FACE in MTSS Model Components - ICASEicase.org/Resources/Documents/00.FACE in MTSS Model Component… · components%of%an%effective ... evaluating+familyinvolvement.Cambridge,%MA:%Harvard%Family%Research

A Model of Family & Community Engagement (FACE) in Multi-‐Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)

FACE in MTSS Model -‐ Page 1

This document is a product of the collaboration between Florida’s Positive Behavior Support: Multi-‐Tiered System of Support Project (PBS:MTSS) and the Florida Problem-‐Solving/Response to Intervention Project (FLPS/RtI). It is intended for use in our collaborative work with school districts to assist them in implementing a multi-‐tiered system of supports; referred to as District Action Planning and Problem Solving (DAPPS). Florida has identified Family and Community Engagement (FACE) as one of the essential components of an effective multi-‐tiered system; therefore, a model of FACE in MTSS was developed to guide district practice. In contrast to classic models of family and community engagement that focus on the features that characterize involvement activities (e.g. parenting, decision-‐making), the focus of this model are the systems and structures identified in the literature as being associated with successful engagement of families and community in education. Florida’s Model for FACE in MTSS is organized around 6 key components that are supported by specific indicators. The key components and indicators were identified after a comprehensive review of the literature on best practices for family and community involvement in education. This document describes those elements and provides examples as well as references for the supporting literature.

District Leadership Data-‐based Outcomes Positive Relationships

Multi-‐Dimensional Multi-‐Tiered Approach Empowering Families

Collaborative Problem Solving


1: District Leadership -‐ Page 2

Key Component 1: District Leadership

District-‐level support and guidance is provided regarding the development, implementation, and monitoring of family and community engagement plans and practices within a multi-‐tiered system of supports.

Specific Indicators:

1A. The district has a definition/model/framework for family and community engagement that is integrated, aligned, and supportive of MTSS implementation.

(goal e.g., district and school vision, mission, and goals include building trust/collaborative relationships with families)

(strategy e.g., family representatives actively participate on district and school MTSS implementation leadership teams where district and school vision, mission, and goals are developed)

1B. The district has identified FACE goals/outcomes and monitors the outcomes with data as part of the district-‐wide MTSS evaluation plan.

(goal e.g., the district’s goal for FACE is for every family to demonstrate their support for their child’s educational success; this will be measured differently at each grade level-‐elementary, middle, or high school).

(strategy e.g., families are collaborators in the development and measurement of goals/outcomes)

1C. The district has established clear expectations for schools regarding FACE within MTSS.

(goal e.g., the district has identified and disseminated clear expectations for schools regarding FACE in MTSS for the purpose of supporting student outcomes).

(strategy e.g., professional development opportunities have been developed and provided to school staff to increase staff capacity for FACE in MTSS).

1D. The district provides technical assistance and ongoing support to schools specific to FACE in MTSS based on school-‐level plans and FACE evaluation data.

(goal e.g., district teams provide support to school-‐level teams regarding FACE in MTSS on a quarterly basis)

(strategy e.g., as part of each school’s MTSS implementation plan that is submitted to the district, each school includes specific FACE efforts integrated within the plan; the district evaluates and provides feedback to schools on their plans and reviews school implementation data quarterly).


1: District Leadership -‐ Page 3

1E. The district provides professional development opportunities for school personnel to improve identified skills needed for improved family and community engagement within MTSS.

(goal e.g., FACE in MTSS is integrated into the district-‐wide PD plan and aligned with district-‐wide expectations for FACE in MTSS)

(strategy e.g., perceptions of skills for FACE are collected from staff and used to inform content of PD opportunities; coaches receive more intense training on FACE in MTSS and provide ongoing coaching at the school level).

1F. The district identifies and shares school practices that exemplify effective FACE within MTSS.

(goal e.g., schools that demonstrate high FACE outcomes per the MTSS evaluation data are showcased for others to learn from).

