There is a need for future research and problem-solving attention surrounding a growing discrepancy in academic growth between students in Massachusetts’s small, rural setting. Within the researcher’s public school district, an initiative is underway to integrate Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles by implementing a universally designed curriculum and instructional model to support all students. UDL is a set of principles and guidelines providing a framework for curriculum and instructional design to create flexible learning environments by increasing achievement for all learners regardless of variability. Pursuing UDL adoption maintains that learners with a growth mindset are motivated by self-development through accessible materials, engaging instruction, choice, variability, and equal learning opportunities (Meyer et al., 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). 

Through further refinement of the problem, data highlights students categorized as economically disadvantaged significantly underperform their non-economically underprivileged peers on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in English language arts and math. Economically disadvantaged students are a subgroup of all students, officially grouped under High Needs, as defined by the Massachusetts Department of Secondary and Elementary Education (DESE). Economically disadvantaged students represent roughly 10% of the student population within the school district. Future research is necessary on how UDL principles, personalized learning, and technological improvements will improve academic outcomes for economically disadvantaged students. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the past two MCAS testing periods, which may require new norm-referenced assessment measures to collect and report academic progress. However, the MCAS assessment window is open for the 2020-2021 academic year, and the data collected may be shared as early as the fall of 2021. Therefore, to demonstrate measurable student growth, the district may need to move away from statewide standardized testing data from MCAS to employ district benchmark assessments in English language arts and math.

By most measures, the researcher’s district is a high-performing school district. Most students arrive each day ready to learn. A dedicated staff of licensed instructional leaders and non-instructional support personnel allows students to meet or exceed nearly all accountability measures from annual assessments on the MCAS (2019 Official Accountability Report, 2019). The district has a cumulative criterion-referenced target percentage of 84% (2019 Official Accountability Report, 2019) on overall progress toward student growth targets, including English language arts and mathematics achievement indicators. This target percentage signifies how well the district performs compared to other districts across Massachusetts. The district schools have met or exceeded their student growth targets better than 84% of Massachusetts communities. However, accountability trends decline for the high-needs subgroup, which includes economically disadvantaged students.

When examining an entire body of student achievement, the district considers other internal assessments and measures, such as the diagnostic mathematics assessment, grade-level writing assessments, and results from an adaptive literacy program. However, the MCAS assessment is the most relevant, norm-referenced data set in the student academic profile, impacting curriculum and intervention adjustments (See Table 1.). As a sampling of educational trends, for the Mathematics MCAS Assessment (Grades 3-8), for all non-economically disadvantaged students, 66% met or exceed expectations for 2018. In contrast, 47% of economically disadvantaged students meet or exceed the Mathematics MCAS assessment. For 2019, on the Mathematics MCAS Assessment (Grades 3-8), all non-economically disadvantaged students increased to 68%, while only 38% of economically disadvantaged students met or exceeded expectations. Therefore, it is essential to consider similar downward trends in ELA MCAS and declines in the Science MCAS achievement results. 

Table 1. Mathematics MCAS Assessment Data: All Students and Economically Disadvantaged

Student Group Assessment Exceed/Meet Expectations Grade Level 2018 2019
All Students Math MCAS ✓ 3-8 66% 68%
Eco. Disadv. Math MCAS ✓ 3-8 47% 38%

Explain why intervention is warranted. What are the purposes and goals of the initiative?

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) guides school districts to meet federal and state academic requirements outlined in Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) regulations (ESSA State Plan, 2018). In addition, local educational plans mandate high-quality standards, assessments, and to an extent, the UDL framework as a system for publicly funded school districts to deploy as a framework for curriculum and instructional design (ESSA, 2015; Multi-Tiered System of Support, 2018). Adopted in 2015 by ESSA, UDL is a classroom integration strategy steeped in neuroscience and research to understand better the expected variability and inherent learning differences in all learners (Meyer & Rose, 2000; Meyer et al., 2014; Novak & Rodriguez, 2016; Rose & Meyer, 2002). DESE developed a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) in conjunction with regulations and guidance found within ESSA. MTSS supports universally designed instruction and curriculum development (Multi-Tiered System of Support, 2018) in meeting the needs of all students and is a framework providing academic and non-academic support to students within a universally designed curriculum model. Although deployed during the 2016-2017 school year, MTSS has stalled out after an initial district initiative and turnover of crucial district administration. Extrapolating the MTSS framework into reasonable chunks of detail, there are five key components:

