

Ultimately, 17 students were found eligible to re-ceive special education services during Year 2.Thus, the rate appeared to exceed that which wasexperienced prior to PST implementation.

D I S C U S S I O N

Qualitative research is particularly well suited forilluminating the complexity of educational envi-ronments and ethos because the data capturesmultiple perspectives within real world settings(Miles &c Huberman, 1994). With this study,multiple sources of data were systematically andpersistently collected, coded, analyzed, and inter-preted to create a descriptive model of PST atPVES and to explore what factors influence im-plementation and sustainability. Throughout thisstudy, the general and special education teachers.

Mrs. Kelly, and other school professionals atPVES consistently demonstrated genuine concernand dedication to their students. It would be in-accurate to conclude that apathy prevented suc-cessful implementation and, in turn, jeopardizedstudent progress. It was unequivocally docu-mented that the staff, and especially the generaleducation teachers, struggled to effectively addressstudents' multitude of needs after the district re-duced the school's staffing and funding. Addition-ally, because PST was so successful during Year 1,the experiences during Year 2 were regarded aseven more frustrating. Mrs. Kelly explained:

It's so painful to watch. [Teachers] knowwhat they should be doing. They know whatthese kids need. But, they just can't do it thisyear. So, they know they're letting me down,and more importantly, they know they're let-ting the kids down. And that piece is so diffi-cult for them.

The findings of this study extend our under-standing of CPS implementation and sustainabii-ity in several important ways. The results providereliable and valid evidence to support conclusionsregarding the potential benefits of CPS. PST im-plementation at PVES during Year 1 demon-strated that implementing a comprehensive CPSmodel with integrity can (a) increase collabora-tion among professionals (Bahr et al, 1999; Mc-Dougal et al., 2000; Ormsbee & Haring, 2000;Welch et al., 1999); (b) produce significant andmeaningful academic and behavioral improve-ments among referred students (Burns & Syming-ton, 2002; D. Fuchs et al., 1996; Kovaleski et al.,1999; Telzrow et al., 2000); (c) improve teachers'ability to gather, interpret, and use data and im-plement instructional strategies (Bahr & Ko-valeski, 2006; Batsche & Knoff, 1995; Ingalls &Hammond, 1996); and (d) decrease the numberof students referred for special education evalua-tion (Burns & Symington; McDougal et al.; Mc-Namara & HoUinger, 2003). The findings fromthis study also offer a unique contribution to ourknowledge by illuminating salient factors that im-pact CPS implementation and sustainability andlikely have implications for implementation andsustainabiliry of other educational practices.

2 O 2Winter 2009

SYNTHESIS OE THEMES: THE SUN,

THE MOON, AND THE STARS

Reflecting on PST implementation during Year 1,Dr. Cowell explained, "Collectively, things werejust right. You know, it was that everything cametogether, like the sun and the moon and the starswere all in the right place in the sky." In contrast,by December of Year 2, Mrs. Kelly lamented howPST implementation was detrimentally impactedby the staffing reduction and the elimination ofthe school improvement funding. She specificallypraised PVES's teachers for maintaining theirphilosophical belief in PST, but simultaneouslyexplained that their other responsibilities super-seded fidelity to the process during Year 2. She in-dependently concluded, "The sun, the moon, andthe stars are just not aligned for [PST] anymore."This celestial reference was reiterated by others atPVES on a number of occasions. Ultimately, asthe data from this study were synthesized and an-alyzed, this phrase provided an apt analogy forunderstanding how the district, the principal, andthe teachers all impact PST implementation andsustainability (Patton, 2002). As described next,the sun represents the school district, the moonrepresents the principal, and the stars representthe teachers.

