Redesigning Multi-Tiered Services in Schools: Redefining the Tiers and the Difference between Services and Interventions

Dear Colleagues,

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

Introduction

   During the past month or so, I have been updating (and last week, just finished) my best-selling electronic monograph: 

A Multi-Tiered Service and Support Implementation Guidebook for Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Book]

   While this monograph was first written during the “No Child Left Behind” years, with additional years of research and implementation (in well over a thousand schools across the country), and the arrival of the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it was time for a major overhaul.

   Critically, the monograph is written—literally—as a real implementation guide.  Not only does it identify and help pragmatically correct a number of critical flaws in the U.S. Department of Education’s MTSS and (old) RtI frameworks, the Guidebook provides a step-by-step flowchart on how to implement a proven, field-tested multi-tiered process for academically struggling and/or socially, emotionally, or behaviorally challenging students.

   These MTSS/RtI flaws, collectively, have resulted in delayed and/or incorrect services being “delivered” to students . . .  and failed service—that have both exacerbated the original problems and increased student and staff resistance to the “next” service to be tried.

   We discussed many of these issue within months of ESEA’s passage.  See, for example, our March 4, 2016 Blog:

[CLICK HERE]

The New ESEA/ESSA: Discontinuing the U.S. Department of Education's School Turn-Around, and Multi-tiered Academic (RtI) and Behavioral (PBIS) System of Support (MTSS) Frameworks

   But, more importantly, we have talked about solutions. . . that are real, defensible, and that result in more effective and successful student services and success.

   And some of these solutions require educators to question and modify some critical assumptions.

   Today, I want to talk about two such assumptions:

• Assumption #1.  That the “tiers” in a multi-tiered system of supports are real, tangible, and similar across districts and states. 
• Assumption #2.  That the “supports” in a multi-tiered system of supports are uniform.

   As usual, today’s Blog message was triggered by my work in the field.  During a number of recent consultations, I was challenged to clarify my comments regarding these two assumptions.  As you will see below, one result was the differentiation between “Services” and “Interventions.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

An Introduction to Multi-Tiered Services and ESEA

   The goal of every school across the country is to maximize the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral progress and proficiency of every student.  Ultimately, this translates into academic independence and social, emotional, and behavioral self-management, respectively (see the Full Blog message for definitions). 

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

   All of this is accomplished through (a) effective and differentiated classroom instruction, complemented with (b) positive and successful classroom management, that (c) is delivered by highly qualified teachers who have (d) administrators, instructional support and related services staff, and other consultants available to support classrooms, grade-level or teaching units, and other school programs and processes.  All of this is intended to result in students who demonstrate age-appropriate (or beyond) independent learning and behavioral self-management skills.

   While an admirable goal, the reality is that not all students are successful even when in effective classrooms.  Indeed, some students come to the schoolhouse door at-risk for educational failure, while others are struggling learners who are disengaged, unmotivated, unresponsive, underperforming, or consistently unsuccessful.  These struggles occur academically and/or as social, emotional, or behavioral challenges.  For these students, districts and schools are required to have multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, programs, interventions, and systems to address their individual academic or behavioral needs.

_ _ _ _ _

The Elementary and Secondary Education/Every Student Succeeds Act and Multi-Tiered Services

   The Elementary and Secondary Education/Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA/ESSA) was signed into law by President Obama on December 10, 2015.  Most notably, the Law transfers much of the responsibility for developing, implementing, and evaluating effective school and schooling processes to state departments of education and school districts across the country.  It also includes a number of specific provisions to help to ensure success for all students and schools.

   Relative to at-risk, disengaged, unmotivated, unresponsive, underperforming, or consistently unsuccessful students, ESEA/ESSA defines and requires districts and schools to establish a “multi-tiered system of supports” for specific groups of students.

   ESEA/ESSA’s definition of a multi-tiered system of supports is as follows:

“a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students’ needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision-making.”

   While this definition states that a district or school’s multi-tiered system is designed and implemented for any student “in need,” ESEA/ESSA also specifically cites the use of multi-tiered systems of support with the following students or instructional areas:  (a) students with disabilities, including children with significant cognitive disabilities; (b) English Language Learners; (c) children with developmental delays; and (d) in the provision of literacy services.

_ _ _ _ _

   Significantly:

• The term “response-to-intervention” (i.e., RtI), or any of its derivatives, does not appear in ESEA/ESSA.
• Similarly, by way of history, the term “response-to-intervention” never appeared in the federal special education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and it did not appear in the previous ESEA—No Child Left Behind Act. 

•  Indeed, the closest that IDEA came to using the term “response-to-intervention” was in the section on learning disabilities where it stated,

“In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3).”

