Multi-Tiered System of Support

High-quality, standards-aligned core instruction (Tier 1 - Universal) lies at the heart of healthy, equitable, and sustainable multi-tiered systems. The Standards Aligned System (SAS), developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, is a comprehensive, evidence-based resource to improve student achievement. SAS identifies six elements that impact student achievement:  Standards,  Assessments,  Curriculum Framework,  Instruction  Materials & Resources, and Safe and Supportive Schools. Schools and educators across Pennsylvania are supported in their efforts to implement SAS with the assistance of a state-of-the-art portal.  This brief video highlights the updated features in SAS.  Within PA’s standards-aligned system, all students, including students with disabilities, are provided with meaningful access to standards-based instruction via inclusive based classrooms (K-12), toward successful  post-secondary outcomes. 

Universal Screening in literacy, mathematics, behavior, and social-emotional skills is a core tenet of MTSS. Universal screening is typically conducted during the fall, winter, and spring of each year to assess the health of core instruction and supplemental intervention within and across grade levels. Through universal screening, schools use a continuum of reliable and valid data sources to identify and meet the needs of all students in a timely and efficient manner. In addition, the universal screening process should reflect cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student needs and strengths. 

National Center for Intensive Intervention Screening Charts 

Screening Tool 

 Shared ownership to include all stakeholders within MTSS is shared leadership at the district, building, grade/departmental, and individual problem-solving levels. Teams at each level implement evidence-based practices with fidelity and monitor the impact of those efforts on students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes. Teams build capacity through collaboration, coaching, and data-based decision-making as part of continuous school improvement.

 Data-based decision-making is a process used to inform whether students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs are being met within the context of the health of core instruction (Tier 1) and supplemental intervention (Advanced Tiers). Universal screening, progress-monitoring, diagnostic, and summative measures are used to regularly inform instruction and intervention toward enhanced outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities.  

Within the elementary and secondary levels, the health of core instruction is informed by the percentage of students who reach benchmark status on time in fall, winter, and spring and remain at benchmark status as a function of expected growth rates each year. For students who present with risk, the combination of meaningful access to healthy, standards-aligned core instruction (Tier 1) and healthy, supplemental evidence-based intervention (Advanced Tier Supports and Services) matched to need is expected to result in above-typical growth rates over time for the majority, including
 students with disabilities. 

As indicated above, the ongoing monitoring of student achievement and growth patterns over time using reliable and valid data sources is a critical component of data-based decision-making. Ideally and within an effective, sustainable MTSS, increasing percentages of students reach benchmark status on time, decreasing percentages of students are in receipt of the most intensive supports and services, and issues related to disproportionality are addressed and mitigated. For all students, including students with disabilities, the goal of MTSS is enhanced growth and achievement toward successful post-secondary academic, behavioral and social-emotional outcomes ⏵.  Common tools that school-based teams use include  individual problem-solving and  Tier-3 problem-solving as well as an array of protocols, surveys, and forms. 

Common Data-Based Decision-Making Talking Points: 

1. Describe how systems or tools assist educators with user-friendly access to student and classroom performance data and interpretative reports. 
2. Describe the extent to which the design of the building schedule (annual assessment calendar) supports opportunities for ongoing “data examination.” 
3. Attach sample meeting notes (with student names redacted) that verify the establishment of grade level goal setting, identification of core instructional strategies matched to student needs/goals, how grade level goal attainment is monitored, and indicators of met goals. 
4. Based upon the disaggregated performance of  students with disabilities, English Learners, and students with economic disadvantage, describe changes that have led to improved core and supplemental instruction and intended outcomes. 
5. Identify the progress monitoring measures you use and what would happen if a student’s performance continued to fall below grade level expectations after a designated period of supplemental intervention. 

Pennsylvania’s integrated tiered model is defined as having 3 tiers. All students, including students with disabilities, are provided meaningful access to high-quality, standards-aligned core instruction (Tier 1/universal and classwide intervention). Tier 2 support is more targeted and generally reserved for 10-15% of students.  Tier 3 is considered the most  intensive support and service for approximately 3-5% of students. It should be noted that advanced tier levels of support and services (i.e., Tiers 2 and 3) cannot replace or compensate for limited  fidelity at Tier 1.  Each tier is delivered with fidelity and within the context of  evidence-based practices matched to student needs and informed using a continuum of reliable and valid data sources. 

Collaborative partnerships within MTSS is focused on the meaningful engagement and empowerment of students and their families. Opportunities are thoughtfully co-created and enacted to support healthy partnerships with all families including school-wide, tailored, and highly customized strategies within the context of culturally responsive, collaborative opportunities. 

Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) refers to the methodology that is used to determine how slow is slow (rate of growth) and how low is low (student’s level of performance), as an alternative to ability-achievement discrepancy within a comprehensive Specific Learning Disability Determination process. Common RTI methodologies include Rate of Improvement, Student Growth Percentiles, and Mastery Measurement. 

Pennsylvania refers to this alternative as the “RTI Approach” to evaluating Specific Learning Disabilities and has developed a tool that assists interested schools to evaluate fidelity of implementation of their MTSS for the use of the RTI approach for Determination of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD).

Effective and sustainable tiered systems are associated with the attraction, preparation, and retention of educators who seek to continuously apply research to practice with fidelity and within many supportive conditions that include but are not limited to administrative leadership, professional learning communities, collaborative teaming, and access to systems and instructional level coaching.