THE SUN: THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

There is a strong relationship between a schooldistrict's level of support and the successful imple-mentation and sustainability of CPS (D. Fuchs etal., 1996; Marston et al., 2003; Telzrow et al.,2000) and other educational reform programs(Sindelar et al., 2006). Data from this study pro-vided additional evidence to support that conclu-sion. Although previous findings primarilyhighlighted the logistical impact of district sup-port, data from this study provided strong evi-dence that district support has a cascading andsignificant influence on motivation, commitment,and program efficacy.

When Mrs. Kelly believed district resourceswere inadequate and implementation was nolonger a district priority, enthusiasm for andcommitment to the process were significantlydiminished at the building level. In turn, thisdiminution reduced classroom teachers' willing-ness to participate which ultimately impacted stu-

dent outcomes. Specifically, when the district re-duced the special education staffing allocation atPVES, Mrs. Kelly said she felt "betrayed [and] be-wildered" because the staff reduction appeared topenalize the school for all the time and effort sheand the staff devoted to achieve successful PSTimplementation during Year 1. Without the thirdspecial education teacher and half-time instruc-tional assistant, she believed it was impossible tocontinue providing early intervention support.She explained:

We're trapped in a vicious cycle. First, we'retold to use [PST] and offer early interventionbecause it eliminates the need to code. Andwe did. And it worked. We slashed our [spe-cial education] roster. But then they tookaway the positions that allowed us to do[early intervention]. We talk about settingstudents up for success, but we can't even setourselves up for success. The worst part isthat this year, I won't have the staff, no mat-ter what. So even if we code, it'll only helpfor next year. I'd rather code no one, but weneed staff to service based on need. Andright now, that's not the game that's beingplayed in this town.

When the school improvement funding wassubsequently eliminated, Mrs. Kelly's disenfran-chisement with the district and PST increased towhere she no longer creatively allocated resourcesto maintain the organizational structure for PSTimplementation at PVES (Purcell et al., 2007).She could have, for example, used staff develop-ment money to pay for substitute teachers sograde-level PST teams could meet during the in-structional day, as they did during Year 1. Teach-ers at PVES also indicated that with somerecruitment and training, parent volunteers,paraeducators, and others in the building couldcontinue providing early intervention supportduring Year 2. However, Mrs. Kelly's visceral re-sponse to the district's actions minimized her de-sire to actively pursue options which may haveenhanced PST implementation during Year 2.

Principals have been noted to play a criticalrole in successful CPS implementation (Ham-mond & Ingalls, 1999; Kovaleski et al., 1999;McDougal et al., 2000; Rafoth ôc Foriska, 2006)and successful implementation of other reform ef-forts (e.g., Desimone, 2002; Sindelar et al..

Exceptional Children 2 O 3

2006). However, given the increase in principals'responsibilities, FuUan (2001) poignantly asked,"If effective principals energize teachers in com-plex times, who is going to energize principals?"(p. I4l). Data from this study indicated that Mrs.Kelly frequently felt overwhelmed by increased re-sponsibilities and accountability. Because she al-ready struggled with dissonance related to PST,stress from other responsibilities cumulatively de-creased her willingness to devote time, effort, andemotional energy towards implementation duringYear 2.

Within that context of heightened stress, dis-trict facilitators and other key insiders and out-siders are shown to help alleviate some of theprincipal's responsibilities related to implement-ing CPS and other reform initiatives (e.g., L. S.Fuchs &C Fuchs, 2001; Purcell et al., 2007).Specifically, an effective facilitator helps createand maintain enthusiasm, helps the principal as-sume an appropriate level of participation, helpsmodify and adapt procedures to meet a school'sunique needs, helps support and monitor imple-mentation, and ensures that district and schoolefforts are coordinated. Data from this study sug-gested that PST implementation at PVES wouldbenefit from the district's assignment of an effec-tive facilitator. However, that did not occur be-cause the district facilitator assigned to PVES wasminimally involved at the school and did not en-hance implementation. During Year 2, the facili-tator visited the school three times, but on eachoccasion, his comments and suggestions were per-ceived by the PVES professionals as being inap-propriate and irrelevant.