  1. An evidence-based curriculum and instructional model (UDL)
  2. Positive behavioral supports and interventions 
  3. District-wide assessments
  4. Evidence-based, instructional interventions
  5. Professional development

Although the five components above integrate into the overarching MTSS framework through a continuum of instructional tiers, the first tier of the MTSS model focuses on universal design for all students (Rodriguez et al., 2016). Further, Tier I is built on the UDL framework to meet all students’ academic needs by optimizing data-driven decision-making, developing evidence-based instruction, and ensuring high-quality education for every student (Multi-Tiered System of Support, 2018). In Tier II, academic supports include specialized programs and meaningful integration of digital tools and assistive technology. Finally, within Tier III,  specialized instruction and materials support learners and provide instructional approaches for teachers when the first two tiers are insufficient. 

The MTSS blueprint provides a macro-level, single support system responsive to all students’ academic and non-academic needs rather than siloed educational systems. As a result, school districts are no longer reactive to declines in student achievement. Instead, district administrators should be proactive in adhering to “a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to student’s needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision making” (ESSA, 2015, p. 2093). 

One of the first goals of implementing the UDL framework and core principles is to close achievement gaps. Yet, since the initiative for UDL adoption began in 2014, the academic achievement gaps of our financially underprivileged students have not maintained similar growth trends.

After successfully implementing and adopting the MTSS framework and UDL principles, the next goal is to advocate for instructional approaches and systems immersed in research to place students on track for college and career success. Although supported at the federal, state, and local levels, the UDL framework has noted weaknesses, centering around the challenging nature of observing UDL principles during instruction and pinpointing its success (Edyburn, 2010). Further, typical UDL professional development does not last more than a few weeks (Lowrey et al., 2019). Research by Capp (2020) indicates a need for further training with a laser focus on the elements needed to implement the UDL principles in the classroom. Not all teachers know and understand strategies for differentiating instruction using an inclusive pedagogical approach. 

As core elements of professional development and growth, Short and Hirsch (2020) recommend, teachers continuously assess practices and beliefs on scaffolding instruction while maintaining high expectations. Further, school leaders can model and promote active learning for students and staff by developing a professional learning network focusing on delivering the curriculum through high-quality instruction (Short & Hirsch, 2020). Research by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) suggests mastery of new teaching techniques requires extensive coaching and practice throughout every school year and 40 hours of professional development to become proficient. Gallos (2006) discusses this aspect of investing in training employees to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to bring about the change initiatives sought by management. 

Suffice it to say, can the MTSS blueprint, which includes the UDL principles as a core driver of curriculum and instruction, provide economically disadvantaged students with an academic and emotional system to thrive alongside their peers? A crucial point for all educators to consider is the fusion of a UDL framework and personalized instructional practices that can better support and engage economically disadvantaged students disproportionately impacted by antiquated educational models. Financially underprivileged students require more support for academic success (Garcia & Weiss, 2017; Heiten, 2016; Ng, 2018; Tyner & Kabourek, 2020) and will require a strategic shift to offer personalized instruction (Rubin & Sanford, 2018), incorporate strategic use of technology (Gilmore & Ross, 2020), among other supporting methods. Merging technology-based options and UDL endorses the myriad ways each student learns (Freedburg, 2019; Zheng et al., 2016). The theoretical frameworks and concepts of UDL, especially for those who have disabilities and other subgroupings of students, have been researched (CAST, 2018; ESSA, 2015; Hall et al., 2015; Hehir & Katzman, 2012; Nepo, 2017; Novak & Rodriguez, 2016; Ok et al., 2017; Rubin & Sanford, 2018; Shogren & Wehmeyer, 2014; Smith et al., 2019). However, actionable systems supporting student sub-groups, such as the economically disadvantaged, have been overlooked.

As the district monitors progress toward improving targets using MCAS Assessment data, by 2024, all schools will have a cumulative Progress and Performance Index (PPI) greater than 75 for all economically disadvantaged students. Per DESE, for a subgroup to meet PPI targets, it must have a cumulative criterion-referenced target percentage of 75% or higher.

