Chapter 5: Tiered Systems of Supports
An educator’s most important task, one might say his holy duty, is to see to it that no child is discouraged at school, and that a child who enters school already discouraged regains his self-confidence through his school and his teacher. This goes hand in hand with the vocation of the educator, for education is possible only with children who look hopefully and joyfully upon the future.
—Alfred Adler
Opening Vignette: Transition Trouble
Mr. Peters was deep in thought as he walked back to his first-grade classroom from the bus loop. It was a challenging end to the week, especially for one of his younger students, Monica. While straightening up the room, Mr. Peters reflected on some of Monica’s most challenging moments during the day. She seemed to still be having difficulty with transitions, even though it was now the beginning of October and the rest of the class has learned the schedule and the routines. The first meltdown of the day happened when Monica needed to clean up breakfast and join the class on the carpet for morning meeting. Monica was still eating and her things were all over her desk and on the floor because she had not followed the morning check-in procedure. Then Mr. Peters thought about how Monica also had a number of issues at literacy stations. She had a hard time waiting to go to her favorite station and then had a hard time leaving her favorite station once the chime signaled it was time to rotate. He also recalled the challenge for Monica when they returned back to the classroom after recess. The children were supposed to get their book folders and reread familiar texts they have been using during their literacy block, but Monica had trouble slowing down her body and calming her voice. The students at her table got very frustrated with her because she was causing a distraction. Mr. Peters reviewed the Self-Assessment of Classroom Management Practices checklist given to his grade level by the Positive Behavior Support team. He reflected on the indicators and felt that he had fully established each one. He decided it was time to reach out to his school’s behavioral support team to help identify some of the underlying issues affecting Monica’s ability to transition between activities throughout the day. He planned to request some support collecting data during key transition times by specifically asking a team member to look at what Monica was doing at the time of transition and document how long it took her to shift activities (i.e., morning work to morning meeting, literacy station rotations, and recess to independent reading time). Hopefully, this data would help him determine the supports Monica needs to be successful.
Introduction
When we think about children like Monica in the opening vignette, it is clear that some students will need more support with certain aspects of classroom life. This realization is an important enactment of the problem-solving philosophy: reflecting on how children are showing up, what systems and structures we have put in place, and how children are communicating that they need more support to be successful. It is often stated that all behavior is communication. Williams (2023), director of the Office of Special Education Programs, noted:
Thinking of behavior as a form of communication forces us to shift our mindset and consider the purpose of a child’s actions by asking the critical question of why the child is using behaviors that are inconsistent with school or early childhood program expectations. This seemingly simple question can lead educators and families to a much deeper conversation about what a child may be trying to express and communicate through this behavior. (para. 4)
In this chapter, we begin a discussion of how early educators can learn to understand what students are communicating through their behavior and then address their social and emotional needs in ways that enable them to productively engage in the classroom community. We will use the tiered systems of support framework to orient our work, while pulling in several of the theories and understandings presented in earlier chapters.
A tiered system of supports is defined by the Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports (2023) as, “a proactive and preventative framework that integrates data and instruction to maximize student achievement and support students’ social, emotional, and behavior needs from a strengths-based perspective” (para. 1). Note that a tiered system of supports can be used for both academic and behavioral challenges, but for the purpose of this textbook, we focus on behavioral supports. We will discuss, however, the connection between academic success and behavior in subsequent chapters.
A number of key components are included in most tiered frameworks. One essential component that helps explain the “tiered” aspect of the framework is a continuum composed typically of three levels and represented with a layered triangle (see Figure 5.1). The bottom tier is often referred to as Tier 1 and consists of the universal supports put in place for all students in the learning environment. Tier 2 is for students who need supplemental or targeted supports to succeed. Tier 3 is focused on students who need intensive interventions because of severe and persistent behavioral challenges. Students who demonstrate the need for support would ideally receive the effective strategies present for all students in Tier 1 of the continuum and then supplemental supports to foster future success. Tiered systems of supports clearly can and will affect classroom management practices in schools and organizations that are using these frameworks.
In this chapter, we will
discuss the history of tiered systems of supports and key foundational components across frameworks (5.1),
explain how tiered systems of supports can be used for behavioral interventions in educational settings (5.2), and
critically examine the promises and pitfalls of tiered systems as well as the importance of universal supports in Tier 1 (5.3).
5.1 Overview of Tiered Systems of Supports
Tiered systems of supports have been a part of our educational landscape for many decades, although the terms we use, the instructional focus, and the target audience have shifted. In this section, we discuss a brief history of the various tiered systems of supports in education, consider how they have evolved over time, and identify the key components that have persisted through various iterations.
