More Than a Framework: A Vision for MTSS and Imaginative Collective Support

In part one of a two-part installment, Erik Ringsby considers what it means to teach Christianly by recognizing each student’s distinct needs and imagining schools as communities committed to flourishing for all learners.

What comes easy to one student does not always come easy to another. For some students, reading comes easy. For others, socializing and making friends comes naturally. Some students may struggle with math or find sitting still in class a great challenge. The point is that most of us will need additional support to learn.

What does it mean to truly support a student, and how do we know if it’s working? How do we address behavioral, social, or emotional struggles that show up in the classroom? Being responsive to the needs of students is not an easy endeavor.

I would suggest that, historically, schools have not been designed with responsiveness in mind, especially for those students for whom learning does not come easy. For much of our educational history, the system wasn’t designed to adapt to students; students were expected to adapt to the system. It’s a relatively new idea to consider that teaching may require adjustments after initial instruction falls short. Only recently have we begun to seriously consider what it means to truly respond and support a student when traditional approaches aren’t enough.

For example, I teach a course on the history of special education. For many years, it wasn’t a particularly hospitable story. It was only fifty years ago, in 1975, that Public Law 94-142, the Education for Handicapped Children Act (EHA), was introduced. It required a free and appropriate public education for students with disabilities. EHA was eventually reauthorized in 1990 and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Additional amendments to IDEA, specifically in 2004, have connections to the passing of No Child Left Behind. A major focus was on ensuring students with disabilities had access to high-quality instruction along with accountability from schools on students’ progress. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed in 2015. This law sought to provide equal education to all learners with a particular focus on underserved students. Although not a mandate, ESSA highly encourages schools to implement Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).

MTSS is a three-tiered model that systematically responds to the academic, behavioral, social, and emotional needs of students through evidence-based instruction (Wexler, 2018). It is a preventative and continuous improvement model that provides access to all learners. Tier one is referred to as universal instruction that consists of standards, services, and supports for all learners. Tier two is often referred to as supplemental instruction for 15–20% of learners who need additional instruction. Student progress is monitored in tier two, and instruction is targeted for small groups. Tier three is known as the intensive tier for 5–10% of learners who need more intensive support. MTSS is changing the way services and support are delivered to students.

I am convinced that implementing MTSS is teaching Christianly. It is not a program, a person, or a place. I see it as a school’s covenantal promise: a commitment to care for every student as an image bearer of God. It’s a framework to systematically, collectively, and creatively work to meet the diverse needs of all learners. This doesn’t happen naturally, though. It requires humble reflection of our instruction and an ongoing willingness to adapt our practices to serve our students well.

Where does a school begin with implementing MTSS effectively? While it may feel like an overwhelming task, there are guiding principles that inform meaningful implementation of MTSS. The state of Iowa, where the teachers in our education program are licensed, has a framework that describes these guiding principles (Iowa Department of Education, n.d.-b). I would like to highlight four of these guiding principles shared in this framework.

The first guiding principle needed to promote flourishing for learners is collaborative inquiry (Iowa Department of Education, n.d.-b). Anyone who has ever taught knows that just because something is taught, that doesn’t mean all students learned it. Teaching is not simply presenting content; it requires being responsive to learners’ needs and adjusting instruction when learning breaks down—and it will! This is where we need to come together with curiosity. In his book Uncommon Decency, Richard J. Mouw says we should be curious because, “This is God’s world, and we should want to understand it better” (p. 60). When students struggle academically or behaviorally, we should ask thoughtful questions. When a colleague experiences success, we should humbly seek to understand and learn from them. Thankfully, there are many well-designed protocols that help teams engage in collaborative inquiry, creating space for productive, meaningful reflection.

Second, educators should use data-based decision making through the use of quick and purposeful assessments to guide instruction for all learners (Iowa Department of Education, n.d.-b). Sometimes, the word “data” can be ubiquitous in education. For the most part, educators are inundated with data. But more data does not always lead to better decision making (Garmston & Wellman, 2016). Teachers must first have a deep understanding of the progression of learning outcomes that will lead to student success. Notice the use of the words “quick and purposeful.” It’s very difficult to respond to a grade, standard, or project, but responding to an outcome is much more feasible within a lesson. Perhaps an analogy from another context might be helpful. Numerous data points are collected throughout a basketball game. If a team gets outrebounded by twenty, you can bet that the coach will incorporate rebounding drills in the next practice. The practice plan is clearly designed to be responsive to the data from the game, and the drills can be short spurts of practice that reinforce fundamentals. This idea can also be applied to the classroom. What outcomes will we respond to this week, and how might we collect evidence of student learning? Keep in mind that outcomes can also be behavioral, social, and emotional and are easily incorporated from 21st Century Skills’ standards.

Third, “using evidence-based practices with fidelity, at multiple levels of intensity, will allow learners to achieve at high levels” (Iowa Department of Education, n.d.-b, p. 1). Our practices must have a well-researched base behind them, and we must implement them as intended, knowing that not all learners will meet outcomes after the first instruction. For example, research has revealed a lot about how students learn to read and instructional methods that are likely to be effective for all learners. Let’s take advantage of this knowledge and apply it in our other classrooms. For teachers looking for practical, evidence-based resources, the Institute of Education Sciences in the What Works Clearinghouse (2012) has practice guides that translate research into practice for a wide range of academic and affective outcomes.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must believe that all students can learn at high levels, but that it is the school's collective responsibility to support all learners academically, socially, emotionally, and behaviorally. This model of collective responsibility is much different than a model that solely places the responsibility on the classroom teacher. Think about all the amazing teachers, administrators, support staff, and volunteers that work in a school. As the body of Christ, we know that we are all more effective for kingdom work if we collaborate and depend on each other and use the gifts God has given us. Teaching is not a solitary act, but one that is lived out in community and requires interdependence with the potential to bring shalom to our students.

In our broken world, teaching is complex. No one can meet the needs of all students, and we need each other to teach students well. I will acknowledge that implementing MTSS and its guiding principles is not simple, or a one-size-fits-all approach. For example, it will look different for schools with one teacher per grade level compared to grade levels with multiple classes. Structures in preschool, elementary, middle school, and high school will be different. What is needed is imagination in how schools can collectively and creatively respond to bring restoration and wholeness to our schools. Proverbs 18:15 from The Message translation provides great encouragement for a collective responsibility model of teaching: “Wise men and women are always learning, always listening for fresh insights.”

Let’s develop humble dispositions and see all image bearers’ growth and learning as our responsibility as we creatively and systematically support all students.

References:

• Clearinghouse, W. W. (2012). What works clearinghouse. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides.
• Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2016). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Iowa Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Iowa’s framework & process to support schools - MTSS and continuous improvement. Google Docs. https://shorturl.at/6k6gk.
• Mouw, R. J. (2010). Uncommon decency: Christian civility in an uncivil world. InterVarsity Press.
• Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language. NavPress.
• Wexler, D. (2018). School-based multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS): An introduction to MTSS for neuropsychologists. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 7(4), 306-316.