(strategy e.g., a section of the district’s MTSS website includes and showcases what schools are doing to effectively engage families in MTSS).

Literature to support the component:

Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., Sheldon, S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47 (3), 462-‐495. (In Dropbox)

Ferguson, C., Jordan, C., Baldwin, M. (2010). Working systematically in action: Engaging family and community. Austin, TX: SEDL. (Particularly studies listed on pg. 10-‐11; also in Dropbox)

Sanders, M. G. (2011). Achieving scale at the district level: A longitudinal multiple case study of a partnership reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, DOI: 10.1177/0013161X11417432


2: Data-‐based Outcomes -‐ Page 4

Key Component 2: Data-‐based Outcomes Desired outcomes of family and community engagement efforts are identified and monitored with data.

Specific Indicators:

2A. Specific, behavioral outcomes are identified that represent a multi-‐dimensional definition of family and community engagement in MTSS (engagement at home, at school, and in related out-‐of-‐school activities).

(goal e.g., the DLT provides guidance on main ideas or non-‐negotiables [defined outcomes] for what needs to be included in a school’s FACE outcomes).

(goal e.g., the DLT provides guidance to schools on how to develop, implement, and tailor their own FACE model regarding the identification of behavioral outcomes.

(strategy e.g., collaboration with family and community representatives allows for the development of a shared vision for FACE in the district, thus the goals/outcomes are collaboratively developed and agreed upon by all stakeholders).

2B. Educators and families collaboratively develop and agree upon identified FACE goals and outcomes (including how outcomes will be measured).

(goal e.g., results of needs assessments conducted with families are used to inform the development of FACE in MTSS goals/outcomes).

(strategy e.g., forums for obtaining family input (i.e., needs assessment-‐like tools) are used to collect family perspectives to inform the goals/outcomes of FACE in MTSS for the district).

2C. Data are collected to monitor each desired outcome; FACE efforts are informed by ongoing evaluation efforts.

(goal e.g., perception [survey/interview], observation, permanent product review, and direct skill assessment data collection methods are used to monitor FACE in MTSS at the end of each year and are used to inform plans for the next school year).

(strategy e.g., FACE in MTSS evaluations are integrated within existing evaluations specific to families in order to reduce burden and make existing data collection efforts more useful to MTSS implementation efforts).


2: Data-‐based Outcomes -‐ Page 5

Literature to support the component:

Ferguson, C., Jordan, C., Baldwin, M. (2010). Working systematically in action: Engaging family and community. Austin, TX: SEDL. (Particularly studies listed on pg. 10-‐11; also in Dropbox)

Spielberg, L. (2011). Successful family engagement in the classroom: What teachers need to know and be able to do to engage families in raising student achievement. Cambridge, MA: Flamboyan Foundation and Harvard Family Research Project.

Weiss, H. B., Bouffard, S. M., Bridglall, B. L., Gordon, E. W. (2009). Reframing family involvement in education: Supporting families to support educational equity. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College Columbia University: Equity Matters: Research Review No. 5.

Westmoreland, H., Bouffard, S., O’Carroll, K., & Rosenberg, H. (2009). Data collection instruments for evaluating family involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Westmoreland, H., Lopez, E. M., Rosenberg, H. R. (2009). How to develop a logic model for district-‐wide family engagement strategies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Westmoreland, H., Rosenberg, H. M., Lopez, E. M., Weiss, H. (2009). Seeing is believing: Promising practices for how school districts promote family engagement (Issue Brief, July 2009). Harvard Family Research Project.


3: Positive Relationships -‐ Page 6

Key Component 3: Positive Relationships

Relationships between educators and families are characteristically positive with educators recognizing families' needs and cultural differences leading to greater understanding and respect among all involved.

Specific indicators:

3A. Person-‐to-‐person interactions between family/community members and school personnel are the rule, not the exception.

(goal e.g., for 80% of the students, at least two conversations (two phone, Skype, or face-‐to-‐face meetings) are held w/a family member each year).

