In our previous two blogs, we delved into the specific details of the MTSS/RTI model and its fundamental components. We explored the use of data, the tiers of support, and the delicate but important relationship between them. In this blog, we aim to acknowledge and address the criticism that this model has sparked among math educators, as well as highlight the promise of success it holds for many.
The Skeptic and the Practitioner
I have encountered many skeptics of a multi-tiered system of support in mathematics. They worry that the MTSS model is associated with special education. They are not wrong, of course, but ironically, the intent of the model is the exact opposite. It was conceived in response to the over-referral of students for special education by literacy and math teachers, aiming to prevent such referrals until all other efforts to provide support in the general-education setting have been exhausted and data have been integrated as part of the process (Gersten et al., 2009, 4-12).
The skeptic worries that educators are too quick to solve all problems by providing interventions—if any given student is struggling, let’s preescribe an intervention. They are not wrong. I have observed this tendency directly. But I have also encountered many practitioners and they know that the problem is not that MTSS does not work; to be clear, it does. Rather, the appropriate implementation of the model is lacking. Practitioners know that interventions cannot and will not make up for inadequacies in the teaching practice of core instruction (Tier 1). Thus, professional learning (PL) can support teachers in improving core instruction, so that when students need support, all efforts to provide the first line of support should be part of core instruction (Tier 1). Tools such as decision trees can be very helpful in preventing this issue (STEM; NYC DOE, 2022, 10).
The skeptic worries that interventions would take time away from the regular math class. To be sure, this is a tragedy, and it should never happen; I am afraid that I too have witnessed this occurring. In contrast, the practitioner’s approach is that in a multi-tiered system of support, interventions should never take a student away from the math class (Tier 1). This should be a matter of scheduling any interventions outside the usual time for core instruction; such responsibility falls on school leaders. The practitioner conceptualizes intervention not as a ‘destination’; rather, it is a ‘service.’ It is not a place where students go instead of attending the core math class. It is a temporary service they receive in addition to core math instruction.
The skeptic worries that screeners would flag too many skills and that addressing every potential skill in math where students may need more support could feel like the old saying, “going down the rabbit hole.” They are not wrong, and I fear that companies providing screening services could do a better job of testing only the essential and priority learning for a grade or grade band. However, because these companies have a nationwide audience across all states, and given that the state standards are not all the same across the nation—in spite of the efforts for common core standards—they test for all possible skills nationwide.
However, the practitioner takes a different approach—one where the screener does not determine ultimate decisions about who should receive interventions. The practitioner joins an intervention team that, with the help of a decision tree that includes the priority learnings for the particular grade, makes final decisions on who, what, where, and how interventions are provided.
For skeptics, it is difficult not to view MTSS as a deficit model. After all, it is a framework focused on identifying student weaknesses from the very beginning. However, understanding a student’s needs should not obscure the very real knowledge they already bring, which is a true asset. Practitioners use this understanding to provide asset-based support that deepens conceptual understanding. Skeptics worry that there is no place for “productive struggle” in interventions, but practitioners are confident that interventions provide an ideal setting to support productive struggle. This makes sense when we consider that having a smaller group of students working together with the interventionist creates the perfect environment to find the optimal cognitive zone for productive struggle.
Final Considerations
It is the case that there are students who need more support than others to succeed in mathematics, and that does not mean they are any less capable than their peers. Too many factors can contribute to their need for more support. Perhaps they don’t have the same level of support at home. Maybe they did not have the best learning experience in years prior, or they might have personal and family issues that caused an interruption in their learning trajectory. The fact remains that they deserve a shot at succeeding in math. They simply need more support.
I leave you with a medical metaphor—a field familiar to most of us. Think of your own experience when visiting a doctor’s office. The first thing they do is to measure your temperature, blood pressure, and weight. In this metaphor, such measurements are the equivalent of screeners; in fact, they are called screeners. If your temperature is high, the doctor knows nothing about what might be wrong. He will proceed to ask you a few questions, which in this case is equivalent to the diagnostic assessment. It is all an effort to learn more about what is going on. Your doctor will then follow up with some blood tests (equivalent to more in-depth diagnostic assessments). A good doctor, of course, will then use your answers to the questions, together with the test results, to perform a deep analysis of the data. Using all this information, the doctor will produce a diagnosis, equivalent to what a school intervention team would do. Finally, the doctor will prescribe a treatment i.e., the instructional intervention). No doctor can be considered good unless they monitor the effects of the treatment and adjust it accordingly. If this metaphor has you wondering whether your doctor is actually a good doctor, note that comparable scrutiny could also apply to teaching!
References
Fashola, O. S. (2002). Building Effective Afterschool Programs. SAGE Publications.
Fuchs, L. S., Bucka, N., Clarke, B., Dougherty, B., Jordan, N. C., Karp, K. S., & Woodward, J. (2021, March). Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Intervention in the Elementary Grades (WWC 2021006). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://whatworks.ed.gov
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (NCEE 2009-4060). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Gordon, E. W., & Rajagopalan, K. (2016). The Testing and Learning Revolution: The Future of Assessment in Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Grossman, J. B., Price, M. L., Fellerath, V., Jucovy, L. Z., Kotloff, L. J., & Raley, R. (2002). Multiple Choices After School: Findings from the Extended-Service Schools Initiative [Executive Summary]. Public/ Private Ventures.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S. S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A., & Wayman, J. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
Hattie, J., Fisher, D., Frey, N., Gojak, L. M., Moore, S. D., & Mellman, W. (2016). Visible Learning for Mathematics, Grades K-12: What Works Best to Optimize Student Learning. SAGE Publications.
Irwin, V., Wang, K., Jung, J., Kessler, E., Tezil, T., Alhassani, S., & Filbey, A. (2024, May 30). Condition of Education 2024. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved November 3, 2024, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2024144
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII). (2019). 2019 Call for Submissions of Academic Progress Monitoring Tools. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/NCII_AcadProgMonitoring_CallForSubmissions_Aug2019.pdf
National Education Technology Plan. (2017). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
Outhwaite, L. A., Aunio, P., & Ka Yu Leung, J. (2024, September 5). Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners. Educational Psychology Review, 36(110), 2-71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6
Preston, A. I., Wood, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2016, Aug 25). Response to Intervention: Where It Came From and Where It’s Going. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1065399
Somers, M.-A., Welbeck, R., Grossman, J. B., & Gooden, S. (2015, March). An Analysis of the Effects of an Academic Summer Program for Middle School Students. MDRC publications.
STEM; NYC DOE. (2022, June). Multi-Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Mathematics (MTSS-M).red System of Supports for Mathematics (MTSS-M).