Similarly, none of the PVES professionals be-lieved that Dr. Palmer, the district's PST supervi-sor, understood the challenges associated withimplementation during Year 2. He visited theschool only once during Year 2. During this visit,he told the faculty he would arrange for profes-sional development workshops and a meetingwith the associate superintendent so they couldexpress their frustrations. However, neither ofthese promises was seen to fruition, further di-minishing perceptions regarding the district'scommitment to PST.

During Year 2, many school professionals atPVES expressed a desire to have an active andsupportive PST facilitator and PST supervisor.

They believed such people could illuminate howother schools maintain high implementation in-tegrity, creatively schedule grade-level PST meet-ings, and offer early intervention support. Theprincipal also noted that if relevant suggestionswere offered, she was willing to try new proce-dures. In other words, even though the staff atPVES did not benefit from an effective district fa-cilitator or supervisor, they indicated potential re-ceptivity to that support.

THE MOON: THE PRINCIPAL

Mrs. Kelly's commitment to successfully imple-ment PST at PVES was significantly diminishedin response to the district's reduction in supportfor Year 2. During Year 2, she articulated the ex-pectation for all teachers to actively participate inPST. However her message lacked the enthusiasmand authenticity that was omnipresent duringYear 1. Rather than using words that encouragedand inspired teachers to actively participate inPST, her descriptions during Year 2 were charac-terized with defeatist connotations that chastisedthe district's actions. By November of Year 2, Mrs.Kelly's sentiments were adopted and internalizedby the teachers and other professionals at PVES.As such, they repeated her interpretation that thestaff reductions were punitive and, when com-bined with the loss of school improvementmoney, precluded successful PST implementa-tion. Consequently, motivation to participate inPST at PVES rapidly declined.

That pattern mirrored previous findings thata principal's level of enthusiasm and positive feed-back significantly influence the success of CPS(Kruger et al., 1995; McDougal et al., 2000) andother educational reform efforts (Boudah, Logan,& Greenwood, 2001; Desimone, 2002). For ex-ample, Fullan (2001) described how school cul-ture is only conducive to sustaining reform effortsand programs when the principal is able to moti-vate and energize teachers (especially those whoare skeptical of change). During Year 1, Mrs.Kelly's positive attitude and pervasive enthusiasmsuccessfully facilitated PST participation at PVES,even with many teachers who did not initially en-dorse PST. Her contagious enthusiasm created anenvironment which developed and amplified oth-

2 O 4Winter 2009

ers' perception of the process. Mr. Baldwin ex-plained,

Some of us were supporters from the get-go.We believed in inclusion, and so we believedin [PST], too. For those who maybe didn'texactly understand what it was at first, shesort of swept them up. And before long, theywere, too, like, going around championinghow [PST] worked in the interest of all thekids.

In contrast, during Year 2, Mrs. Kelly's lack ofpersonal motivation and commitment preventedher from engendering school professionals' senseof meaning, importance, or enthusiasm towardsPST.

During Year 1, Mrs. Kelly maintained highlevels of control and participation with PST atPVES. She chose to initially pilot PST, establishedche school's implementation structure and meet-ing schedules, frequently served as the facilitatorduring grade-level meetings, and personally re-viewed nearly every PST referral that teacherssubmitted. Her consistent participation duringgrade-level meetings and her active enforcementof PST expectations translated into high imple-mentation integrity at all grade levels (Kovaleskiet al., 1999; Kruger et al., 1995; McDougal et al,2000; Rubinson, 2002). The experiences at PVESdemonstrated that principals need to establish abalance between offering support, providing pres-sure, and allowing independence with CPS as wasshown to be the case with other reform initiatives(e.g., Sindelar et al., 2006). At PVES, Mrs. Kelly'shigh level of control and integral participationwith PST during Year 1 may have ultimately jeop-ardized the sustainability ofthe process. Althoughteacher involvement was shown to increase own-ership for reform efforts and to improve sustain-ability of programs (e.g., L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs,2001), teachers were not involved in the develop-ment or modification of PST procedures atPVES. Consequently, when Mrs. Kelly's personalcommitment and direct participation with PSTwaned after Year 1, implementation integrity wassignificantly reduced because teachers had not yetassumed ownership or shared responsibility forthe process.