(strategy e.g., monthly school based invitations for face/face and quarterly community based invitations for face/face).

3B. Power and responsibility for student achievement/success is shared between family, community and school personnel.

(goal e.g., perception surveys of family members, community members and school personnel affirm that power and responsibility for student achievement/success).

(strategies e.g., data regarding school-‐wide and individual student achievement is shared, family/community invited to participate in school-‐wide and individual problem-‐solving, home/community interventions are generated/supported).

3C. There is a focus on building trust and collaborative relationships among families, the community and school personnel.

(goal e.g., perception surveys of each identify an above average level of trust and existence of collaborative relationships; district and school mission or goal includes building trust/collaborative relationships).

(strategy e.g., focus groups with family/community to identify areas of trust/mistrust, engage in a structured problem solving process to improve relationships).

3D. School personnel recognize, respect and address families’ needs as well as class and cultural differences.

(goal e.g., school personnel identify family needs, and class/cultural differences and strategies are developed to incorporate this knowledge into existing plans).

(strategy e.g., school personnel and families/community members together examine similarities and differences across and within racial and ethnic groups, including differences related to social class, gender, and language and identify how this may impact activities/communications/etc.).


3: Positive Relationships -‐ Page 7

Research to support the component:

Ferguson, C, Jordan, C., Wood, L., & Rodriguez, V. (2006). Beyond the building: A facilitation guide for school, family, and community connections [Multimedia Toolkit] Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Glickman, N. J., & Scally, C. P. (2008). Can community and education organizing improve inner-‐city schools? Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5), 557–577. Retrieved from http://comm-‐org.wisc.edu/papers2005/glickmanscally/glickmanscally.htm

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL).

Mapp, K. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. The School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64. Retrieved from http://www.peoriatitlei.org/dist150/documents/Article.pdf

Redding, S., Langdon, J., Meyer, J., & Sheley, P. (2004). The effects of comprehensive parent engagement on student learning outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-‐involvement/publications-‐resources/the-‐effects-‐of comprehensive-‐parent-‐engagement-‐on-‐student-‐learning-‐outcomes


4: Multi-‐Dimensional Multi-‐Tiered Approach -‐ Page 8

Key Component 4: Multi-‐Dimensional Multi-‐Tiered Approach

When families are not responsive to school-‐wide family engagement efforts, they are effectively engaged through additional, more intensive outreach.


4A. School-‐wide family engagement plans for MTSS have been collaboratively developed by educators and families and are implemented with fidelity.

(goal e.g., survey results indicate that 80% of families (at each school) indicate high levels of satisfaction with their level of participation and input in the development of their school’s FACE in MTSS plans)

(strategy e.g., include multiple forums to obtain parental input regarding how they would like to be engaged with their child’s education).

4B. Information about MTSS and family engagement in MTSS is readily available through diverse methods (e.g., newsletter, website, information at school).

(goal e.g., in addition to sending information home with students, there are venues for parents to receive/obtain information if they do not have access to a computer or telephone or rely on public transportation. Additionally, steps are taken to ensure information is (or can be made) available to parents who cannot read, cannot hear, or cannot see, if needed)

(strategy e.g., collaboration with community stakeholders allows for information sharing regarding MTSS and family engagement in MTSS in multiple forums beyond the school and the community stakeholders are partners in translating or interpreting information to parents who may needs translation services).

4C. The school plan contains a goal for measuring family responsiveness to information and family participation in MTSS.

(goal e.g., the goal for family responsiveness and family participation in MTSS is developed with input from families and educators)

(strategy e.g., parents are surveyed about the ways in which they would like to receive information and be engaged in MTSS and that is used to inform plans and evaluations).

4D. System for evaluating the extent of family responsiveness to participation and information about MTSS is in place (e.g., indicators, ways to collect data).

(goal e.g., data are collected from families to measure the degree to which parents are accessing/utilizing the information made available to them [i.e., parents are surveyed about the ways they prefer to receive information; website hits are counted; community organizations that provide information to parents give feedback regarding the number of parents who obtained information from them, etc.])