Create a logic model to articulate the purposes of the change effort.

Lawton et al. (2014) share that deploying a logic model has many benefits, such as a structure to help define articulated and actionable questions surrounding a strategy. Novak and Rodriguez (2016) believe a logic model forces participants to be overt about the actions, how success is measured, and under what assumptions underlie the work. UDL provides flexibility in presenting engaging academic content and how students demonstrate knowledge and skills. However, ensuring that all students receive high-quality instruction focusing on a standards-based curriculum in a safe and supportive learning environment has not increased academic growth for students in the High Needs population.

With recent changes to the district administration team and the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been ample reasons for stalling initiatives around the continued development of the UDL framework. The district offers varied professional development on aligning lessons and instructional materials to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and UDL framework. In addition, there is a desire to adhere to state and federal regulations by developing and delivering a comprehensive tiered instructional model. Further, other support systems are being developed, including:

  • Creation of a district professional development committee to support district initiatives
  • Refinement of the Student Support Team (SST) process
  • Engaging instructional staff in the creation of scope and sequence documentation 
  • Continual alignment of curriculum and lessons with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks with a focus on integrating UDL principles
  • Annually review recommendations, ensuring adequate staffing for all three tiers of MTSS
  • Created an MTSS Implementation Action Plan (completed in 2020-2021). (This plan included curriculum, instruction, assessment, and technology integration in support of all students)
  • Adopted assessment resources, including curriculum-based common assessments, universal screening measures, and progress monitoring tools
  • Continue to integrate UDL principles into the new staff induction program
  • Developed an educator evaluation plan with power elements that align with UDL

By inviting all learners into our classrooms under all three tiers of the MTSS framework and employing UDL principles in the curriculum and instruction, we ensure academic success for all students to have equal opportunities to learn the same rigorous material. 

Identify relevant sources from the change literature that support your change initiative. 

Meyer et al. (2014) developed the UDL framework, which relies on removing barriers, enabling intrinsic motivation, and a growth mindset for all learners. Once identified as a framework worthy of pursuit, research from Meyer et al. (2014) and Meyer and Rose (2000) provide a foundation and purpose; sharing UDL adoption maintains that learners with a growth mindset are motivated by self-development through accessible materials, engaging instruction, choice, variability, and equal learning opportunities (Meyer et al., 2014). 

Research by Novak and Rodriguez (2016) brings UDL theory into practice, which they believe has tremendous promise. School leaders promote active learning for students and staff by developing a professional learning network focusing on delivering the curriculum through high-quality instruction, amplifying instructional strengths. In addition, it supports all learners in becoming expert learners (Novak & Rodriguez, 2016). 

With the outlined problem surrounding financially underprivileged students, Reich (2020) and Saphier (2021) stand out with recent aspects worthy of consideration. First, Reich (2020) suggests that new technologies reinforce existing instructional norms and do not necessarily improve practices or allow students to develop critical thinking skills. Further, to Saphier (2021), raising student achievement requires significant changes to instruction at the classroom and grade level to move towards genuinely equitable outcomes for all students. Alongside researched practices, Saphier (2021) identifies courage and determination as crucial to pushing for better instructional practices in leading a change initiative. Further, educators are responsible for moving all students towards proficiency within the academic standards and should inculcate engaging instruction and motivation for financially underprivileged students (Saphier, 2021).

Foundational efforts by Meyer et al. (2014) and Meyer and Rose (2000) connect neuroscience and motivation and engagement to becoming an expert learner. Novak and Rodriguez (2016) outline district-level leadership measures needed to train and deliver high-quality instruction. Among many others, Reich (2020) and Saphier (2021) connect to new ways of engaging and teaching required to connect with financially underprivileged students.

PART TWO – Diagnosis & Direction

Identify current/prospective leaders and describe their attributes and qualities that could affect positive or productive change.