THE STARS: TEACHERS

Teachers at PVES repeatedly explained that activeparticipation in PST during Year 2 was signifi-cantly hindered by their many other demands andresponsibilities such as learning and implement-ing new curriculum; giving, scoring, and inter-preting mandated bi-weekly assessments; andlacking specialist support. Teachers' burgeoningresponsibilities are well-documented and fre-quently associated with rigorous curricular de-mands, large class sizes, increased accountabilityfor student success, and increased diversity withinthe classroom (e.g., Fullan, 2001; Rubinson,2002). The divergent PST implementation expe-riences at PVES illustrate how the overwhelmingdemands of the daily "classroom press" createdanxiety and stress among teachers and diminishedtheir willingness and ability to participate in PST(Fullan, p. 31). During Year 1, teachers believedactive participation in PST was feasible becausegrade-level meetings were held during the instruc-tional day. In contrast, during Year 2, teachers an-imatedly expressed that, because of competingdemands on their time, active participation inPST outside of the instructional school day wasnot realistic. PST was no longer congruent withtheir expectations and goals for collaborativelyunderstanding and addressing students' needs.Consequently, active and constructive participa-tion was no longer a priority.

In addition to believing that active participa-tion in PST was not feasible during Year 2, teach-ers' participation was influenced by the fact thatthey no longer viewed the outcomes of PST asbeneficial (e.g., Hammond & Ingalls, 1999; Slon-ski-Fowler ôiTruscott, 2004). During Year 1, par-ticipation in PST provided teachers with theopportunity to collaborate with the special educa-tion teachers and other school professionals andallowed them access to early intervention supportfor students. During Year 2, other school profes-sionals were not consistently involved in PST, andearly intervention support was no longer avail-able. Thus, teachers saw little reason to devotetheir coveted time and energy to PST, despite evi-dence of significant student need.

As was observed at PVES during Year 2, gen-eral education teachers frequently assumed pri-mary responsibility in the problem-solving


process including implementing and monitoringrecommended interventions (Buck, Polloway,Smith-Thomas, & Cook, 2003). Previous re-search and data from this study indicated thatgeneral education teachers do not always selectappropriate interventions, collect and accuratelyinterpret data, nor independently implement aca-demic and behavioral interventions (e.g., D.Fuchs et al., 1990; Knotek, 2003). However,when general education teachers collaborativelyparticipated in CPS with other school profession-als, these concerns are minimized (e.g., Kovaleskiet al., 1999; Rosenfield oí Gravois, 1996). Datafrom PVES highlight that collaboration amonggeneral education teachers, special educationteachers, the psychologist, the principal, and thecounselor was beneficial. Whether these otherschool professionals served as grade-level coachesor as participants in grade-level meetings, their in-clusion helped compensate for teachers' limitedknowledge and skills. This, in turn, significantlyenhanced the problem-solving process and out-comes. Collaboration also increased implementa-tion integrity with classroom interventions andfacilitated access to early intervention support. Fi-nally, when general education teachers believedthat other school professionals shared the respon-sibilities associated with PST, their perceptionswere enhanced and their level of participation in-creased.

C O N C L U S I O N S : A L I G N I N G

T H E S U N , T H E M O O N ,

A N D T H E S T A R S

Successful implementation and sustainability ofPST at PVES was depicted as analogous to theproper alignment of the sun, the moon, and thestars. The findings from this study extend ourknowledge of CPS because they provide a deeperunderstanding of this analogy. At the most basiclevel, it was found that no single factor or deci-sion determined whether CPS was successfullyimplemented or sustained. Establishing thatpremise was critical, because the majority ofschool professionals at PVES chided the district'sactions as solely responsible for the deteriorationof PST during Year 2.