(strategy e.g., parents are surveyed twice per year to determine preferences and usefulness of venues through which information is provided).


4: Multi-‐Dimensional Multi-‐Tiered Approach -‐ Page 9

4E. Resources available for intensive outreach should be focused on families whose children have the highest levels of need.)

(goal e.g., home visits are focused on families whose children have high levels of need)

(strategy e.g., collaboration with community organizations helps contribute resources and personnel for home visits).

4F. Specific actions of family members related to engagement in MTSS are dependent on each families’ desired level of participation.

(goal e.g., 80% of families (at each school) indicate they are satisfied with the ways in which they are engaged in MTSS).

(strategy e.g., information collected from families [i.e., interviews, surveys, needs assessments] are used to inform and revise engagement plans).

4G. Multiple community agencies and school personnel have clear roles in efforts to increase FACE in MTSS.

(goal e.g., roles and responsibilities of community agencies and school personnel are outlined in FACE in MTSS implementation plans [which are integrated within district/school-‐level MTSS implementation plans]).)

(strategy e.g., community-‐wide resource mapping facilitates the development of working relationships with community stakeholders interested in working/collaborating with the district/school on mutually identified goals [e.g., family literacy]).


Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 125–145.

Cooper, C (2010). Family poverty, school-‐based parental involvement, and policy-‐focused protective factors in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25 (2010) 480–492

Lewis, L., Kim Y, & Bey, J (2011). Teaching Practices and Strategies to Involve Inner-‐City Parents at Home and in the School. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of research and Studies, v27 n1 p221-‐234

Monroe, C.R. (2009). Teachers closing the discipline gap in an urban middle school. Urban Education, 44(3), 322-‐347

Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20, 103-‐119.

Stone, S. (2003). The transition to high school: Teacher perspectives in a large, urban, predominantly minority school system. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12(1), 47-‐67.


5: Empowering Families -‐ Page 10

Key Component 5: Empowering Families

Educators have increased the skills families need to support their child’s educational success in a multi-‐tiered system of supports.


The skills and knowledge families need to support their child’s learning with an MTSS framework is provided by the school/district: **aligned with Epstein’s framework**

5A. Methods to support student learning at home ways that promote achievement of academic standards and behavioral expectations within the school setting

(goal e.g., results of parent surveys indicate 80% of families report being provided with skills, knowledge, and/or connected with resources to support student learning at home).

(strategy e.g., collaboration with community agencies to provide ongoing parent training; providing workshops at the school, community locations, and in the homes of some families that specifically target how to support student learning at home).

5B. Communicate regularly with school personnel related to student achievement and be accessible for regular communication with the school (through their preferred method of contact).

(goal e.g., 80% of families (at each school) report having been provided clear directions regarding communication with the school [i.e., who to contact with a concern, who to contact to schedule a meeting, how to contact their child’s teacher, how to access information about their child, etc.).

(strategy e.g., share communication information with families after conducting needs assessment information; and make sure it is readily available for families to access).

5C. Volunteer time or resources to the school when possible (in and outside of school day).

(goal e.g., 80% of families (at each school) indicate they have been given information on how to volunteer and what to do if they would like to volunteer)

(strategy e.g., provide informational sessions on volunteer opportunities, ask families how they would like to volunteer, and provide opportunities for parents to learn skills for volunteering in new ways [e.g., reading mentors]).

5D. How to seek information, ask questions, ensure understanding of, and provide input on the data-‐based decision making and problem-‐solving process guiding the provision of supports/interventions.

(goal e.g., 80% of families with a child who has been involved in individual or small-‐group problem-‐solving efforts indicates they have been given information on problem-‐solving, asked to participate and provide input in problem-‐solving, and have been provided



opportunities to ask questions and get clarification from a staff member regarding the problem-‐solving process).