Moving forward with the MTSS and UDL initiatives, district and building leadership should support research-supported instructional practices in the classroom and develop a growth mindset among all staff. In their research, Kouzes and Posner (2007) suggest leaders model the behavior they expect and explicitly share the relevance and benefits to the change initiative. Unfortunately, the district’s most prominent proponent of the MTSS and UDL implementation resigned from their position one year ago. With this loss in relevant leadership, there has been a void connecting the past six years of performance and strategy, leading to a backward reversion. Redefining the changes sought and removing non-essential initiatives not aligned with the district vision and goals is a directive needed from the superintendent of schools. In addition to the superintendent, the newly appointed assistant superintendent has developed a robust rapport with fellow leaders. Operating under servant leadership is often perceived as following a force for good with leadership direction (Northouse, 2016). Servant leadership and theoretical framework build relationships with their followers that help them grow and better understand the significance of the change (Bass & Bass, 2008). In addition, over the past year, the assistant superintendent has showcased “altruism and has a strong motivation for deep-seated interest in helping others” (Northouse, 2016, p. 239). Continued relationship building and servant leadership are needed to support the district moving forward on extensive systematic change connecting across nearly all facets of social, emotional, and academic systems. 

Marion and Gonzalez (2014) suggest leaders hold back on implementing too many changes because inertia may mask the problems. In this case, for the upcoming year, the district administration must identify core objectives and district-level efforts directly related to MTSS and UDL implementation and eliminate frivolous and time-consuming activities that will hinder progress and focus. Other non-essential activities and objectives will creep into play without a clear roadmap. As Fullan (2001) suggests, piecemeal projects are inherently bad for school districts, requiring leaders to select quality and educationally sound projects to focus time and attention. After a challenging year engaged in unfocused COVID-19 pandemic efforts, administration and teachers yearn for the simplicity and freedom of improving students’ academic and emotional outcomes. Wheatley (2009) describes this desire for simplicity and focus by leaders, passed down to subordinates “not by complex controls, but by the presence of a few guiding formulas or principles” (p. 13). The upcoming school year will welcome the continued deployment of the MTSS and UDL frameworks for instructional staff and identify the levers that will consistently address the alignment to the implementation efforts. Based on the ongoing development of the instructional model teachers undertake to support all students, leadership should be cognizant of change efforts, and “good leaders know when it is time to change and when it is not” (Marion & Gonzalez, 2014, p. 361).  

As Fullan (2001) shares regarding leaders needing a dependable support structure, “strong institutions have many leaders at all levels” (p. 134).  However, this past year highlighted a void across all departments, partially due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that must be worked through to move the district forward. Kotter (2012) shares a sensitivity of leadership complacency where change initiatives can die on arrival. Further, Wheatley (2009) elaborates on the opportunities within the chaos of change effort. Harnessing educators’ desire to return to regular schooling, focusing on improving pedagogy and instructional practices, leaders should strive to support the district change initiative amongst the chaos while eliminating unnecessary activities not focused on the larger MTSS and UDL implementation and alignment of curriculum and lessons with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks with a focus on integrating UDL principles.

Diagnose the strengths/weaknesses operant in the organization using a “T” chart.

Force Field Analysis “T” Chart

Develop a strategy for changing the situation. Articulate actions you will take over the next year to address the problem. 

Working through the structure of Kotter’s (2012) eight-stage change process and cross-walking with planning for the successful adoption of the MTSS and UDL frameworks will be reviewed specifically on defrosting the status-quo. As we exit the COVID-19 pandemic, the district lacks urgency and is operating at a high level of complacency as it collectively reviews the overall academic progress and growth. Yet, on the other hand, the academic performance of economically disadvantaged students is not maintaining pace with peers, and it may come down to a lack of information in the hands of instructional staff necessary to alter the course. Therefore, Kotter’s (2012) first step surrounding urgency develops a visioning statement easily conveyed to district and building administration stakeholders. Then, to continue creating a data culture within each school, building administrators can present data sets and findings on the underperformance across sub-groupings of students. The complacency is unacceptable, considering the district’s mission and vision to embrace a growth mindset and eliminate inequities for all students. Further, sharing the relevant data alongside the UDL instructional framework as an instructional approach can narrow the academic gap of economically disadvantaged students and build a sense of urgency. Educators must confront and address educational inequities that persist among low-income students under the umbrellas of MTSS and UDL frameworks.

