Tiered instruction frameworks have become a cornerstone in addressing diverse student needs in early literacy. 

Two widely used models, Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RtI), provide structured approaches to delivering interventions and improving literacy outcomes. 

In a 2023 survey featured on Education Week, 60% of participating districts and schools said that they had well established MTSS systems or were in the beginning phases of implementing. 

Another 36% said that they were currently in the midst of rolling out such a system, indicating the framework’s soaring popularity in recent years. 

Literacy was the biggest focus of the framework, beating out other types of interventions, such as math, behavior, attendance and social-emotional learning. 

RtI is very popular itself, with another survey indicating that approximately 70% of school districts with elementary schools implement them, primarily for literacy.

With tiered instruction widely embraced in early literacy, this blog breaks down its key aspects. 

It clarifies the difference between tiered and differentiated instruction, explores the relationship between MTSS and RtI, and unpacks the three-tiered pyramid structure of these models. 

Finally, it covers the evidence-based for these frameworks, before going into actionable strategies at each tier.

Understanding Tiered Instruction and Differentiated Instruction

Tiered instruction adjusts the instructional approach based on group size.

Tiered instruction includes whole-class instruction for all students, small-group support for those at risk, and individualized instruction for students with ongoing challenges. Each tier serves a distinct purpose and looks very different in practice.

Differentiated instruction on the other hand, consists of varying the instruction by either content, process, assessment or learning environment. 

It’s a topic covered extensively by Sprig Learning because of its large scope, and because of the many ways instruction can be differentiated to meet diverse student needs.

Differentiated instruction is not restricted to any particular tier in tiered instruction. Instruction can be differentiated at any tier.

Tiered instruction can be thought of as only one example of differentiated instruction, where differentiation occurs by varying the group size in which students are taught.

Deciphering the Relationship Between MTSS and RtI Frameworks.

Both the MTSS and RtI frameworks share a three-tiered structure and a commitment to continuous progress monitoring and data-informed practices.

MTSS is a comprehensive framework that integrates academic, behavioral, and social-emotional supports to ensure all students succeed. 

It emphasizes proactive and preventive measures, data-driven decision-making, and collaboration among educators.

RtI, often considered a subset of MTSS, focuses primarily on academic interventions. 

It identifies struggling students early and provides increasingly intensive support to meet their needs.

So at first glance, MTSS and RtI are very similar with MTSS encompassing RtI and extending beyond it, making MTSS the more comprehensive framework. 

However, choosing a specific approach matters for schools, which is why we examine the tiers that are associated with the two frameworks.

What are the Different Tiers in MTSS and RtI?

In MTSS, schools typically implement three tiers for academic support, with parallel tiers available for behavior:

Tier 1

Research-based core instruction provided to all students, emphasizing prevention and early intervention.

Tier 2

Targeted interventions for students at risk, featuring rapid response strategies and frequent progress monitoring.

Tier 3

Intensive interventions designed for individual students, incorporating diagnostic assessments and high-intensity support.

Examples of RtI three tier pyramids are very similar to the MTSS pyramids with its three tiers. 

 The difference lies in the scope of each of the tiers. 

 In RtI, it’s the students who receive support, in MTSS, everyone including teachers and support staff receive support. 

 Also, in RtI, the focus is on students, whereas in MTSS, the focus is on the school system, and even outside the system, which includes the home of the student and the community. 

 Regarding what should be used, Dr. Adena Miller, who has managed both MTSS and RtI models at the state and district level, has the following advice, published on McREL, a non-profit, non-partisan education research and development organization.

 “If your educators see RtI as a means for getting students into special education, then a shift to MTSS is probably significant. However, if your implementation looks a lot like the definition of MTSS (integrated, preventative, problem-solving approach), then the shift is likely mere semantics.”

Evidence Supporting MTSS and RtI Frameworks

works

Regardless of a school’s preferred tiered instruction framework, research says that both the MTSS and RtI models are effective, if they are used in the right way. 

MTSS has had positive effects on academic outcomes. RtI has helped students achieve grade-level benchmarks. 

Meta-analysis studies published in reputed journals confirm that small-group or individual interventions that include a foundational reading skills component, when provided to students with reading difficulties in Grades K-3, are likely to positively impact these students’ reading comprehension ability.

Also, given that MTSS and RtI are both tiered systems, research emphasizes the effectiveness of such systems in improving literacy outcomes.