• IDEA, which predates ESEA/ESSA by over a decade, does not include the term “multi-tiered system of supports” in any way.
• Finally, the term “multi-tiered system of supports” appears only five times in the ESEA/ESSA, it always appears in lower case letters, and it never appears as a capital-letter acronym: MTSS.

   Thus, unless superseded by state law, ESEA/ESSA does not mandate the use of the (capital letter) MTSS framework advocated by the U.S. Department of Education, its Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), or any of the national Technical Assistance Centers funded with federal money.

   Instead, as noted above, ESEA/ESSA encourages districts and schools to create multi-tiered systems of supports that conform to the law but, more importantly, that respond to local conditions:  to the students, staff, resources, school and schooling practices, and academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes that are needed. 

   NOTE WELL.  Parenthetically, even if state law or state department of education statute exceeded ESEA/ESSA and did require OSEP’s MTSS framework (or any other approach to multi-tiered services), districts can still request a waiver from these expectations by petitioning their state department with a sound research-to-practice and student-focused rationale.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Tiers and the Intensity of Services and Interventions

   The U.S. Department of Education—and its various federally-funded Technical Assistance Centers—depict the multi-tiered framework as having side-by-side three-tiered triangles representing the interface of a school’s  attention to both academics and behavior. 

   The three tiers are typically described as involving:  Tier I (Universal programming for All Students); Tier II (Selective or Group programming for Some Students); and Tier III (Intensive or Individual programming for Few Students). 

   Also associated with the Tiers are percentages that reflect the assumption that schools will have 80% of their students responding exclusively to Tier I approaches; 15% of their students needing Tier II approaches; and 5% of their students needing Tier III approaches.

   Critically:  There is no research or support anywhere that has validated these percentages. . . or even this framework of universal versus group versus individually-tiered interventions.

   In fact, many years ago, a State Special Educator asked one of the (still) National PBIS Technical Assistance Directors where the percentages came from.  At a national conference, the answer was, “We made them up.”

_ _ _ _ _

   There is no validity, and no value, in stating that a specific percentage of students should be distributed across a school’s three tiers.

   In fact, from a strategic planning perspective, if schools prepared their budgets, organized their staffing, and allocated their resources to this “prototype of percentages,” many schools would be woefully unprepared to address the critical academic and behavioral needs of all of its students.

   And this, in fact, is what is happening.

_ _ _ _ _

   And so, in order to begin a successful redesign:

Districts and schools need to (re-)conceptualize the tiers in a multi-tiered system of supports . . .

   To reflect the intensity of services, supports, strategies, or interventions needed by one or more students.

   We have advocated and implemented this for years in schools, through our separate multi-tiered, science-to-practice academic and social, emotional, and behavioral instruction to intervention models:

• The Positive Academic Supports and Services (PASS) model

• The Positive Behavioral Support System/Social-Emotional Learning (PBSS/SEL) model

 

   There is a detailed description of these models and how they are embedded in a multi-tiered system of supports blueprint in our new electronic monograph,

A Multi-Tiered Service and Support Implementation Guidebook for Schools:  Closing the Achievement Gap

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Book]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why the “Old” Tiers Need to be Retired

   In many ways, other than as a way to organize a district or school’s continuum of services and supports, the tiers are not needed or helpful.  Indeed, ESEA—as in the definition above—does not require tiers (it talks about a “continuum”), and the law certainly does not prescribe three (or any number of) tiers.

   As noted earlier, if they are present, the tiers should not reflect the percentage of students receiving specific intensities or services, nor should they reflect how many students are served (i.e., whole group, small group, or individual), the delivery setting, or the expertise of the primary providers of those services.

[The full Blog discusses at least four critical reasons why the “old” percentage-driven conceptualization of the tiers is flawed, and why it needs to be retired.]

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

   Here is the first reason:

•  Critically, one reason for organizing the tiers along a “continuum of services, supports, strategies, and interventions” is so that districts and schools can periodically evaluate their students and the multi-tiered intensity of their service-delivery needs. 

At the very least, this should occur in April or May so that districts and schools know how to effectively budget; how to recruit, employ, and deploy the “right” professionals; and how to purchase and/or distribute the “right” resources for the student services needed.

The “bottom line” is to ensure that all students are receiving the services and supports they need to be academically and behaviorally successful.  Individual student success is the primary criterion of multi-tiered system success.

Thus, it makes no sense for schools to count up the number of students “receiving” Tier I, II, or III services.  Expecting a school to “meet” the fictional 80% (Tier I), 15% (Tier II), and 5% (Tier III) “standard” is chasing after a “normative illusion.”  This is not the way to evaluate the success of a multi-tiered system, and the percentages are not a goal that schools should establish or aspire to.