For step two, Kotter (2012) suggests building a small team or coalition within the district to develop the plans set forth by the visioning efforts. This small group of educators, department chairs, and administration should meet weekly to create clear lines of communication, shared understanding of the MTSS and UDL frameworks, and relationship building necessary for robust implementation of the UDL curriculum and instructional design. Building credibility and developing common knowledge will lead to step three, creating a vision and strategy. Developing a clear plan, shared understanding of the levers at play, and goals for implementing MTSS and UDL will help identify appropriate resources and strategies for success, as well as inappropriate activities and clutter that can derail the efforts. A schedule of completed goals will be defined with the plan and vision outlined by the coalition. The informational details are communicated often, and a transformational vision’s status quo culture will take many hours of collective effort. Further, coalition members will need to model the behavior they expect to observe during instruction and lesson development, typically called leadership by example (Kotter, 2012).

Leading to step four, as core elements of professional development and growth needed to support district initiatives, Short and Hirsch (2020) recommend teachers continuously assess practices and beliefs on scaffolding instruction, always maintaining high expectations for students. Further, the administration can model and promote active learning for students and staff by developing a professional learning network that delivers the curriculum through high-quality instruction (Short & Hirsch, 2020). Finally, if the organization moves in the same direction, Kotter (2012) recommends enlisting all educators and support personnel to rally around the change effort, further empowering everyone for organizational change demands. Professionally developing all staff in the district across various learning opportunities, including focused graduate course work, book discussion groups, informal instructional communities, and modeling at faculty meetings (and more) eliminates barriers (step five) to implementing the MTSS and UDL frameworks. For instance, with a focus on incorporating rich-technology use and connecting academic standards in a district-wide implementation of UDL frameworks, ample, tiered opportunities within lessons and the curriculum will empower all staff.

Toward the end of Kotter’s (2012) process for leading a change effort, leaders and staff must identify, acknowledge, and actively sit with small wins in step six. Leaders must set aside faculty meeting time, informal in-person and digital communications, and many additional opportunities to connect with staff, appreciate, and celebrate the implementation efforts alongside the academic improvements of students targeted for support and implementation of MTSS. Through school committee meetings and messages to the community, the district administration should highlight the significant efforts undertaken and the successes as they occur. Recognizing the steps to motivate and maintain a proper pace toward intended goals will be necessary for the successful and long-term adoption of MTSS and UDL frameworks. 

When relationships form with administration, instructional, and non-instructional support staff, a foundation develops to cement the district’s MTSS and UDL frameworks. Further, as systems support all learners’ weaknesses and develop learner expertise (Meyer et al., 2014), leaders and teachers should continue identifying growth areas within the MTSS and UDL frameworks, fighting a regression of old habits that leaves economically disadvantaged students vulnerable. Through school leadership and district administration meetings focusing on professional development necessary to maintain UDL principles embedded in instructional practices and data-driven decision-making, new behaviors will soon become standard practices. These new behaviors in adopting research-supported universally designed instruction within the foundational development of a multi-tiered support system will develop a culture and norms of behavior. The interdependence of the frameworks and providing instructional practices for all students, regularly adapting best practices tied to the UDL principles, further wholly replace the old status quo culture.

PART THREE – Transformation

Propose a leadership approach required to influence and affect intended outcomes.

With the identified problem outline, a transformational leader is best suited to proactively align organizational goals alongside deploying the UDL frameworks’ implementation. The transformational leadership style lends itself to a leader who walks the talk while garnering respect from subordinates. Although other leadership theories may come into play, such as servant leadership, which supports self-sacrificial leaders postponing their rewards in pursuit of organizational goals and to the benefit of their subordinates, the majority of the leadership style attributes will come from the transformational theory. Burns and Rechy (2004) explore the transformational leadership theory, which demands leaders transcend self-interests and connect intrinsic motivation directly to the most critical group tasked with a goal. The transformational leader shoulders the weight of the change effort by maintaining organizational norms, values, and philosophies directly impacting students and teachers. Explained that for organizational success and meeting the intrinsically motivated desires of educators, the transformational leader can influence the school districts’ delicate leadership balance between the administration team and instructional staff (Bass & Bass, 2008). 