District support for CPS is indisputably im-portant. This includes giving release time forteachers to meet, providing adequate staff so earlyintervention support is offered, and assigning ef-fective facilitators to promote implementation atindividual schools. When such support is pro-vided, other potentially inhibiting factors areminimized (e.g., increasing teacher responsibilitiesand lack of ownership among teachers). Whenadequate support is not provided, when a districthas multiple (competing) initiatives, and whendistrict decisions are not aligned with the goals ofCPS, there is a negative impact on the logisticalability to successfully implement the process. In-adequate district support also creates a cascadingeffect that negatively influences the principal'sand school professionals' level of motivation andparticipation and ultimately student outcomes.When a principal feels implementation is ade-quately supported, his or her level of enthusiasmand participation is positively influenced. Con-versely, if a principal believes district support isinadequate, or that implementation is not valued,it is less likely he or she will actively participate orcreatively allocate resources at the school level. Inturn, teachers' levels of motivation and participa-tion are influenced by the principal's beliefs andactions as well as by their own perceptions aboutwhether participation is feasible or beneficial totheir students. Finally, shared ownership and col-laboration among staff members enhances adher-ence to the problem-solving steps as well asteachers' levels of motivation and participation.

I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR PRACTICE

This study involved documenting how a compre-hensive CPS process was implemented at an ele-mentary school over a 2-year period. The findingsrepresent the experiences and perceptions ofgeneral education teachers, special educationteachers, several nonteaching professionals, theprincipal, and the district's PST supervisor. Per-haps one of the most surprising discoveries is thateven when describing their frustrations with im-plementing PST during Year 2, the staff at PVESunanimously described the desire to use CPSbecause of the potential benefits CPS has forteachers and students. Thus, the challenge is to

2 0 6 Winter 2009

translate this philosophical endorsement into suc-cessful implementation and sustainability withinthe realities and constraints of educational envi-ronments. Specifically, consideration needs to begiven to the fact that CPS is dependent on factorsrelated to the district, the principal (or otherbuilding administrators), and participants. With-in that context, recommendations for practice areoffered.

First, district-level policies and decisions needto consistently support CPS implementation withadequate funding resources and school-based flexi-bility. They also need to reflect the understandingthat, if successful, CPS reduces the number of stu-dents classified as eligible to receive special educa-tion services. However, successful implementationdoes not reduce the need for special educationteachers to provide academic and behavioral sup-port to students experiencing difficulty in generaleducation classrooms. Second, principals (andother building administrators) should understandand enthusiastically support the goals and proce-dures of CPS. Specifically, this involves ensuringthat all school professionals collaboratively partici-pate and giving positive feedback when successfuloutcomes are achieved. It also involves creativelyallocating resources to provide ample time forproblem-solving teams to meet and to ensure thatappropriate support and interventions are availablefor referred students. Finally, general educationteachers, special education teachers, and otherschool professionals need to understand, endorse,and prioritize participation in CPS. Even whendistrict resources are limited (or reduced), it is im-perative to find creative ways to ensure that teamsmeet on a regular basis, the problem-solving pro-cess is implemented with integrity, and appropri-ate support is provided to students.

R E F E R E N C E S

Athanasious, M. S., Geil, M., Hazel, C. E., &Copeland, E. P. (2002). A look inside school-basedconsultation: A qualitative study of the beliefs andpractices of school psychologists and teachers. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 17, 258-298.

Bahr, M. W., & Kovaleski, J. E (2006). The need forproblem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education,27, 2-5.

Bahr, M. W., Walker, K., Hampton, E. M., Buddle, B.S., Freeman, T., Ruschman, N., et al. (2006). Creativeproblem solving for general education interventionteams: A two year evaluation study. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 27, 27-41.