(strategy e.g., provide school-‐wide and targeted supports to families to enable and empower participation in problem-‐solving efforts [e.g., trainings, meeting mentors, informational sessions, practice sessions]).

5E. How to access and utilize community supports (information about availability of community supports should be provided to all families).

(goal e.g., 80% of families (at each school) indicate they have knowledge of community supports available to them and have been given directions for accessing the community supports).

(strategy e.g., share the results of community-‐wide resource mapping with families and include families in the collaborative work with communities)

5F. Understanding and adoption of skills and qualities necessary to work within a team to meet student goals (team should include school, family, community).

(goal e.g., 80% of families with a child who has been involved in individual or small-‐group problem-‐solving efforts indicate they have been provided opportunities to learn skills and qualities necessary to work within a team)

(strategy e.g., provide school-‐wide and targeted supports to families regarding communication and collaboration skills for participating in PS meetings; utilize community resources to supplement and support families’ participation in PS meetings [e.g., meeting mentors]).

How do educators equip families with those skills?

5G. Develop and promote a multi-‐dimensional definition of family and community engagement.

(goal e.g., 80% of families indicate they have been provided opportunities to engage in multiple ways [i.e., volunteer, leader, support at home, etc.)

(strategy e.g., align FACE in MTSS needs assessments, surveys, implementation plans around a multi-‐dimensional definition)

5H. Engage in structured planning and problem-‐solving to overcome barriers associated to family and community engagement.

(goal e.g., 80% of families indicate the school has implemented strategies to remove barriers to their participation and engagement in the school)

(strategy e.g., in collaboration with families, the DLT (or SLT) engages in structured planning and problem-‐solving as a result of reviewing FACE in MTSS evaluation data).

5I. Share a common belief among teams that family and community engagement as essential to the success of MTSS.

(goal e.g., 80% of families and educators report FACE in MTSS is essential to the success of MTSS)



(strategy e.g., include FACE in MTSS information and awareness-‐building in district PD plans as well as parent workshops).

5J. Regular, clear, and culturally responsive communication occurs through multiple methods (e.g., newsletters, emails, face to face meetings, phone calls all occurring on a regular basis) and is related to academic standards, behavioral expectations, curricula or supports being offered to students.

(goal e.g., 80% of families indicate the school’s communication methods are regular, clear, and culturally responsive, and have provided them with information about the academic standards, behavioral expectations, and the curricula or supports being offered to students).

(strategy e.g., utilize needs assessment and survey results from parents to inform communication plans [including method and content of communication]).

5K. Invite parents to any meetings related to school-‐wide issues or their own child (ren) and clarify actions expected from family and community members in the process

(goal e.g., clear team member roles and responsibilities have been collaboratively developed (and shared if a new parent) with parents prior to the meeting)

(strategy e.g., ask parents what types of supports they need in order to participate in meetings effectively, including the role they wish to have during meetings).

5L. Parent trainings and workshops specifically related to understanding and participating in MTSS are responsive to families’ needs.

(goal e.g., 80% of families indicate they have [been provided with supports to] attended a training/workshop on their role in MTSS)

(strategy e.g., provide supports to parents to attend trainings/workshops; be creative and do not require in-‐person attendance to make trainings/workshops available; partner with community stakeholders to provide trainings/workshops to parents in venues convenient to them)

5M. Develop a system to provide more intensive efforts to engage families who are not successfully engaged through universal efforts.

(goal e.g., 80% of families report being engaged in MTSS)

(strategy e.g., collaborate with community stakeholders to implement intensive efforts to engage families [e.g., home visits, etc.]).

5N. Provide networking opportunities for families to meet, support, and learn from one another.

(goal e.g., 80% of families indicate knowing and talking with at least one other family in the school about school-‐related matters)

(strategy e.g., provide forums for families to meet/talk together; develop virtual/in-‐person forums for discussion about school; provide “family mentors” to new families to the school; utilize community resources to connect families with one another in important areas/ways).




