Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem Solving (GTIPS), Third Edition

Guiding Tools for Instructional

Problem Solving

(GTIPS)

Third Edition

This document was updated by Florida’s Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project, a

collaborative project between the University of South Florida and the Florida Department of

Education, Bureau of Exceptional Education.

Preface

The purpose of this guide is to assist districts and schools as they implement and support data-

based decision making using a systematic planning and problem-solving process at multiple

levels of operation: school level, grade level (pre-kindergarten, elementary school, middle

school, and high school), classroom level, student subgroup level, and individual student level.

This guide aligns directly with Florida’s implementation of a Multi-Tiered System of Support

using response to instruction/intervention data within a data-based problem-solving process in

every school. As well, the stage is set for schools to approach instructional decisions from a

broader context of quality instruction, intervention, and assessment to address learning,

behavioral, and mental health outcomes for all students.

Additionally, this guide addresses ways in which districts can assess the effectiveness of their

Tier 1 curricula and instruction, as well as interventions and, in turn, use such data in various

decision-making processes for students. Data reflecting the effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction

and interventions are used to make instructional decisions for all students, not just those who

may be struggling. Therefore, it is important that district and school leadership teams take an

active role in examining curricular materials, instructional methodologies, the learning

environment, and other practices across school settings to determine their impact on outcomes

for students.

The Florida Department of Education views a system comprised of multiple tiers of support as

an avenue to continue to work collaboratively to significantly improve the way in which

outcomes for all students enrolled in Florida schools are addressed. Because of this, a continuum

of only the most effective instruction, intervention, and supports are efficiently and seamlessly

delivered to all students.

Acknowledgements

Original Contributors, 2011

George Batsche, Director

Mary Alice Myers, Coordinator

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

School Psychological Services Volusia County School

University of South Florida

District

Clark Dorman, Project Leader

Mark Neely, School Psychologist

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

Student Support Services Polk County School District

University of South Florida

Teresa D. Sweet, Chief

Heather Diamond, Specialist

Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction Florida Department

Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

of Education

Florida Department of Education

Melinda Webster, Elementary Reading

Leah Kelly, Executive Director

Student Support Services/ Exceptional Student Education

Broward County School District

Kim Komisar, Program Director

Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

Florida Department of Education

Specialist

Just Read, Florida! Office Florida Department of Education

David Wheeler, School Psychology Consultant

Student Services Support Project University of South

Florida

Amelia VanName Larson, Supervisor

Curriculum and Instructional Services Pasco County School

District

Revision Contributors, 2015

George Batsche, Director

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

University of South Florida

José Castillo, Unit Coordinator

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

University of South Florida

Clark Dorman, Project Leader

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

University of South Florida

Heather Diamond, Coordinator

Student Support Services Project University of South

Florida

David Davis, Technology Project Coordinator

Jayna Jenkins, MTSS Liaison Student Support

Services Project University of South Florida

Zoe Mahoney, Specialist

Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

Florida Department of Education

Kevin Smith, Director

Just Read, Florida! Florida Department of Education

Jeanne Wanzek, Assistant Professor

College of Education Florida State University

David Wheeler, School Psychology Consultant

Student Services Support Project University of South

Florida

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

University of South Florida

Brian Gaunt, Inter-project Coordinator

Positive Behavior Support Project & Problem

Solving/Response to Intervention Project University of

South Florida

Contributors, Third Edition

Beth Hardcastle, Regional Coordinator

Kelly Justice, Unit Coordinator

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

University of South Florida

Judi Hyde, Communications Coordinator

Lisa Yount, Regional Coordinator

Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

University of South Florida

Note: Individuals are identified in the roles that they were fulfilling at the time the original and/or revised work was

being completed.