Baht, M. W., Whitten, E., Dieker, L., Kocarek, C. E.,& Manson, D. (1999). A comparison of school-basedintervention teams: Implications fot educational andlegal reform. Exceptional Children, 66, 67—83.

Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1995). Best practicesin linking assessment to intervention. In A. Thomas &J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology III

(pp. 569-586). Silver Spring, MD: The National Asso-ciation of School Psychologists.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative re-search for education (3td ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Boudah, D. J., Logan, K. R., & Greenwood, G. R.(2001). The research to practice projects: Lessonslearned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Educa-tion and Special Education, 24, 290-303.

Brandinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugacb, M., &Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in specialeducation. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207.

Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Smith-Thomas, A., &Gook, K. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes:A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69,349-360.

Burns, M. K., & Symington, T (2002). A meta-analy-sis of prereferral intervention teams: Student and sys-temic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40,437-447.

Denzin, N. K. (2004). The art and politics of interpre-tation. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Ap-proaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and

practice (pp. 447-472). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Methods ofcollecting and analyzing empirical materials. In N. K.Denzin oí Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SACE handbook ofqualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 641-649). ThousandOaks, GA: Sage.

Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive schoolreform models be successfully implemented? Review ofEducational Research, 72, 433-479.District. (2002). [Problem Solving Together]. District lo-cation: Author.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from casestudy research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles(Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp.5-35). Thousand Oaks, GA: Sage.


Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. L, &c Shaw, L. L. (1995).Writing ethnographie fieldnotes. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press.

FÎugum, K. R., & Reschly, D. J. (1994). Prereferral in-terventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 32, 1-15.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: Fromneutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Den-zin & Y S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook ofqualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695-727). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bahr, M. W, Fernstrom, P, &Stecker, P M. (1990). Prereferral intervention: A pre-scriptive approach. Exceptional Children, 56, 493-513.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Harris, A. H., Ô£ Roberts, P H.(1996). Bridging the research-to-practice gap withmainstream assistance teams: A cautionary tale. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 11, 244-266.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P L., èc Young, C. L(2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions,evidence, and implications for the learning disabilityconstruct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,157-171.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for sus-taining research-based practice in the schools: A casestudy. Eocus on Exceptional Children, 33(6), 1-14.

Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educationalchange (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985).Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part 1.The Model. Exceptional Children, 51, 377-384.

Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. (2006). Impact of in-structional consultation teams on the disproportionatereferral and placement of minority students in specialeducation. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 42-52.

Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (1999). Maintainingschool-based prereferral teams: An eight year study.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(2), 17-21.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2004). Unleashing Frankenstein'smonster? The use of computers in qualitative research.In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P Leavy (Eds.), Approaches toqualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp.535-545). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hodder, 1. (2003). The interpretation of documentsand material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y S. Lincoln(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials(2nd ed., pp. 155-175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ingalls, L., &c Hammond, H. (1996). Prereferralschool-based teams: How effective are they? Rural Spe-cial Education Quarterly, 15(2), 9-18.

Knotek, S. (2003). Bias in problem solving and the so-cial process of student study teams: A qualitative mves-úgMon. Journal of Special Education, 27, 2-16.

Kovaleski, J. R, Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank,P R. (1999). High versus low implementation of in-structional support teams: A case for maintaining pro-gram fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20,170-183.

Kovaleski, J. E, &c Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing In-structional Support Teams to scale: Implications of thePennsylvania Experience. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 27, 16-25.

Kruger, L. J., Struzziero, J., Watts, R., & Vacca, D.(1995). The relationship between organizational sup-port and satisfaction with teacher assistance teams. Re-medial and Special Education, 16, 203-211.