The Institute of Education Sciences in their practice guide lists the following recommendations for multi-tier intervention in the primary grades that has strong or moderate evidence for improving literacy outcomes:

1)Screen all students in the beginning of the year and again in the middle of the year. Regularly monitor the progress of students who are at risk of not reading at grade level.

2) Provide intensive, systematic instruction on three foundational reading skills in small groups to students who score below the benchmark score on universal reading, three to five times a week for 20 to 40 minutes. 

Thus, there is strong evidence supporting the use of both MTSS and RtI in early literacy, along with clear research-backed guidelines on their effective implementation.  

Speaking of which, the next section explores best practices for each tier in depth.

Strategies for Enhancing Each Tier in MTSS and RtI

Tier 1: Strengthen Core Instruction

Core instruction is the foundation of tiered support. To enhance Tier 1:

• Implement evidence-based literacy programs.

Renowned early literacy scientist, Dr.Louisa Moats says in her paper on existing approaches helping goals of tiered instruction, “successful implementation of RtI depends on educators’ understanding of scientific research in reading psychology, linguistics, educational measurement, and instruction.”

• Use universal screeners to identify students at-risk early. Monitor progress of these students along with the whole class to identify others needing support.

• Incorporate differentiated instructional strategies to address diverse learning needs.

Tier 2: Enhance Small Group Instruction

For students requiring targeted support:

• Use diagnostic assessments to identify reading skill gaps. 

• Use progress monitoring assessments to pinpoint specific skill areas that students need more practice or instruction in. 

• Group students by similar needs to maximize instructional impact.

Tier 3: Intensify Interventions and Monitoring

Tier 3 requires the most intensive support and frequent monitoring:

• Conduct individualized assessments to tailor interventions.

• Increase intervention frequency and duration of interventions as necessary by constantly monitoring progress.

Successfully Applying Tiered Instruction At Your School

Hopefully, this article was useful in better understanding MTSS and RtI. Both provide evidence-based frameworks that empower schools to meet the diverse needs of their students. 

By following the advice in the previous sections, it’s possible to strengthen instruction and intervention in all three tiers.

Tools like Sprig Reading streamlines the assessment process at each tier, and makes progress monitoring quick and intuitive for teachers.

Monitoring progress at tier 3 may seem obvious, given the urgency of each of those cases. But what about tiers 1 and 2? Is core instruction sufficient, or is differentiated instruction required? 

If differentiated instruction is needed, assessment data is essential for making informed decisions. What type of assessment data?

In tier 2, point-in-time or snapshot assessment data from screeners or even diagnostic assessments will likely not be enough to make timely decisions. For example, the student is not showing any improvements, they may need individualized support more urgently. 

But for this, more frequent and immediate information is needed, which can only come from progress monitoring.

Similarly at tier 1, while strong evidence-based core instruction can be delivered to all students, there is a high likelihood that some students will need more help than others in certain foundational skills. They may even need to be grouped together to receive small-group instruction.

Unaddressed needs in tier 1 can push students into tier 2 over time. But without progress monitoring in tier 1, how will educators know when intervention is needed?

Whether proactively preventing students from slipping through the tiers or ensuring they receive timely support at the right tier, progress monitoring is essential in any tiered instruction framework.

Early-grade literacy assessments have come under increased scrutiny, with mandated screeners now required across much of the U.S. and Canada, typically administered one to three times a year.

This introduces a level of accountability with mandated checkpoints on early literacy throughout the year. It also adds responsibility to take action for students who struggle based on results of the first screener, ensuring support between the first and second, and potentially second and third screeners.

By addressing key questions about the necessary information and potential actions, the right early literacy assessment strategy can be thoughtfully developed. 

A detailed list of such questions, along with possible actions informed by the answers, is provided in the article “What To Do With Early Literacy Assessments.”

One such question was, “In what components of literacy do students need additional support?”

It’s so important to know where help is needed for each student. 

Another related question was, “What supplemental instruction is required for students?”

It is equally important to know what that help may look like in the form of supplemental instruction which could be enhanced or personalized.

This article further examines these questions as it has to do with the topic of content coverage in early literacy assessments. 

It defines assessment content coverage and its properties, and the effect it can potentially have on early readers.

Definition of Assessment Content Coverage.