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Making Connections: Aligning Practices, Efforts, Commitments, and Initiatives......................... 4

Improving Outcomes for All Students.......................................................................................... 12

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process............................................................ 17

Team Engagement ........................................................................................................................ 32

Special Education Eligibility Decisions........................................................................................ 37

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 49

The Tools ...................................................................................................................................... 50

Introduction

A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a term used to describe an evidence-based model

of schooling that uses data-based problem solving to integrate and provide academic, behavioral,

and mental health instruction and intervention. The integrated instruction and intervention are

delivered to students in varying intensities (multiple tiers) based on data. Data-driven decision

making seeks to ensure that district resources reach the right students and schools at the

appropriate levels to accelerate the performance of ALL students to achieve and/or exceed

proficiency.

A number of elements are associated with an MTSS that results in improved outcomes for

students. These elements can be organized into the following six domains.

1. Multiple tiers of instruction and intervention — The three-tiered

instructional/intervention model is a critical element of MTSS implementation. In a

typical system, Tier 1 includes the instruction delivered to all students; Tier 2 includes

supplemental instruction or intervention provided to students not meeting benchmarks;

and Tier 3 includes intensive, small-group or individual interventions for students facing

significant barriers to learning the skills required for school success. It is important to

consider academic, behavior, and mental health instruction and interventions when

examining this element.

2. Problem-solving process — The use of data-based problem solving to make educational

decisions is a critical element of MTSS implementation. This includes the use of data-

based problem solving for student outcomes across content areas, grade levels, and tiers,

as well as the use of problem solving to address barriers to school wide implementation

of MTSS. While several models for data-based problem solving exist, the four-step

problem solving approach includes: 1) defining the goals and objectives to be attained, 2)

identifying possible reasons why the desired goals are not being attained, 3) developing a

plan for and implementing evidence-based strategies to attain the goals, and 4) evaluating

the effectiveness of the plan.

3. Data/evaluation — Given the importance of data-based problem solving within an MTSS

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

model, the need for a data and evaluation system is clear. In order to do data-based

problem solving, school staff need to understand and have access to data sources that

align with the purposes of assessment. Procedures and protocols for administering

assessments and using data allow school staff to use student data to make educational

decisions. In addition to student data, data on the fidelity of MTSS implementation allow

school leadership to examine the current practices and make changes to increase and

improve implementation.

4. Communication and collaboration — Ongoing communication and collaboration are

essential for successful implementation of MTSS. Many innovations fail due to a lack of

consensus, to a lack of feedback to implementers to support continuous improvement,

and to not involving stakeholders in planning. It is also important to build a structure for

communicating and working with families and other community partners. These practices

increase the likelihood that innovative practices will be implemented and sustained.

5. Capacity building/infrastructure — Schoolwide capacity and infrastructure are required

to implement and sustain MTSS. This capacity and infrastructure usually include ongoing

professional development and coaching with an emphasis on data-based problem solving

and multi-tiered instruction and intervention, scheduling that allows staff to plan and

implement instruction and intervention, and processes and procedures teams to engage in

data-based problem solving.

6. Leadership — Leadership is key to successful implementation of any large-scale

innovation. The building principal, assistant principal(s), and school leadership team are

critical to implementing MTSS at the school level. They engage staff in ongoing

professional development for implementing MTSS, plan strategically for MTSS

implementation, and model data-based problem-solving for school improvement. The

school principal also supports the implementation of MTSS by communicating a vision

and mission to school staff, providing resources for planning and implementing

instruction and intervention, and ensuring that staff have the data needed to make

educational decisions.

Schools and districts that organize and operate as an MTSS use a structured, problem-solving

process to make sound, data-based, instructional decisions, and ensure that the tiered supports

necessary for all students to master standards are determined and delivered in response to what

the data indicate will most benefit students. This process is applied at all levels of Florida’s

educational system and supports the mission of the State Board of Education. The mission of the

State Board of Education, as stated in section 1008.31, Florida Statutes (F.S.), is to increase the

proficiency of all students within one seamless, efficient system by providing them with the

opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills through learning opportunities and research

valued by students, parents, and communities. It strives to maintain an accountability system that

measures student progress toward the following goals:

• Highest student achievement

• Seamless articulation and maximum access

• Skilled workforce and economic development

• Quality efficient services

The role of the educational system is to prepare every student for life with a focus on college

Introduction

and/or career readiness. To this end, it is the position of the Florida Department of Education that

an MTSS represents a logic and set of beliefs, including the systematic use of a problem-solving

process that must be integrated seamlessly into educational initiatives throughout Florida.