History of Tiered Systems of Supports
In the 1980s, research began to improve outcomes for students identified with behavioral disorders, and this research on positive behavioral interventions became more widespread at the turn of the century (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was reauthorized and created a grant to establish a national Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). The Technical Assistance Center on PBIS was initially funded in 1998 through the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Center on PBIS, 2024c). Sugai and Simonsen (2012) note that the center’s original purpose was disseminating and providing technical assistance to schools about evidence-based practices to support students with behavior disorders. Over time, the focus of PBIS initiatives shifted toward a school-wide approach for all students. The PBIS framework is used in more than 23,000 schools in the United States (Gage et al., 2020).
During this same time period, we saw a major shift in how special education students were identified. Traditionally, teachers and school systems took a “wait and see” approach, which required teachers to wait until a student was significantly struggling before referring them for additional services (Howley et al., 2023). A provision of the 2004 IDEA, however, encouraged a new approach referred to as response to intervention (RTI). RTI created a systematic process for identifying students who needed more support, integrating evidence-based interventions, and measuring their progress to see whether the intervention was working. Only students who were not responding to various interventions would be considered for special education testing and potential placement in programming (IDEA, 2019). A major driver of this shift in approach was an increasing number of students being referred for potential learning disabilities and the belief that many of these referrals were preventable with more effective instruction (Ehlers, 2018). By 2014, RTI-based intervention programs were implemented in every state (Kelly, 2014). RTI initiatives began integrating academic and behavioral supports as a result of the documented connection between academic struggle and problem behavior (Bohanon, Goodman, & McIntosh, n.d.). Both the PBIS initiatives and the RTI approach required educators to shift how they responded to students’ academic and behavioral challenges (Howley et al., 2023).
Similar to the changes in K–12 education, tiered supports were also being developed for the early care and education system. In 2001, the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) was created (Pyramid Model Consortium, 2021). CSEFEL was a national resource center funded by the Office of Head Start and Office of Child Care until 2012 (Pyramid Model Consortium, 2021). The purpose of CSEFEL was to disseminate research and evidence-based practices to early childhood programs to promote the social emotional development and school readiness of young children birth to age five (CSEFEL, n.d.). Additionally, in 2008, the Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs funded the Technical Assistance Center on Social and Emotional Interventions (TACSEI). TACSEI’s mission was to support the inclusion of children with disabilities through the use of the Pyramid Model (Pyramid Model Consortium, 2021).
The Pyramid Model for Promoting the Social and Emotional Development of Infants and Young Children “provides a tiered intervention framework of evidence-based interventions for promoting the social, emotional, and behavioral development of young children” (Technical Assistance Center on Social and Emotional Interventions, n.d., p. 1). The Pyramid Model aligns closely with RTI, but it was specifically designed to address the intervention needs of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (Fox et al., 2010). In 2024, the National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations was developed to continue this work. In both the early care and education system and the elementary and secondary systems, addressing students’ academic and behavioral concerns was increasingly focused on using tiered systems of supports.
In 2015, with the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the government endorsed the use of a multitiered system of supports, or MTSS (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). As Howley et al. (2023) explain, “The MTSS model represented an extension of RTI and PBIS to include all students who were struggling to make progress in general education classrooms, not just students who were suspected of having specific learning disabilities or behavior problems” (para. 12). MTSS was designed as a school-wide framework to support all students who demonstrated need. All states now have initiatives that align with the tiered system of support language and integrate academics, behavior, and social-emotional wellness (Zhang et al., 2023). For instance, the Virginia Department of Education created the Virginia Tiered Systems of Supports (VTSS) to partner with school divisions in the state to implement and sustain multitiered systems of supports.
Key Elements of Tiered Systems of Supports
As our understanding and use of tiered systems has evolved, an increased focus on the whole child has emerged. This approach attends to academic, behavioral, and social and emotional competence. As already discussed, earlier frameworks tended to focus on a particular area of development, but now integrated models are being used throughout the United States. In addition to the focus on the whole child, these systems have also widened their focus to include all students instead of a smaller subset of students with disabilities. Instead of applying the key principles of a tiered system of support to a specific subgroup of students, MTSS are typically whole-school approaches embraced to promote equity and increase student success (Zhang et al., 2023).
Foundational Components Across Tiered Approaches
The various frameworks for tiered systems of supports are all clearly grounded in improving student outcomes, whether they are academic or behavioral. In addition to this common goal of effective interventions for student success, the four foundational components of tiered systems of support are as follows: universal screening, evidence-based practices, progress monitoring, and data-based decision-making.