Chrispeels, J., & Gonzalez, M. (2004). Do educational programs increase parents’ practices at home? Factors influencing Latino parent involvement (Family Involvement Research Digest). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-‐resources/browse-‐our-‐publications/do-‐educational-‐programs-‐increase-‐parents-‐practices-‐at-‐home-‐factors-‐influencing-‐latino-‐parent-‐involvement.

Chrispeels, J. H., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119-‐169.

Goddard, R. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59-‐74.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 524-‐546.

Morrow, L.M., &Young, J. (1997). A family literacy program connecting school and home: Effects on attitude, motivation, and literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 736–742.

Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301–316.

Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 659–680.


6: Collaborative Problem Solving -‐ Page 14

Key Component 6: Collaborative Problem Solving Families of children receiving Tier II (targeted, supplemental) and III (individualized, intensive) supports are effectively engaged in all steps of the PS process.

Specific Indicators

Meeting procedures:

6A. The team has established procedures and protocols (e.g., meeting rules, etc.) that facilitate parent input in the problem-‐solving process

(goal e.g., the problem-‐solving teams and meetings are conducive to effective FACE in MTSS).

(strategy e.g., parents and teachers are asked to share strengths of the child at the start of meetings, parents are provided with information about meeting procedures in advance, staff are trained on communication and collaboration skills).

6B. Parent availability is considered when scheduling team planning/problem-‐solving meetings.

(goal e.g., opportunities for participation are expanded in attempt to include all parents).

(strategy e.g., meetings are held at mutually agreed upon times taking into consideration both the families and educators schedule).

6C. If parents are unable to attend meetings, the school’s team obtains relevant parental input prior to the meeting and considers the input throughout the planning/problem-‐solving process.

(goal e.g., the district-‐level expectations for FACE in MTSS include pre-‐meeting procedures for obtaining parental input to inform PS).

(strategy e.g., pre-‐meeting procedures are responsive to the families’ needs and preferences for communicating [informed by needs assessment data] and allow sufficient time for families to ask questions and state concerns).

6D. For parents unable to attend meetings, parents are provided information following meetings and given opportunities to provide input and get clarification within a timely manner.

(goal e.g., the district-‐level expectations for FACE in MTSS include post-‐meeting procedures for providing parents with meeting notes/results and opportunities for families to ask questions within five school days of the problem-‐solving meeting).

(strategy e.g., post-‐meeting procedures are responsive to the families’ needs and preferences for communicating [informed by needs assessment data] and allow sufficient time for families to ask questions and state concerns).

Family engagement in problem-‐solving:

6E. Parents understand the problem-‐solving process as a method to link assessment and intervention goals and strategies for their child.



(goal e.g., results of parent surveys indicate 80% of agreement that educators explained the problem-‐solving process to parents accurately).

(strategy e.g., the district-‐level expectations for FACE in MTSS include pre-‐meeting procedures regarding the inclusion of the explanation of the problem-‐solving process and meeting when inviting families to attend the meeting).

6F. Educators and families provide input to inform problem identification. Problems are defined collaboratively and there is mutual agreement among families and educators for the identified problem.

(goal e.g., perception surveys of both families and educators result in 80% of families and educators indicating they collaboratively defined the problem and agreed upon the identified goal and came to agreement on the next steps for solving the problem).

(strategy e.g., meeting procedures/forms include prompts and reminders to ensure family participation and input on problem-‐identification).

6G. The goals for problem-‐solving are collaboratively developed and agreed upon by families and educators prior to engaging in additional problem-‐solving activities.

(goal e.g., results of parent surveys indicate 80% of agreement that educators explained the purpose of the problem-‐solving meeting and process to families along with the invitation for attending the meeting).

(strategy e.g., part of the district-‐level FACE in MTSS expectations include a pre-‐meeting procedures that include explanation of the problem-‐solving process and meeting when inviting families to attend).

6H. Parent input informs hypothesis development and validation during problem-‐analysis and parents and educators agree upon the hypothesis that will guide intervention selection.