Ideally, this integration should be evident within continuous school improvement efforts, student

progression plans, leader and educator evaluation models, and the development of K–12

comprehensive evidence-based reading plans to provide the legal structure for the

implementation of a multi-tiered system in districts across the state.

Needs Assessment

When implementing a large-scale innovation within a district or school, a needs assessment can

help identify strengths and areas in need of development. The Self-Assessment of MTSS

Implementation (SAM)

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/sam/sam_revised_2021.pdf), is a needs

assessment and progress monitoring tool to help district- and school-based leadership teams

implement and sustain a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). The SAM includes a guide

for administration that provides descriptions and examples for each item.

Making Connections: Aligning Practices,

Efforts, Commitments, and Initiatives

Florida’s Seamless Educational System

The Florida Department of Education and districts throughout the state share the goal and

responsibility of increasing the proficiency of all students within one seamless, efficient system

(section 1008.31, Florida Statutes). An efficient and effective public education system is

fundamental to Florida’s ability to make significant social and economic contributions in our

national and global marketplace. Evidence of a national emphasis on reforming public education

to prepare students to be competitive in the 21st century global economy is found in federal

legislation such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 and the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004. Two themes of innovation expressed in both ESSA

and IDEA are supported by the adoption and implementation of a Multi-Tiered System of

Supports (MTSS): adopt a decision-making process that is student centered and informed by data

and establish multiple service and support options for students and families to account for the

diversity among U.S. students.

Data-based decision making, the use of evidence-based practices, and accountability for student

performance are also embedded in important federal legislation that impacts education. Congress

authorized the ESSA of 2015 to hold schools accountable for the educational outcomes of

students. ESSA requires states to ensure that all students, including those who are disadvantaged,

achieve predetermined levels of academic proficiency as determined through statewide

assessments. Implementation of evidence-based instructional practices is mandated to maximize

student performance and subsequently increase the percentage of students who demonstrate

proficiency on statewide assessments. Like ESSA, the IDEA focuses on the use of data and

research-based practices in the selection of curriculum and pedagogy. Schools must make

decisions regarding how to respond to these mandates using all the available educational

expertise, blending resources, and unifying efforts.

It is the position of the FDOE that implementing an MTSS represents a logic and set of beliefs

that support many current federal and state requirements. Implementation of an MTSS

framework can be a catalyst for student learning by supporting the implementation of services to

improve the academic, behavior, and mental health outcomes for all students, including students

identified as at risk for educational failure. The framework also becomes a stimulus for adult

learning through embedded professional learning designed to support educator engagement in

evidence-based practices.

At the center of implementing an MTSS framework is the systematic use of a data-based

problem-solving and decision-making process that must be integrated seamlessly into all systems

planning, including school improvement plans, student progression plans, K-12 comprehensive

reading plans, Early Warning Systems, and leader and educator evaluation plans. This problem-

solving process applied within an MTSS must be applied to all learners, which includes general

education students from pre-k through graduation, students with disabilities, and advanced and

gifted learners to elevate the efficacy of statewide improvement efforts and processes.

Making Connections: Aligning Practices, Efforts, Commitments, and Initiatives

Important education practices, such as Professional Learning Communities, allow teachers the

opportunity to create a model for high-quality instructional practices that contribute to an MTSS

framework by matching the method of quality instruction to what data indicate students need.

Other examples of how various initiatives are connected within a multi-tiered system, such as

Florida’s State Board of Education Strategic Plan, student progression plans, Florida’s Part B

State Performance Plan, District and School Improvement Policy, Florida Principal Leadership

Standards, Florida Educator Accomplished Practices, Florida’s reading and STEM initiatives,

and Universal Design for Learning are explored in this section.