Universal screening
Using screening tools to identify students who may be at risk is an important part of a tiered system of supports. Screening tools should align with student outcomes. Districts, schools, and organizations often have discretion in selecting and designing these tools; however, some screening tools are required by states. For instance, in Virginia, all publicly funded preK and kindergarten classes must participate in the Virginia Kindergarten Readiness Program (VKRP; Virginia Kindergarten Readiness Program, 2024). The VKRP assesses early literacy and language, mathematics, self-regulation, social skills, and mental health well-being twice a year for these age-groups. In this model, the behavioral components of the VKRP measures teachers’ perceptions of students’ self-regulation and social skills using the Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) and mental health well-being questions. These measures are used as universal screening tools to assist educators to provide support for identified areas of need.
Evidence-based practices
Using scientifically based instruction and intervention practices is another key component of a tiered system of supports. This element requires the use of methods supported by research as effective and targeted to the needs of the student. More current models also emphasize the importance of considering cultural and linguistic needs of students as well as students’ areas of strength when selecting targeted interventions (Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports, 2023). Although all students should receive quality instruction at Tier 1, additional interventions are selected for students who demonstrate they need more support. These interventions are provided within the multilevel continuum and vary in degree and intensity depending on student need documented through observations, screenings, and progress monitoring.
Progress monitoring
Monitoring the progress of instruction and intervention practices is the third component. Progress monitoring helps educators measure the gains students are making and provides important information about when adjustments are needed. The focus of progress monitoring is to ensure that students are making progress and that the support is having a positive impact. The frequency of progress monitoring depends on the severity of the supports. Students receiving Tier 2 support are usually monitored monthly or bimonthly, whereas students receiving Tier 3 instruction need more frequent weekly monitoring. The tools selected to monitor student progress should algin with the academic or behavioral objectives and should consider the educator’s ability to utilize the tools within the classroom setting.
Data-based decision-making
Using data to make informed decisions is a foundational aspect of tiered supports. Both screening and progress monitoring data as well as teacher observation form the basis of the support system. These data can help identify which students need additional support, what practices to implement with whom, and how well the interventions are working. Individual teachers as well as MTSS teams review data to make decisions to support student success.
Pause and Consider: Policy and Practice
5.2 Tiered Systems and Behavior
As we discussed in the previous section, tiered systems of supports have many common goals, structures, and components. In this section, we discuss some of the similarities and differences among the four models introduced in the last section: RTI, PBIS, the Pyramid Model, and MTSS. The history of tiered supports shows how these models built on each other. Next, we examine the nuances of these models while focusing specifically on how they address behavioral supports.
Response to Intervention
The RTI framework supports the early identification of students with behavioral needs. Sugai (n.d.) states that “RTI has been described as an approach for establishing and redesigning teaching and learning environments so that they are effective, efficient, relevant, and durable for all students, families, and educators” (para. 3). Modeled after medical approaches to public health and disease control, a key focus in RTI is prevention (Sugai, n.d.). Schools can take a variety of approaches to implement RTI to meet the needs of students. All RTI frameworks are designed around a tiered system of academic and behavioral supports consisting of the three common levels or tiers: Tier 1 (universal), Tier 2 (targeted), and Tier 3 (intensive, individual). Figure 5.2 illustrates how RTI describes each of these tiers.
Long Description for Figure 5.2
A pyramid with three tiers, depicting the R T I continuum of behavior support. The bottom tier in green is the largest, representing about 80 to 90 percent of the pyramid. It represents preventive, proactive, universal interventions that support all students. The middle tier in yellow, with about 5 to 10 percent, represents high-efficiency, rapid response, targeted group interventions for some (at-risk) students. The top tier in red of 1 to 5 percent represents intensive, individual interventions for a few students, involving assessment-based strategies and high intensity. The behavioral system pyramid mirrors the same structure. The bottom tier of 80 to 90 percent supports all students with universal, school-wide interventions. The middle tier of 5 to 10 percent targets some students with efficient and rapid group-based behavioral supports. The top tier of 1 to 5 percent is reserved for a few students needing individualized support based on assessments and intensive procedures.
The first tier of RTI is focused on high-quality instruction and screening in the general education classroom to establish a behavioral baseline for students. If students are identified as being “at risk” they should receive supplemental instruction and may need Tier 2 or targeted interventions. In RTI, these targeted interventions are provided in small-group settings and should supplement, not supplant, Tier 1 instruction. Interventions at Tier 2 are typically focused on additional instruction and practice from Tier 1, but they offer more explicitness and structure (Mcintosh, Bohanon, & Goodman, n.d.). Figure 5.3 shows how the resources, environmental supports, and data are intensified as students move up in tiers.