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, we cannot assume that the terms “Tier I, II, or III” reflect the same things across schools, districts, or states.  Nor—from a school, district, or state perspective—is it relevant or does it matter.

   All that matters is student outcomes.

   Thus, we strongly recommend that schools, districts, and states discontinue the use of the term “Tier” in their multi-tiered systems of support.  If a three-tiered continuum is needed and desired, we advocate these more functional descriptors:

• Preventative and Universal Instruction and Supports

• Strategic and Specialized Services and Interventions

•  Intensive or Compensatory Services and Interventions

   Finally, we want to emphasize two additional things.

   First, under the “old” system, we never had “Tier I students,“ “Tier II students,” or “Tier III students.” 

   Instead, we had students who needed, for example, Tier II services or interventions for a specific problem (e.g., reading) in a specific area (e.g., fluency) with a specific intervention goal (e.g., to help the student read 100 words per minute with fewer than 3 errors in a grade-level passage).

   And yet, in some schools, the services needed by some students became their label (as in, “I’ve got a class of mostly Tier II students”).

   By eliminating the Tiered language, we should eliminate (or at least minimize) this dangerous labeling practice.  As we all know, labels become expectations, expectations can impact instructional practices, and lower expectations and instructional practices result in less prepared and proficient students.

_ _ _ _ _

   Second, special education services for students with disabilities are not necessarily Tier III—or even Tier II—services.  The IEP of a student with a disability might only consist of (a) assistive supports, and (b) consultation services to the general education classroom teacher.  That is, some students with disabilities receive no direct special education instruction.

   Given the example above, we would argue that the assistive supports and teacher consultation—if it was available to or for any other student in the school—could easily be considered a Universal service and support.

   Thus, we need to be careful about stereotyping and drawing generalized conclusions when students with disabilities are concerned.  Once again, the issue is the service, support, strategy, or intervention needed. . . not the presence of a disability, or even the presence of a pervasive disability (e.g., a blind student or a student with cerebral palsy).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Differences Between Services, Supports, and Interventions

   I have already written the words “services and supports” and “strategies and interventions” innumerable times in this piece.  This is done consciously, because these elements differ, and too many educators merge them together—to the detriment of our needy students. 

   I know this to be true, because this issue emerges in virtually all of my on-site consultations when I am helping schools and districts to (re-)design their multi-tiered system of supports.

   Functionally, when services and supports are not discriminated from strategies and interventions, students often do not receive what they need, and—many times—their academic struggles and/or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges are not resolved.

[The full Blog message describes, in detail, the differences between services and supports (with a Table of Examples), and strategies/interventions.]

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

   By way of Example:

• Tutoring is a service; the specific academic interventions used by a trained and skilled tutor is the intervention.

• Counseling or psychotherapy is a service; the therapy that a psychologist uses (e.g., cognitive-behavior therapy) is the intervention.

• A sensory “time-out” for a student experiencing trauma is a support; the strategies or therapies that a student received to eliminate the need for future time-outs is the intervention.

   A district or school’s (re-)designed multi-tiered systems of supports should include services, supports, strategies, and interventions along its continuum.  However, as emphasized above, services and supports need to be discriminated from strategies and interventions.

   In general, services and support assist students and provide a vehicle for academic or behavioral change.  Strategies and interventions accomplish the change.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog has overviewed four inter-related topics: 

• How the Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibly defines a “multi-tiered system of supports”—encouraging districts and schools to create their own system to address their own student needs;

•  What a model multi-tiered continuum could/should look like in the academic and social, emotional, behavioral areas;

• Why schools and districts need to reconceptualize their systems away from the invalid framework that relies on the percentages of students being served in each tier, and toward a continuum that looks at the intensity of the services, supports, strategies, and interventions needed; and

• How services and supports need to be discriminated from strategies and interventions so that students receive the approaches needed to change the areas of concern and to maximize the academic proficiency and independence, and their social, emotional, and behavioral self-management and competence.

_ _ _ _ _

   As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments. 

   Please remember that we have just published (last week) our completely revised electronic monograph:

A Multi-Tiered Service and Support Implementation Guidebook for Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Book]

 _ _ _ _ _

   Note also that I am always available to provide a free hour of telephone consultation to those who want to discuss their student, staff, school, or district multi-tiered needs. 

   Feel free to contact me at any time if there is anything that I can do to support your work. . . now, as you prepare for next year, or as you redesign your multi-tiered system of supports.

Best,

Howie                                          

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]