Florida State Board of Education Strategic Plan

The Mission of the State Board of Education for the 2020-2025 term is to “…increase the

proficiency of all students within one seamless, efficient system, by allowing them the

opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills through learning opportunities and research

valued by students, parents, and communities.” The goals of the Florida State Board of

Education Strategic Plan are:

• Higher student achievement

• Seamless articulation and maximum access

• Skilled workforce and economic development

• Quality efficient services

The mission and goals of this plan are aligned with an MTSS framework in that increased

proficiency of all students within a seamless system is achievable when the diversity of

instructional support options is matched to the diversity of student needs. Decisions about access

to this continuum of increasingly intensive supports are made by use of a data-based problem-

solving process. More specifically, implementation of an MTSS aligns with the Florida State

Board of Education Strategic Plan in the following ways:

1. Improving Quality of Teaching in the Education System: Providing teachers with the

skills to identify students at risk, to improve performance in the use of student-based data,

and to improve performance in the delivery of evidence-based interventions.

2. Professional Development: Increasing the number of training opportunities throughout

the state.

3. Strengthening Foundation Skills: Significantly improving the skills of students not

performing at grade-level through an evidence-based system.

4. Closing the Gap: Significantly reducing disproportionality and improving performance

for racial/ethnic minority populations, students from low socio-economic environments,

students with disabilities, and English language learners (ELLs).

5. High School Graduation: Improving performance of students and effectiveness of early

intervention to improve future graduation rates.

6. Aligning Resources to Strategic Goals: Efficiently delivering services and deploying

personnel, resources, and time allocation.

Student Progression Plan

Florida Statute 1008.25(2) requires each school district to develop and implement a student

progression plan which includes policies and procedures that facilitate student achievement in

English Language Arts, science, social studies, and mathematics. The establishment of a

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

comprehensive program for student progress must also include plans for informing parents of

each student’s academic progress and criteria for evaluating student performance towards

reading proficiency goals. Students not achieving proficiency on the state’s standardized English

Language Arts or mathematics assessment must be evaluated to determine the nature of the

student’s difficulty, the areas of academic need, and strategies for providing academic supports

to improve the student’s performance. Finally, a district’s student progression plan should ensure

that the program of study, placement, promotion, reporting, retention, and assessment procedures

are equitable and comprehensive to support accountability for all students.

Ensuring a common methodology for using data to guide instructional planning and decision

making is an essential feature of MTSS. When students are identified as “off track” or “at risk”

for reaching their learning proficiency goals, decisions must be made to help those students

accelerate their learning and reach learning goals. Districts adopting an MTSS framework in a

context of student progression planning recognize that variability of performance exists among

students. In turn, variability among educators’ professional learning & support needs also exist.

A data-based delivery of supports helps all students reach their learning proficiency goals while

also balancing the limited resources with which a district can help all students be successful. A

data-based problem-solving process is the cornerstone of MTSS and is the process used to

identify barriers to student success, aid in the development of instruction and intervention

supports to remove those barriers, and devise the method to evaluate effectiveness of instruction

and support provided. While state law provides the accountability expectations for ensuring all

students reach learning goals, an MTSS provides the framework for designing and allocating the

matched supports each student would benefit from to reach proficiency goals.

Standards

In a multi-tiered system, standards represent what all students should know, understand, and be

able to do to progress through the K-12 public school system. How those students reach those

expectations, and what resources are used to help them reach those expectations, are the

decisions that educators are faced with when attempting to ensure every student is successful.

Determining who needs additional supports, what types of supports, and for how long to meet

standards is facilitated by use of a data-based problem-solving process. Some students will

require supplemental instruction or intervention supports and a few may require intensive

instruction or intervention supports to reach grade level proficiency goals. In short, standards

represent the finish line, while tiered options for student supports represent the differential

learning paths that students might follow to reach the finish line.