Lincoln, Y S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic In-quiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y S. & Guba, E. G. (2002). Judging the qual-ity of case study reports. In A. M. Huberman ô<: M. B.Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp.205-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A.(2003). Problem-solving model for decision makingwith high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis expe-rience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,187-200.

McDougal, J. L., Clonan, S. M., & Martens, B. K.(2000). Using organizational change procedures to pro-mote the acceptability of prereferral intervention ser-vices: The school-based intervention team project.School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 149-171.

McNamara, K., Sc Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates and eligibility find-ings. Exceptional Children, 69, 181-195.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative dataanalysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C , Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E.,Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L, et al. (2005). Treatmentimplementation following behavioral consultation inschools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies.School Psychology Review, 34, 87-106.

Ormsbee, C. K., & Haring, K. A. (2000). Rural pre-assessment team members' perceptions of effectiveness.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(1), 17-25.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and re-search methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Purcell, M. L, Horn, E., oí Palmer, S. (2007). A quali-tative study of the initiation and continuation of

2 O 8 Winter 2009

preschool inclusion programs. Exceptional Children, 74;

85-99.

Rafoth, M. A., & Foriska, T. (2006). Administratorparticipation iri promoting effective problem-solvingteams. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 130-135.

Rock, M. L., ÔC Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention as-

sistance: Is it substance or symbolism? Preventing School

Failure, 45, 153-161.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructional

consultation teams: Collaborating for change. New York:

Guilford Press.

Rubinson, F. (2002). Lessons learned from implement-

ing problem-solving teams in urban bigh schools, jour-

nal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13,

185-217.

Silverman, D. (2003). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpret-ing qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 340-362). Thou-sand Oaks, GA: Sage.

Sindelar, P. T, Shearer, D. K., Yendol-Hoppey, D., ÔCLiebert, T. W. (2006). Tbe sustainability of inclusive re-form. Exceptional Children, 72, 317-331.Slonski-Fowler, K. E., & Truscott, S. D. (2004). Gen-eral education teacbers' perceptions of the prereferralintervention team process, journal of Educational andPsychological Consultation, 15, 1-39.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook ofqualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). ThousandOaks, GA: Sage.

Telzrow, G. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, G. L.(2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation

ADVERTISING INFORMATION

EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Rates: $22.00 per line$133.00 minimum charge

Issues/ Deadlines:Spring December 16Summer April 15Fall June 15Winter October 16

Classified advertising is also available in

TEACHING Exceptional Children.

For more information contact: Victor Erickson, Council forExceptional Children, Advertising, 1110 North Glebe Road,Suite 300. Arlington, VA 22201-5704, 703/264-9454,FAX 703/264-1637.

and relationship to student performance. School Psy-chology Review, 29, 443^61.

Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. M. (1999).Wbat s the score and game plan on teaming in schools?A review of tbe literature on team teaching and scbool-based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Ed-ucation, 20, 36-49.

ABOUT THE A U T H O R

TANYA SANTANGELO (CEC NJ Federation),Assistant Professor, Department of Special Educa-tional Services/Instruction, Rowan University,Glassboro, New Jersey.

Address correspondence to Tanya Santangelo, De-partment of Special Educational Services/ Instruc-tion, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road,Glassboro, NJ 09029 (e-mail: [email protected]).

The author would like to express great apprecia-tion to Karen R. Harris, Jeremy N. Price, SteveGraham, Sally Rivenburgh, and the wonderfulstaff at Pleasant Valley Elementary School. Yourguidance, encouragement, and insight were trulyinvaluable.

Manuscript received June 2007; accepted Decem-ber 2007.

INDEX OFADVERTISERS

Charles G Thomas, 129

Contemporary Forums, 183

Gouncil for Exceptional Ghildren, cover 2,184, 231,232, cover 3

Eastern Michigan University, 164

Learning Plus Associates, 230

Exceptional Cbildren 2 O 9

collaborative problem solving effectively … problem solving effectively implementedy but not...

Documents