The deployment of a foundational and universally designed instructional framework supporting all students will require considerable training to achieve. Kotter (2012) suggests building short-term wins into the journey as educational leaders, especially leaders often driven to an all-or-nothing approach, should find comfort and joy in the little victories. Traditional educational management techniques will not significantly accomplish adopting the UDL instructional model and larger MTSS initiative. The transformational leader must push against the institution’s status quo by coordinating necessary improvements and alignment to goals and academic standards for change within the organization; however, institutional constraints inherent in public education can prevent transformational changes (Bush, 2008). Further, traditional educational management practice does not account for the continual state of innovation (Hawkins & James, 2017) nor for a leader’s responsibility to engage in high levels of interaction needed to improve the status quo (Connolly et al., 2019). A genuinely transformative leader has many styles in their arsenal that suit the organization’s urgency for results and, when applicable, have the cultural cache to try a leadership style that suits the needs of a particular decision. Bass and Bass (2008) indicate there isn’t a consensus on the leadership style most effective in public education. However, transformative leaders are most successful when setting challenging expectations, working towards a shared vision, and involving subordinates in decision-making. Generally, educational leaders are less successful when reactionary and don’t work towards a common culture or goal (Shields, 2010). A transformative leader should model and contribute to innovative changes within an organization. While pursuing instructional techniques to optimize academic growth within the UDL frameworks, an ethically-focused leader, forged by past experiences and adherence to a strict duty of care, should intertwine transformational changes alongside supportive relationships with all stakeholders. Transformative leaders must “challenge unjust practices, overcome inequity, and create conditions under which all children can learn” (Shields, 2010, p. 582).

Analyze likely reactions from stakeholders involved.

In developing an implementation roadmap and identifying how UDL principles align with a standards-based curriculum, district leadership is pursuing a foundational strategy rooted in best practices to improve student academic outcomes. Including instructional staff alongside district and building administration in instructional and curriculum development is vital. Within a delicate balance of advancing towards new educational frameworks, enlisting a team to identify common goals is important within transformational leadership theory (Gallos, 2006). When instructional staff supports motivation and student voices—sharing ideas and perspectives—through purposeful learning activities and outcomes, strong student-teacher relationships develop, and academic results improve for economically disadvantaged students (Ng, 2018). Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers want to reconnect with students, building healthier relationships alongside support and encouragement from leadership. Dancy (2016) observed the foundational importance of educators’ relationship with students to enhance abilities and motivation and overcome the stereotypes attributed to students of low socioeconomic status. Through observations of instruction and focus groups of teachers, Dancy (2016) reported a consensus that students’ unique and individual needs were crucial in planning a practical and engaging lesson, which requires a deeper connection and relationship with the student and reliance upon UDL principles. Therefore, economically disadvantaged students require more care and attention, and UDL and MTSS frameworks are a means to increase teacher effectiveness and academic achievement (ESSA, 2015).

Pursuing UDL framework adoption maintains that students with a growth mindset are motivated by self-development through engaging instruction, which offers choice, variability, and equal learning opportunities (Meyer et al., 2014). Rather than remaining academically stagnant or accepting a decline from students’ sub-groupings, district leadership is proactive in implementing an academic support system and is likely years ahead of some comparatively located and sized school districts. Just as critical in moving forward with the UDL framework is developing a district-level UDL implementation strategy alongside instructional staff and consideration for removing barriers, enabling intrinsic motivation and a growth mindset, accounting for teacher variability, and how the UDL framework will support the professional growth of instructional staff. Scott (2018) identified multiple concerns incorporating the principles of UDL through inclusive instructional practices, which include a lack of preparedness to implement the UDL framework and insufficient professional development. Research by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) suggests mastery of new teaching techniques, such as incorporating UDL principles, requires extensive coaching and practice and 40 hours of professional development to become proficient. Therefore district leadership should account for training on the UDL framework in support of instructional staff, identifying their unique learning styles, and acknowledging a shared understanding of the pedagogical adjustments required to support a successful implementation. With ample time allotted for teachers to explore the UDL frameworks, accept instructional coaching, develop instructional lessons embedded with UDL principles, and integrate UDL principles within scope and sequence documentation, the change initiatives will have a greater chance at success. 

Articulate the benefit of your team’s plan. What evidence will demonstrate movement toward the team’s proposed goal? Who will be served? 