If students do not make adequate progress with additional Tier 2 supports, they should receive individualized interventions in Tier 3. These intensive interventions are developed after a functional behavior assessment is completed and should target the student’s behavioral deficits (Bohanon, McIntosh, & Goodman, n.d.). At this tier, interventions often require team-based approaches, including a number of school personnel and family input. It may also be necessary to connect behavioral supports with academic supports. The RTI model places a strong focus on “treatment fidelity” or fidelity of implementation. Once an intervention has been put in place, teachers need to implement the plan to “fidelity,” that is, exactly as prescribed. Finally, if the student does not make progress even with these intensive supports, they are then referred for evaluation and eligibility for special education services.
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
PBIS has been aligned with RTI’s behavioral component, as discussed previously. Although similar, PBIS includes a nuanced description of their tiered approach. PBIS supports students and educators by emphasizing five interrelated elements: equity, systems, data, practices, and outcomes (Center on PBIS, 2024b). Figure 5.4 shows how the Center on PBIS visualizes the interconnections of these elements.
Long Description for Figure 5.4
Three overlapping circles labeled systems, data, and practices intersect at the center to form equity, with the outer circle highlighting support for staff behavior, student behavior, and decision making, aiming for outcomes in social competence and academic achievement.
The PBIS model bases its tiered frameworks on these five key elements, which use streamlined systems, evidence-based practices, and a wide range of datasets to promote positive outcomes and equity for all students. The approach asks teachers to think about behavioral supports like they would think about academic supports. Ehlers (2018) explains, “In a PBIS framework, positive behaviors and behavior expectations are taught to students, much like math, reading, and other core subjects” (para. 8). These behavioral expectations are taught as a part of the primary prevention level (Tier 1: universal). If, however, students are demonstrating that they need more support to meet the behavioral expectations, the secondary prevention level (Tier 2: targeted) gives them additional instruction and practice with increasing adult support.
The PBIS model focuses on positive reinforcements within the intervention model. This model emphasizes that increased positive reinforcements through the use of extrinsic rewards will encourage the desired appropriate behaviors. The Center on PBIS (2024a) explains that “an important outcome of Tier 2 interventions is when students can regulate on their own, understand when, where and under what conditions particular skills are needed, and can successfully engage in those skills” (para. 12). If students do not respond to Tier 2 supports, they are given tertiary level (Tier 3: intensive and individualized) supports. Tier 3 supports can be utilized for any student with demonstrated need, not just students receiving special education services. Students receiving Tier 3 services are often engaged in dangerous and highly disruptive behaviors. This tier utilizes functional behavioral assessments and individual planning and supports to address the reasons for students’ misbehavior. Students at this level of need often require coordinated wraparound services, providing support both within and outside of school.
Pyramid Model for Supporting Social and Emotional Competence in Infants and Young Children
The Pyramid Model was originally developed as a positive behavior framework to prevent challenging behavior and promote social-emotional competence in children (Fox et al., 2003). The Pyramid Model is an example of a multitiered framework particularly designed for supporting social emotional development and learning in early childhood contexts (see Figure 5.5). The tiers of the Pyramid Model reflect the same focus areas of other tiered approaches: promotion (universal), prevention (targeted), and intervention (intensive). Universal promotion (Tier 1) is for all children, secondary prevention (Tier 2) is for children at risk of social-emotional delays, and tertiary intervention (Tier 3) is for individual children with persistent challenges (Fox et al., 2010). For most children, the universal promotion tier will provide enough support; however, children with trauma or additional stressors may need the secondary prevention and tertiary intervention tiers.
Long Description for Figure 5.5
A four-level pyramid model displays nurturing and responsive caregiving relationships at the bottom, followed by high quality supportive environments, then targeted social emotional supports, and finally intensive interventions at the top. Nurturing and responsive caregiving and high quality support contributes to universal promotion. Targeted social emotional supports are for secondary prevention, and intensive interventions are for tertiary intervention.
The foundation of the Pyramid Model is a knowledgeable and effective workforce that is able to build trusting relationships. Quality relationships with children, families, colleagues, and other practitioners are needed to implement evidence-based strategies to support the social and emotional needs of children. The universal promotion tier is focused on building relationships among teachers and children, teachers and caregivers, and children and their peers. It is also important to include additional adults who are significant in the child’s life beyond the school and home environments. Fox et al. (2010) explain:
The relationships level of the pyramid model includes practices such as actively supporting children’s engagement; embedding instruction within children’s routine, planned, and play activities; responding to children’s conversations; promoting the communicative attempts of children with language delays and disabilities; and providing encouragement to promote skill learning and development. (p. 6)
The universal promotion level also highlights the importance of high-quality early childhood environments. This refers to both the organization of the classroom and how adults engage children within these environments. Fox et al. (2010) discuss that the supportive environment level of the Pyramid Model is complex and involves more than just how the space looks:
This [level] includes the implementation of a curriculum that fosters all areas of child development, the use of developmentally and culturally appropriate and effective teaching approaches, the design of safe physical environments that promote active learning and appropriate behavior, the provision of positive and explicit guidance to children on rules and expectations, and the design of schedules and activities that maximize child engagement and learning. (p. 7)
The secondary prevention level targets the teaching of social and emotional skills needed to solve problems, identify and express feelings, and develop friendships with peers. Although all young children need cues and reminders to be successful in these areas, certain children will need a greater level of support managing their emotions and solving problems with peers. These targeted supports are intended to strengthen children’s abilities in these areas.
