MTSS Pitfalls: Going from Abstract Theory to On-The-Ground Success

MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support), as a theory, is rock solid. But on the ground, within actual schools with real teachers and real students, implementation challenges run rampant. This does not mean we should give up. But it does mean we need to focus on how we can do this better.

MTSS can be defined as a preventative and proactive framework that relies on data to meet the needs of each student, through a tiered infrastructure of increasingly intensified instructional and social, emotional behavior supports. As we emerge from the pandemic, students are demonstrating a strong need for social and emotional support along with academic assistance. Meanwhile, MTSS offers a promising approach to meet this need. But without effective implementation, MTSS risks becoming an overly academic concept fancied by those looking from afar.

In August 2022, PowerSchool released its Education Focus Report, Top District Priorities and Shifts in PK-12 Education. In addition to reviewing district strategic plans and leading education research, we solicited insights from educators via roundtables, a national online survey of more than 3,500 respondents, and interviews with thought leaders.

A key finding in this report is that MTSS, while a priority for many districts, is challenging to implement.

For example, 40% of District Instructional Leaders (Chief Academic Officers, Curriculum Directors, etc.) report that they “want to use MTSS consistently but have had challenges implementing lately.” Another 28% say they implement some tiered components, like Response to Intervention (RTI), but don’t use MTSS as a framework. Since RTI is more focused on academic supports, this latter response suggests behavioral or social and emotional components of tiered interventions are not being implemented. Later in the report, we learn from survey respondents that most educators feel that whole-child supports are fundamental to student learning and development, so tiered supports focused on academic success and not whole-child success represents a disconnect in the MTSS implementation process.

The question is: “What contributes to these implementation challenges?”

Below, I focus on five common implementation pitfalls:

As a first step, District leadership must articulate a clear and compelling vision for MTSS. This vision should underscore that MTSS is a preventative and proactive framework to support student success, intended for all students, not just students with disabilities. While MTSS traditionally appears in a pyramid model focused on remediation, the emerging “Diamond Model” also focuses on extension for learners who are on the other end of the spectrum and ready to be challenged. (source: Greenville Public Schools)

Secondly, districts should clearly define then document their MTSS processes and workflows. Often, we see situations where districts and schools experience “pockets of excellence” but not systemic excellence when it comes to implementation. Clearly defined and known processes are required for systemic coherence and excellence. Once processes are defined, a continuous improvement process can take hold. Districts, such as Miami–Dade in Florida, have done a great job of defining processes, including developing an implementation guide inclusive of MTSS flowcharts that articulate each step in the MTSS process.  

Lastly, I’d recommend that a district undergo a self-evaluation process to monitor fidelity of MTSS implementation. The Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports at the American Institutes of Research offers a free MTSS Fidelity of Implementation Rubric for use by individuals and teams responsible for supporting implementation of MTSS. This can be a powerful tool to help focus your improvement efforts.  

MTSS requires teaming structures in which educators collectively review data and oversee the implementation process. The Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports recommends that typically, schools run a leadership team to oversee the implementation of MTSS as well as a team to identify and support students who may need additional interventions. This may involve a schoolwide leadership team (core/Tier 1), a grade or content level team (i.e. PLCs or math team, also supporting Tier 1), a Tier 2 team, and a Tier 3 team. The other key part of these teams is to ensure that there is time and space to review and reflect on data. Having a robust data culture significantly accelerates MTSS implementation.  

Traditionally districts should aim to see about 80-90% of students in Tier 1, 5-15% in Tier 2 and 1-5% in Tier 3. But in many cases, we experience much higher percentages at the Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels. This is problematic on several levels. First, most districts simply do not have the resource capacity to support that many interventions. But, perhaps even more critically, an overwhelmed Tier 2 and Tier 3 system indicates that more time and attention is needed to support the instructional core within Tier 1.  

At its core, MTSS can be broken down into the five steps depicted in the graphic below, starting with the review of data. We find that educators often jump from system to system, spreadsheet to spreadsheet, and form to form to complete this entire process.  

Universal screeners, diagnostic assessments, intervention plans, progress monitoring forms, progress monitoring trackers, and intervention templates are just a few of the tools within MTSS all potentially located in different systems. As educators hunt for these items, they waste precious time that could be directed toward students. The chaos of system jumping also clouds workflow definition – making it harder to understand which steps come next in the process and contributing to system incoherence. Meanwhile understanding the efficacy of interventions is nearly impossible, especially at the district level.  

Today’s technologies allow for the entire MTSS workflow to be housed in one solution. For example, PowerSchool MTSS solution enables educators to review a holistic set of data (academic, behavior, attendance, SEL, etc.) in one place. They can select the appropriate intervention based on student needs and then monitor the progress of the intervention in real time. District staff cannot only view which schools assign what interventions but can see the results. This can help tailor professional learning efforts or inform resource allocation decisions.  

About Sarah Singer

Sarah Singer brings more than 10 years of education experience to her role at PowerSchool. She now helps K-12 education agencies create strategic plans for building a data-driven environment.

Sarah entered Portland Public Schools in 2007 as a Broad Resident in Urban Education, a national and highly selective two-year management development program that recruits and trains emerging leaders for senior management positions in public education. She went on to serve as the Senior Advisor to the Chief Academic Officer. Later, she oversaw the Research, Evaluation, Assessment, Administration, and Analytics Departments in the district.