(goal e.g., perception surveys of both families and educators result in 80% of families and educators indicating they came to agreement on the hypotheses that guided intervention selection).

(strategy e.g., the district-‐level FACE in MTSS expectations include meeting procedures that include an explanation of the problem-‐solving process and solicit input from families to inform hypothesis development and validation).

6I. Parents are included in intervention development plans in the following ways: • Parental input is considered when identifying intervention strategies. • Resources and supports are provided to parents so that they can support intervention

implementation at home, if needed. • Parents are provided opportunities to assist with data collection and monitoring. • At a minimum, parents are provided with timely updates about their child’s progress

through graphs or functionally equivalent methods of summarizing performance rates and levels. Parents are also provided intervention implementation fidelity data. Supports are provided to parents for interpreting student performance data efficiently and to the satisfaction of the parent.



(goal e.g., perception surveys of both families and educators result in 80% of families and educators indicating they were partners in the areas listed above for intervention development).

(strategy e.g., the district-‐level FACE in MTSS expectations include meeting procedures that include obtaining input from families to inform intervention development, collaboration for implementation of the intervention and decision-‐making regarding a students’ RtI).

6J. Parents are included when making decisions about a students’ response to intervention and subsequent changes to intervention, instruction, and curricular plans.

(goal e.g., perception surveys of families result in 80% of families indicating they were satisfied with the degree to which they were included in the decisions regarding their child’s response to intervention and subsequent curricular/instructional changes).

(strategy e.g., the district-‐level FACE in MTSS expectations include meeting procedures regarding parental participation in the decision-‐making process regarding a students’ RtI and subsequent curricular/instructional changes).

Literature to support this component:

* Most of the research supporting family engagement in problem-‐solving is derived from the research on Conjoint Behavioral Consultation.

Colton, D. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (1998). Conjoint behavioral consultation and social skills training: Enhancing the play behaviors of boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 9, 3-‐29.

Garbacz, S. A., Woods, K. E., Swanger-‐Gagné, M. S., Taylor, A. M., Black, K. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: The effectiveness of a partnership-‐centered approach. School Psychology Quarterly. 2008; 23: 313-‐327.

Illsley, S., & Sladeczek, I. E. (2001). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Outcome measures beyond the client level. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 12, 397-‐404.

Sheridan SM, Kratochwill TR. Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting family–school connections and interventions. 2. New York: Springer; 2007

Sheridan, S. M., Eagle, J. W., & Doll, B. (2006). An examination of the efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation with diverse clients. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 396-‐417

Sheridan, S. M., Clarke, B. L., Marti, D. C., Burt, J. D., & Rohlk, A. M. (2005). Conjoint behavioral consultation: A model to facilitate meaningful partnerships for families and schools. Retrieved August 31, 2005, from Harvard University, Harvard Family Research Project Web site: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/digest/cbc.html

Sheridan, S. M., Eagle, J. W., Cowan, R. J., & Mickelson, W. (2001). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation results of a four year investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 361-‐385.



Sheridan, S. M., Warnes, E., Brown, M., Schemm, A., & Cowan, R. J. (2004). Family-‐centered positive psychology: Building on strengths to promote student success. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 7-‐17.

Sheridan, S. M., Erchul, W. P., Brown, M. S., Dowd, S. E., Warnes, E. D., Marti, D. C., Schemm, A. V., & Eagle, J. W. (2004). Perceptions of helpfulness in conjoint behavioral consultation: Congruity and agreement between teachers and parents. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 121-‐140.

Sladeczek, I. E., Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., Robertson-‐Mjaanes, S., & Stoiber, K. C. (2001). Application of Goal Attainment Scaling to a Conjoint Behavioral Consultation Case. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(1), 45-‐58.

Wilkinson, L. (2005). Bridging the research-‐to-‐practice gap in school-‐based consultation: An example using case studies. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16(3), 175-‐200.