The tertiary intervention level focuses on the integration of intensive, individualized interventions for individual children with persistent and challenging behavior that have not improved with the supports used at the universal promotion and secondary prevention levels. At the tertiary intervention level, functional behavioral assessments are used to ascertain the factors related to the challenging behaviors and to develop an intervention plan. Fox et al. (2010) explain that “the behavior support plan includes prevention strategies to address the triggers of challenging behavior; replacement skills that are alternatives to the challenging behavior; and strategies that ensure challenging behavior is not reinforced or maintained” (p. 7). The goal of tertiary intervention is to teach new appropriate behaviors to replace the inappropriate behaviors—new behaviors that serve the same function but are acceptable in the environment.
Multitiered Systems of Support
MTSS is a framework for schools and organizations to support positive outcomes for children. The MTSS model is designed to be proactive and take a prevention stance to avoid potential student challenges. The framework consists of four elements: screening, progress monitoring, multilevel prevention system, and data-based decision-making (see Figure 5.6). Effective implementation “demands ongoing planning, continuous improvement, and sustaining and expanding efforts” (Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, 2024, para. 1). As with the other models, implementing MTSS requires an infrastructure, including resources, assessments, and interventions. This model is also focused on implementation fidelity and aligns closely to the tiered approaches of both RTI and PBIS. In the MTSS model, Tier 1 provides universal supports to all students through core programming. Tier 2 provides targeted support to approximately 10–15% of students with demonstrated need. Finally, Tier 3 provides intensive support to approximately 3–5% of students who need individualized supports.
Long Description for Figure 5.6
A circle labeled data based decision making is surrounded by three circles representing screening, progress monitoring, and a multi-level prevention system. Screening and progress monitoring are connected by integration under leadership and policy. Progress monitoring and a multi-level prevention system are connected by evidence based under professional capacity. Multi-level prevention systems and screening are connected by culturally responsive communication and collaboration. Integration, evidence, and cultural response contribute to decision making and vice versa.
Pause and Consider: Reflecting on Tiered Systems
Which of these four models are you familiar with? Have you used any of these models in your classroom or seen them used in early learning environments?
The approaches at the bottom of the tiered models are focused primarily on the role of the teacher in creating a positive classroom environment, building relationships with stakeholders, and supporting social and emotional development. How would you describe the role of the teacher in supporting the universal tier? What examples have you seen of creating or modifying an environment or routine to support a child in their current age and stage?
5.3 Critiquing Tiered Systems of Supports
A good deal of research has examined tiered systems of supports, which are seen as evidence-based practices. A number of critiques have been made, however, about the overall effectiveness and implementation of these systems. In this section, we discuss some of the potential strengths of tiered systems as well as some limitations. We will also discuss the importance of universal (i.e., Tier 1) supports and why it is critical to build classroom management practices that ensure this foundational support is available to all students.
Strengths and Limitations of Tiered Systems of Supports
For many reasons, supporting student behavior in classrooms has been an enduring challenge for teachers of young children. The primary factor is that classroom management involves human beings. Children, like adults, are complex individuals and are affected by multiple contextual factors. Reducing their behavior to simple algorithms (i.e., if a child engages in behavior X, give them intervention Y) is unlikely to solve challenging behavior in the long term. This approach also fails to honor and value the distinct experiences of each child. As much as we might like to have a one-size-fits-all answer to ensure that students are engaged and productive in school at all times, this is not a realistic goal. These tiered system frameworks offer some promising possibilities, but they also present some serious pitfalls. We next discuss four key promises and their related pitfalls.
Promise 1: Focusing on Problem-Solving
One key principle of a school-wide approach to tiered intervention is the focus on problem-solving. Instead of merely diagnosing children who are not meeting academic or behavioral expectations, a school-wide tiered approach requires careful consideration of the barriers to success. It also provides time and space for educators to address lagging skills through intervention processes before identification of special education services. The success of this approach requires a coordinated effort among families, teachers, administration, and other school-based experts. Clearly, using a problem-solving approach to tiered supports aligns with the problem-solving lens for management discussed in this textbook. Both approaches guide educators to attend to the context and needs of the child and to identify appropriate supports for success. Both also ask educators to intervene in strategic ways when students communicate that they need more support.
