Leveraging the full potential of tiered intervention systems can support recovery and redesign

Students and educators have a broad range of needs, and actors across the education ecosystem are looking for ways to meet those needs. Policymakers are looking for solutions to address growing inequity. Innovators are looking for ways to better personalize learning. System leaders are looking for ways to make the work systematic and sustainable.

There is a set of structures and processes already in place in many schools across the country that, fully leveraged, could simultaneously serve many of these purposes: tiered interventions systems.

Tiered intervention systems are at the center of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), an umbrella that encompasses Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). This link has more on the history, as well as a definition of terms and a primer on the common elements, and this link has a deep dive on MTSS in practice.

These systems could be a major source of support for students and families in this time:

1. They are designed to support equity in action, giving every student access to the support they need to reach their full potential.
2. They are student centered — every process is driven by understanding and providing the support students need to achieve success.
3. They are designed to be sustainable and systemic, creating shared language and schema for conversations about student needs and structures and routines that support the act.
4. They take a team-based approach, allowing a group of people with close proximity to a student to pool perspectives, understand the full story, and determine the plan.
5. They are already part of the ecosystem in many states and schools; the teams already exist, and the time is already allocated.

However, to leverage the full potential of tiered intervention systems, we need to address some fundamental challenges common to implementation across states and districts:

1. Conversations about student needs can orient toward students’ deficits. Deficit-based approaches and language can lead students to fixed, deficit-based thinking about themselves as learners (e.g., “I am in the Bears Reading Group so I must not be that smart.”). Students of color are disproportionately identified for intervention. The deficit focus compounds a long history of underestimation and marginalization, causing outcome gaps.
2. Conversations between people that deeply understand MTSS and those who somewhat understand MTSS often require translators to help bridge the language of different divisions.
3. Tiered intervention systems must build on great core (Tier I) instruction. Too often, the management of tiered intervention systems drives focus away from core instruction.
4. The different tiers of support frequently do not speak to each other, creating fragmented learning for the students who need the most coherence.
5. The spirit of shared responsibility can translate to accountability Hot Potato: “It’s okay if my student doesn’t get it in here because I know she will have Tier II support.”
6. Tiered intervention systems can be perceived or managed as special education initiatives. This can result in missed opportunities for stronger connections to other state and district processes and can decenter other groups with important learning needs (especially multilingual learners).

Acknowledging that every team will navigate different parameters and contexts, there are some immediate changes to the management and implementation of tiered intervention systems that would help them better meet the needs of the moment. We can start by:

1. Eradicating deficit-based language and actively bringing student assets and interests into the problem-solving frameworks. We need to consistently talk about tiering supports, not tiering students.
2. Bringing family and student experience data into the system alongside academic and social and emotional data to inform understanding and solutions.
3. Consistently disaggregating data at every phase of the intervention system by demographic group to identify discrepancies and get to root causes and solutions for those patterns.
4. Strengthening the connection between:
   - High-quality instructional materials and Tier I instruction guidance; academics and special education teams need to share language and vision of effective instruction.
   - High-quality instructional materials, intervention programs, and progress monitoring; there should be a strong recommendation in support of curriculum-connected assessments and interventions, where available, to preserve coherence of the learning approach.
5. Conversations about tutoring and conversations about tiered intervention systems; tutoring could and should be a viable Tier II and Tier III offering. (Look for more on this in the next email.)

There is a great deal we can do to strengthen the approach to tiered systems of support. Leaning into this work can support recovery and strengthen the capacity of schools and school systems to flexibly understand and address student needs — and deliver equitable results, now and over time.

Here are resources I have been learning from on this topic:

• Tim Shanahan recently addressed questions about screening and progress monitoring
• EdWeek featured research on literacy small groups
• The Evidence Project’s Principles for Effective Assessment