Creating an action plan with teachers, focusing on the UDL principles, and aligning with a standards-based curriculum can result in greater exposure to an improved instructional model and more significant data-based decision-making. Therefore, the instructional changes could close the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically underprivileged students. Downward trends in MCAS achievement results for our neediest students and the application of the MTSS model, built on the UDL framework, is needed to meet all students’ needs by optimizing data-driven decision-making, developing evidence-based instruction, and ensuring high-quality education for every student (Multi-Tiered System of Support, 2018). With past data supporting instructional practice adjustments, future data collection on the opportunities required to activate the UDL principles of engagement and motivation. Through observations, statewide assessment data, and internal assessment data, a clearer picture of the barriers facing teachers and economically disadvantaged students will become focused, allowing leadership to target support for UDL-infused instructional methods. Further, MCAS assessment data, utilization of transformational leadership theory, and Kotter’s (2012) eight-stage change process can support the successful adoption of the MTSS and UDL frameworks. Continual monitoring of DESE’s Progress and Performance Index (PPI) will provide details into adjustments needed on the roadmap towards the proposed goal of all students, including economically disadvantaged students, increasing their PPI to greater than 75 percent.

References

2019 Official Accountability Report. (2019). School and District Report Cards – Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. DESE. http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/accountability/report/district.aspx?linkid=30&orgcode=06730000&orgtypecode=5&

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). Models and theories of leadership. In Handbook of Leadership: 

Theory, Research, and Application (4th ed.). Free Press.

Burns, J. M., & Rechy, J. (2004). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. Grove Press.

Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 271–280.

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 791-807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074

Connolly, M., James, C., & Fertig, M. (2019). The difference between educational management and educational leadership and the importance of educational responsibility. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(4), 504-519. http://dx.doi.org.une.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1741143217745880

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

ESSA. (2015). Every student succeeds act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

ESSA State Plan. (2018). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. https://www.doe.mass.edu/federalgrants/essa/stateplan

Gallos, J. V. (2006). Organization development. Jossey-Bass.

Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2017).  Reducing and averting achievement gaps: Key findings from the report ‘Education inequalities at the school starting gate’ and comprehensive strategies to mitigate early skills gaps. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/130888.pdf

Gilmore, S., & Ross, D. (2020). Integrating technology: A school-wide framework to enhance learning. Heinemann.

Hawkins, M. & James, C. R. (2017). Developing a perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 729–748. https://journals-sagepub-com.une.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/1741143217711192

Heitin, L. (2016). Digital Literacy: Forging Agreement on a Definition: Digital Literacy: An Evolving Definition. Education Week, 36(12) https://une.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.une.idm.oclc.org/docview/1841791212?accountid=12756

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The five practices of exemplary leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Lawton, B.,  Brandon, P. R.,  Cicchinelli, L. & Kekahio, W. (2014). Logic models: A tool for designing and monitoring program evaluations. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544752.pdf

Lowrey, K. A., Classen, A., & Sylvest, A. (2019). Exploring ways to support preservice teachers’ use of UDL in planning and instruction. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1). https://une.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.une.idm.oclc.org/scholarly-journals/exploring-ways-support-preservice-teachers-use/docview/2408510354/se-2?accountid=12756

Marion, R. & Gonzales, L.D. (2014). The change-oriented leader. In leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.   

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.

Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Multi-tiered system of support: Blueprint for MA. (2018). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. https://www.doe.mass.edu/sfss/mtss/blueprint.pdf

Ng, C. (2018). Using student voice to promote reading engagement for economically disadvantaged students. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(4), 700–715. https://doi-org.une.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12249

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally designed leadership: Applying UDL to systems and schools. CAST Professional Publishing.

Reich, J. (2020). A failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Saphier, J. (2021). The courage to lead. Research for Better Teaching. http://rbteach.com/blogs/courage-lead

Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589. https://doi-org.une.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609

Schmoker, M. (2020). Radical reset: The case for minimalist literacy standard. Educational Leadership, 77(5), 44-50. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb20/vol77/num05/Radical-Reset@-The-Case-for-Minimalist-Literacy-Standards.aspx

Short, J., & Hirsh, S. (2020). The elements: Transforming teaching through curriculum-based professional learning. Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/47/94/47947a81-4fdf-421b-a5e8-fbb211898ee0/elements_report_november_2020.pdf

Tyner, A., & Kabourek, S. (2020). Social studies instruction and reading comprehension: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/resources/social-studies-instruction-and- reading-comprehension