How well do we really understand Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) — and more importantly, how well are we implementing it?

Across California, MTSS language is everywhere. Teams reference Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Schools collect screening data. Intervention blocks are built into master schedules and staffing plans. And yet, outcomes remain uneven — especially for students most at promise.

The issue is not effort. It is clarity.

Too often, MTSS is reduced to a set of structures — tiers, interventions, or schedules — rather than implemented as a coherent, evidence-based framework for data-based decision making. Reclaiming its promise requires moving beyond terminology and focusing on the practices that actually improve student outcomes.

From referral to prevention A persistent misconception is that MTSS functions as a pre-referral process — a more formalized pathway to special education.

This interpretation misses the point.

MTSS is a whole-system, prevention-oriented framework designed to ensure that every student receives the support they need — without reliance on teacher referral, parent advocacy, or classroom circumstance. Historically, students often had to fail before accessing additional support, with services tied to eligibility rather than need.

MTSS disrupts this model.

Through universal screening, progress monitoring, and structured team-based decision making, schools shift from reactive identification to proactive support. Decisions are grounded in shared data, not individual perception. Entry into support is based on evidence, not advocacy.

This shift is foundational to equity. When systems rely on informal referral processes, access to support is inconsistent and often influenced by bias, visibility, or family advocacy. MTSS replaces this variability with consistency, transparency, and collective responsibility.

Screening as action, not compliance Universal screening is one of the most powerful components of MTSS — but only when it is selected and used with precision.

The quality of decisions depends on the quality of the data informing them. Yet assessment selection is often driven by convenience or local norms rather than by evidence of reliability, validity, and instructional relevance.

Even then, reliable data are insufficient.

In many schools, screening has become a compliance exercise — administered, reported, and filed away without influencing instruction. Effective MTSS requires structured routines in which teams analyze data, identify trends, and take immediate action.

This work must occur within a culture of trust. When data are used to evaluate individuals rather than improve systems, they limit honest reflection and stall progress.

Strong systems establish a cascade of ownership. Leaders at every level align around shared data, while teams use that data to drive decisions. Within schools, screening results should be used to evaluate Tier 1 effectiveness, inform flexible grouping, and monitor the impact of instructional changes.

If a majority of students are below benchmark, the response is not simply to increase interventions — it is to strengthen core instruction.

Screening is not about collecting data. It is about using data to adjust teaching, and improve student outcomes.

Tiers as a system of support — not labels Another common misconception is that tiers represent categories of students.

They do not.

Tiers were designed to replace a binary system — general education or special education — with a continuum of support that responds more effectively to student needs. Tier 1 represents high-quality core instruction for all students, while Tiers 2 and 3 reflect increasing levels of intensity delivered based on data and adjusted over time.

The purpose is not placement — it is responsiveness.

However, in practice, tiers are often misapplied. Students are labeled as “Tier 2” or “Tier 3.” Supports become tied to programs, roles, or locations. Systems become static rather than dynamic.

Tier 1, in particular, is often misunderstood as simply “what we already do,” when in fact it is the foundation of the entire system and the strongest lever for improving outcomes. Strong Tier 1 instruction is aligned, evidence-based, and responsive to data. It may be delivered by general educators, specialists, or coordinated teams. What matters is not who delivers it, but whether it works for the vast majority of students.

Strengthening Tier 1 requires courageous leadership.

It requires confronting variability across classrooms and making decisions based on evidence. A school with 70 percent of students meeting benchmark will take a different approach than a school where only 15 percent are proficient.

And in those schools, the urgency is real. When only 15 percent of students are meeting benchmark, demand for effective intervention quickly exceeds available resources. Families advocate. Teachers push for support. Systems become strained, and access to intervention can feel competitive.

This is precisely where MTSS must function as designed.

Rather than rationing support, the system must expand its capacity — strengthening Tier 1, increasing access to evidence-based interventions, and mobilizing available staff in more strategic ways. The question is no longer, “Who qualifies?” but “How do we respond to the level of need in front of us?”

MTSS shifts the work from gatekeeping to problem-solving.

This same principle applies across all tiers. There is no single “correct” configuration. What matters is that teams use data to make decisions, monitor effectiveness, and adjust supports based on need — not labels.

Tier 3 is not synonymous with special education. Students should receive intensive support when they need it — without waiting for formal identification.

The power of MTSS lies in its ability to provide immediate, responsive support.

The leadership imperative Reclaiming the promise of MTSS ultimately depends on leadership.

MTSS does not implement itself. It requires leaders who establish clarity, align resources, and build systems for data-based decision making. It requires leaders who foster cultures of trust and continuous improvement.

California has invested significantly in MTSS. The next phase is not about adding initiatives, but about bringing coherence to implementation.

Because the promise of MTSS was never about tiers. It was about building a system that works — for every student. And that promise depends on leadership.

Joan Schumann, Ph.D., is the CEO of Leading for Learning and the founding executive director of the International MTSS Association, which is holding its Global Summit July 29-August 1 in San Francisco.