Pitfall 1: Reinforcing with Rewards
Although the initial focus on problem-solving strategically grounds our approach to working with behavioral challenges, the implementation of tiered systems of supports often relies heavily on rewards. This is primarily due to the behaviorist lens applied to each of the models when they were originally created to support students with special needs. A number of flaws exist, however, with using behaviorism as the foundation for these supports. The tiered system approaches are framed as “positive” because the emphasis is on rewards instead of punishments, but as we discussed in previous chapters, the use of extrinsic rewards has significant drawbacks, especially in the case of students exhibiting challenging behaviors. Current research on trauma and resilience has shown that children displaying the most challenging behavior do not need motivation (i.e., rewards) to shift their decision-making; they need support and adult guidance to manage their response to stressors (Greene, 2018).
In Chapter 8, we will discuss how we can use the problem-solving approach advocated in tiered systems of support in ways that help children increase their capacity and regulate their behavior without relying on rewards. In subsequent chapters, we will unpack how educators can work with children to coregulate and assist students using a more brain-based approach to support challenging behavior. We advocate for implementing tiered frameworks in ways that help children be active participants in the problem-solving process: by identifying the key issues, generating possible solutions, and monitoring their success. This shift avoids the common pitfalls of “policing” behavior, internalized student shame, and equating worth with behavior; common outcomes when initiatives rely heavily on adult-dictated rewards.
Promise 2: Implementing a Child-Centered Approach
Another strength of the tiered approach is the focus on the individual child. When we focus on the child, and not the behavior, implementing a problem-solving approach becomes much easier. We are all prone to defensiveness when confronted with inappropriate or unproductive choices. Children are the same. Using a tiered framework to begin problem-solving around when and under what conditions the child needs more support has the potential to shift the discussion away from the symptom (the behaviors) and to the root cause (reasons the behaviors are occurring). Closely observing how students are doing, what they need, and if the supports are working moves the child to the center of the discussion. When we truly embrace a child-centered approach, we center the child, instead of behavioral expectations.
Pitfall 2: Pathologizing Children
Focusing on individual children and their needs is a supportive orientation, but maintaining a strengths-based view of children can be challenging. It is not hard to imagine why adults would begin to see a child regularly engaging in disruptive and dangerous behavior from a deficit lens. It is then easy to say that something is “wrong” with the child. The approach we are taking requires that we do the exact opposite at this juncture. Instead of pathologizing children when they are having difficulty, we need to fully engage the child in problem-solving thinking, while also modifying the environment, supports, and expectations. Bornstein (2017) found, after studying five diverse school districts implementing PBIS, that the primary focus was on enforcing order. He explains:
When intervention efforts failed to achieve compliance, the educators involved with PBIS came to treat the students as potentially having emotional behavioral disorder, even if they lacked the clinical authority to make a diagnosis themselves. Consequently, students who were formerly regarded as disorderly increasingly came to be regarded as disordered. (2017, p. 136)
Unfortunately, viewing children as disordered and unresponsive to intervention often leads to situations in which children are viewed as “excludable” (Bornstein, 2017). Clearly, this mindset is not aligned with a philosophy of inclusive classroom communities and must be disrupted. One way that a tiered system of supports can shift this deficit-based outcome in the upper tiers is to continue to focus on what a student is doing well. Tracking data in ways that allow and support student success without using bribes is a topic we will discuss in future chapters.
Promise 3: Focusing on Supports
One strong promise of tiered systems is the emphasis on support. We know that some children will have difficulty meeting expectations under certain conditions and that punishing them will not help them do better the next time they are in that situation with the same conditions. The shift from punishment to supports is a key component that we wholeheartedly embrace. A focus on supports can recognize that one size does not fit all and that the supports must match the child’s needs. Also, teaching children to recognize when they need support is a powerful element of management structures in its own right. Awareness is the first step toward achieving self-regulation in challenging moments and is a life skill that children can and will utilize in a variety of settings. Focusing on supports can also clarify the role of the student and the role of the educator. Both children and adults need to work together to ensure healthy classroom communities.
Pitfall 3: Focusing on Fidelity
One significant caveat to the promises of supports in a tiered system is the ability of children and teachers to develop interventions that both parties endorse. Typically, implementation of supports in tiered systems leaves the child’s (and sometimes the teacher’s) opinions and feelings completely out of the equation. Instead, tiered systems often rely on implementing a set of interventions with fidelity. This emphasis on fidelity robs teachers and children of their decision-making power exactly when they need it most. Additionally, emphasizing fidelity reduces children’s behaviors to a sequence of predictable outcomes that we can manipulate easily with a few researched interventions. If it were indeed true that we can easily manipulate children’s behaviors, then we should be seeing less disruptive behaviors after decades of implementing tiered systems, but instead, we are seeing the opposite (Prothero, 2023).