Assessment coverage refers to the content evaluated in early literacy assessments. When selecting assessments, it’s crucial they align with your existing curriculum or standards. 

Otherwise, there’s a risk of overlooking critical content areas, skills and competencies, leading to gaps in accountability and students potentially not meeting expectations.

If the curriculum or standards fall short of evidence-based early literacy practices, assessments can serve as an enhancing tool. They can prompt teachers to evaluate areas overlooked by the curriculum, offering a backup method of instruction. This ensures that essential skills, even if not covered in the original syllabus, are explicitly taught and assessed.

Thus, strong content coverage can both complement and enhance existing curriculum or standards.

What is Measured in Early Literacy Assessments? 

Early literacy assessments should measure developmentally appropriate knowledge domains necessary for successful reading by a certain age, typically by the end of Grade 3. 

This is the critical point when students transition from learning to read to reading to learn. 

These domains encompass both breadth and depth, which are explored in the following section.

Number of Different Reading Domains (Breadth)

Breadth refers to the range of different domains covered by early literacy assessments. 

Each large domain encompasses several subdomains, which may further branch into more specific areas of focus. 

For example, reading comprehension is a large domain that can be divided into smaller domains of word reading and decoding. These domains can be further subdivided into skill sets like phonics, phonological awareness, etc.

Breadth ensures that assessments capture a comprehensive picture of a child’s literacy development, addressing all critical components required for reading proficiency.

Larger Concepts and Smaller Concepts in Each Domain (Depth)

Depth refers to the thoroughness with which each domain is explored in early literacy assessments. 

The most comprehensive domains are fewer in number, but each delves deeply into multiple topics of learning. 

These topics, in turn, branch out into various sub topics, ensuring a detailed and nuanced understanding of a child’s literacy development. 

Depth allows educators to assess not just surface-level skills but the underlying competencies essential for reading success.  

For example, if reading comprehension issues arise, word reading may be assessed. If word reading is adequate, phonological awareness can be assessed. If phonological awareness is also fine, the issue may lie in a specific skill, such as phoneme blending, which must also be assessed.

How Does it Affect  Early Readers?

The breadth and depth of the reading domains together constitute the content coverage of early literacy assessments. 

It is extremely important for early readers because every school must measure the right domains which actually lead to reading success and can be affected by effective reading instruction.

Thus, schools have to make sure that the content coverage is broad enough, at the very least that it covers the main foundational reading skill sets such as phonological awareness, reading comprehension and oral reading fluency. 

The Reading League’s Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines recommend that assessments address both word recognition and language comprehension.

Schools must also ensure that the content coverage is deep enough, meaning each of the foundational skill sets have enough skills underneath them so that the smallest unit of learning can be measured. 

This truly identifies any gaps that may be holding students back.

Content Coverage in Early Literacy Assessments. Especially Relevant for Progress Monitoring.

This article establishes the importance for content coverage in early literacy assessments. 

It is applicable for all types of assessments, be it benchmark screeners, diagnostic assessments, progress monitoring assessments or end-of-the-year outcome assessments.

It is especially applicable for progress monitoring assessments because compared to all other assessment types, its recommended application is most frequent. 

They are ideally conducted multiple times per week, if not daily.

Thus, due to its repetitive nature, it can quickly reveal insights on students and groups of students that are not revealed in other types of assessments.  

But these insights are only as good as what is being measured, hence adequate content coverage of early literacy assessments proves to be so important.

Strong content coverage in early literacy assessments goes beyond adequacy, significantly enhancing the effectiveness of progress monitoring!

According to ONlit, a resource hub provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education, progress toward research-backed goals can vary in meaning, from mastering multiple sub-skills to meeting curriculum-based reading outcomes throughout the year. 

Strong content coverage covers all these dimensions of progress monitoring goals! 

It gives the early literacy team a chance to measure the rate of improvement towards these goals and take appropriate actions if the progress is not deemed sufficient.

By providing a comprehensive view of each student’s progress, it enables educators to measure the impact of instructional strategies that are prescribed for these  foundational literacy skills.

Thus, both interventions and differentiated instruction are covered!

Many research studies and state education departments recommend such a process for effectively using progress monitoring, which actually stands on having solid content coverage in early literacy assessments!

Looking for a progress monitoring tool that helps teachers assess all the research-backed foundational skill sets? Visit Sprig Reading.