We previously discussed the alarming rates of suspensions, expulsions, and restraint and seclusion practices. Subsequent chapters discuss how educators can select, implement, and monitor interventions without requiring a strict adherence to fidelity. We encourage educators to embrace a nuanced view of fidelity, one that recognizes instructional and intervention practices are composed of a number of essential components. It is the educators responsibility to learn about each component and critically integrate the elements systematically by reflectively considering for whom, under which conditions, and to what end the practice may be beneficial. Allowing teachers and other education experts the freedom to respond adaptively to students’ needs is an important aspect of implementing supports in the classroom.
Promise 4: Acknowledging the Role of Expectations
In a tiered system of supports, we recognize that all children will not be able to meet the teacher’s expectations all the time. Although having clear classroom expectations is important, understanding that children will not always be able to meet these expectations is equally as important. It is also critical that teachers and schools evaluate their expectations to ensure that they are culturally responsive and not merely aligned with the beliefs of the majority culture. Bornstein (2017) states that “some more early work on culturally responsive PBIS not only speaks of democratizing the process but also grounding the school’s expectations in terms that are relevant to the cultures of the students of that school” (p. 160). We discussed some of the ways we can do this reflective thinking in Chapter 4. Broadening definitions of acceptable and encouraged behavior allows educators to recognize more of students’ strengths.
Pitfall 4: Understanding the Limitations of Unilateral Power
Because tiered systems of support largely run on reward systems to encourage compliance (discussed in Pitfall 1), the adults hold most of the power. Typically, the adults decide the intervention, the reward system, and whether or not the child has met the criteria to receive the reward. Lagerwerff (2016) explains:
Their choices are to do exactly what the teacher wants and receive empty praise, or to go against what the teacher wants and be publicly shamed when they do not receive the reward. The teacher makes the real choices, and those choices are based on behavior that teachers themselves have learned from a hierarchical and exploitative system. (para. 10)
This type of structure is called a unilateral power system, in which one group (the adults) have all of the decision-making authority. This is a problematic scenario for children who exhibit challenging behavior. It is possible that these unilateral structures are actually the cause of much of these extreme behaviors. As Lagerwerff explains, children have a “no-choice” choice: comply or be excluded. This is not the way to help children make decisions about their engagement in classrooms, and it is especially harmful for students experiencing trauma who need to feel safe and know that they have autonomy over their bodies, their environment, and their decisions. Our approach to managing behaviors is that all responses should include decisions that (1) involve shared power between children and adults and (2) affirm relationships within the community.
Importance of Tier 1
Navigating the pitfalls of tiered systems implementation may seem daunting, but we will describe how to best provide supports for each tier. In Chapters 6 and 7, we will discuss the critical importance of relationships and the environment, which are foundational components of universal supports articulated as Tier 1 practices. These chapters illustrate how proactive and preventative strategies can mitigate many management issues. They also highlight the many elements that teachers need to consider when building a strong base of support for students in classrooms. Teachers tend to have the most agency and control of universal implementations and supports. Many decisions at this level affect student behavior. It is both possible and advantageous to design management systems in Tier 1 without rewards or bribes. At this tier, educators set the stage to help children focus on problem-solving and working collaboratively within the community.
When addressing challenging behaviors, it can be tempting to jump to Tier 3 supports (see Chapters 11 and 12), but it is important to first address the foundational (universal) tier. Most children will thrive with well-developed universal supports. For example, as Mr. Peters modeled in the opening vignette, reflecting on Tier 1 supports is a key first step. During the reflective process, educators often identify areas they can strengthen in the management system. Jumping too quickly to look for issues with the child can cause us to miss simple adjustments we can make to minimize problem behavior. When we do find that additional supports are needed (as Mr. Peters eventually decided), we can draw on the tiered approach to focus our efforts.
Pause and Consider: Reflecting on Your Experience
Key Points
- Not all children will need the same level of support within classroom communities.
- Many tiered systems of supports address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of young children.
- Tiered systems of supports not only have numerous strengths but also have a number of pitfalls when addressing challenging behavior in children.
Figures
Figure 5.1: Tiers of support. “Tiers of Support” is from the Center on PBIS (2024). Reproduced and adapted with permission.
Figure 5.2: RTI continuum of behavior support. “Integration of Academic and Social Behavior: Three-Tiered Continuum of Behavior Support” by George Sugai. Originally from School Climate and Discipline: School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (June 23, 2001), keynote presentation to and paper for the National Summit on Shared Implementation of IDEA, Washington, DC. Used with permission.
Figure 5.3: RTI intensity of supports. Created by Leslie La Croix with PowerPoint.
Figure 5.4: PBIS elements. “Five Elements of PBIS” (2024) by the Center on PBIS. Used with permission.
Figure 5.5: Pyramid Model for promoting the social and emotional development of infants and young children. “Pyramid Model” by Lise Fox, Judith Carta, Phil Strain, Glen Dunlap, & Mary Louise Hemmeter, in Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model (p. 3), 2009, Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children (TACSEI), University of South Florida.
Figure 5.6: MTSS model. Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports. (2024). Essential Components of MTSS. American Institutes for Research. https://mtss4success.org/essential-components. Reprinted with permission.
References
Bohanon, H., Goodman, S., & McIntosh, K. (n.d.-a). Integrating academic and behavior supports within an RTI framework, part 1: General Overview. http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior-supports/integrating-behavior-and-academic-supports-general-overview
Bohanon, H., McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (n.d.-b). Integrating academic and behavior supports within an RTI framework, part 4: Tertiary supports. http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior-supports/integrating-academic-and-behavior-supports-tertiary-supports
Bornstein, J. (2017). Can PBIS build justice rather than merely restore order? In The school to prison pipeline: The role of culture and discipline in school (vol. 4, pp. 135–167). Emerald Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2051-231720160000004008
Center on PBIS. (2024a). Tier 2. https://www.pbis.org/pbis/tier-2
Center on PBIS. (2024b). What is PBIS? https://www.pbis.org/pbis/what-is-pbis
Center on PBIS (2024c). Positive behavioral interventions and supports. https://www.pbis.org/about/about
Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports. (2023). Essential components of MTSS. https://mtss4success.org/essential-components
Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports. (2024). Implementation. https://mtss4success.org/implementation
Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (n.d.). https://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/index.html
Ehlers, L. (2018). MTSS vs. RTI vs. PBIS- What’s the difference? Renaissance (blog). https://www.renaissance.com/2018/11/18/blog-mtss-vs-rti-vs-pbis-whats-the-difference
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
Fox, L., Carta, J., Strain, P. S., Dunlay, G., & Hemmeter, L. (2010). Response to intervention and the pyramid model. Infants and Young Children, 23(1), 3–13. https://depts.washington.edu/isei/iyc/23.1_fox.pdf
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G., & Strain, P. (2003). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challenging behavior in young children. Young Children, 58(4), 48–53.
Gage, N. A., Beahm, L., Kaplan, R., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Lee, A. (2020) Using positive behavioral interventions and supports to reduce school suspensions. Beyond Behavior, 29(3), 132–140.
Greene, R. (2018). Transforming school discipline: Shifting from power and control to collaboration and problem solving. Childhood Education, 94(4), 22–27.
Howley, A., Allan, D., Howley, N., & Furst, T. (2023). All means all … maybe: MTSS policy and practice across states in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, TIES Center. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/ties/mtss-policy-and-practice/mtss-policy-and-practice
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S.C. § 1400 (2019, November 7). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1400
Kelly, M. (2014, June 02). Response to intervention in schools. Encyclopedia of Social Work. https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-1013
Lagerwerff, K. (2016). Prizes as curriculum: How my school gets students to “behave.” Rethinking Schools, 30(3). https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/prizes-as-curriculum-how-my-school-gets-students-to-behave
Mcintosh, K., Bohanon, H., & Goodman, S. (n.d.). Integrating academic and behavior supports within an RTI framework, part 3: Secondary supports. RTI Action Network. http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior-supports/integrating-academic-and-behavior-supports-secondary-supports
National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations. (2024). National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations. https://challengingbehavior.org
Prothero, A. (2023, April 20). Student behavior isn’t getting any better, survey shows. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/student-behavior-isnt-getting-any-better-survey-shows/2023/04
Pyramid Model Consortium (2021). Supporting early childhood PBIS. About PMC. https://www.pyramidmodel.org/about-pmc
Sugai, G. (n.d.). School-wide positive behavior support and response to intervention. https://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior-supports/schoolwidebehavior
Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012, June 19). History of PBIS. https://pbisca.org/history-of-pbis
Virginia Kindergarten Readiness Program (2024). Past and present. https://vkrponline.org/virginia-kindergarten-readiness-program-2/about-vkrp/past-and-present
Williams, V. C. (2023). Discipline discussions: The power of asking “why”. U.S. Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2023/04/discipline-discussions-the-power-of-asking-why
Zhang, J., Martella, R. C., Kang S., & Yenioglu, B. Y. (2023). Response to intervention (RTI)/multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS): A nationwide analysis. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 7(2).