Florida’s Part B State Performance Plan, FFY 2019

Florida’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, State Performance Plan

(SPP), consists of multiple Performance Indicators across three primary targets: (1) free and

appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), (2)

disproportionality, and (3) effective supervision of Part B services. The FDOE has a

responsibility to support districts in achieving the performance targets for each indicator and for

reporting progress annually to the United States Department of Education, Office of Special

Education Programs (OSEP). Access Florida’s SPP and Annual Performance Report on the U.S.

Department of Education’s website at https://sites.ed.gov/idea/spp-apr-letters.

Making Connections: Aligning Practices, Efforts, Commitments, and Initiatives

Implementation of an MTSS assists districts in addressing applicable SPP indicators in primarily

two ways:

• Problem Solving: The focus of this framework is to provide districts and schools with a

blueprint for problem solving that addresses district, school, and student-level problems.

The entire focus is on systems change and the process of implementing reform efforts

that improve student performance, school climate, and family participation.

• Program Evaluation: Schools and districts can use data from MTSS implementation to

identify areas that require targeted assistance and to document the effects of interventions

implemented to address those areas. This framework can help provide assistance to

districts and schools in addressing disproportionality in the identification of students with

disabilities, their educational placements, their proficiency rates, and discipline.

The quality implementation of an MTSS directly impacts the student outcomes represented in the

SPP indicators.

School Improvement and Support Plan

At the heart of an MTSS framework is the logic that differential needs exist, and therefore

differential supports should be provided matched to what would benefit students. The state

system for School Improvement shares this same logic. Pursuant to Rule 6A-1.099811, Florida

Administrative Code, School Improvement Support Plan, schools demonstrating insufficient

student outcomes may be provided differential supports to help “turnaround” those schools and

improve student outcomes. An important feature of this law is recognition that school

improvement success hinges on the success of district changes and improvements in operations

designed to ensure school practices are sustainable and evaluated for effectiveness in producing

desired student outcomes. The process of “turning around” a school follows a similar process as

problem solving: Identify the discrepancy between current performance and desired

performance, identify barriers preventing goal attainment (e.g., high quality instruction), develop

a plan for reducing barriers (e.g., coaching, professional development, instructional planning

practices, etc.), and evaluate the success of school-based intervention to reach the desired goal.

MTSS aligns with School Improvement policy in that both share a student-centered focus in

which all system variables are aligned and organized to support effective student instruction and

needs-based supports at the classroom level.

Florida Principal Leadership Standards (Effective Date: 12/20/2011)

Rule 6A-5.080, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) defines standards for its principals and

school administrators: “The Standards are set forth in rule as Florida’s core expectations for

effective school administrators. The Standards are based on contemporary research on multi-

dimensional school leadership, and represent skill sets and knowledge bases found in effective

schools. The Standards form the foundation for school leader personnel evaluations and

professional learning systems, school leadership preparation programs, and educator certification

requirements.” The following standards represent Florida’s expectations of performance for

school principals:

• Student Achievement

o Standard 1: Student Learning Results

o Standard 2: Student Learning as a Priority

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

• Instructional Leadership

o Standard 3: Instructional Plan Implementation

o Standard 4: Faculty Development

o Standard 5: Learning Environment

• Organizational Leadership

o Standard 6: Decision Making

o Standard 7: Leadership Development

o Standard 8: School Management

o Standard 9: Communication

• Professional and Ethical Behavior

o Standard 10: Professional and Ethical Behavior

The Principal Leadership Standards Align within an MTSS

• Standards 1 and 2

o These standards align with an MTSS in that student performance should drive all

decisions about instruction and student support practices. Principals are expected

to ensure student learning goals are based on the state’s adopted standards and

ensure a professional environment in which faculty and staff work as a “system”

to maintain a school climate that supports student engagement and learning by

continuously monitoring student performance and closing learning gaps.

• Standard 3

o This standard reflects a central element of MTSS that principals are expected to

ensure alignment of state standards, effective instructional practices, student

learning needs, and the assessments used to monitor student learning are up to

standards. An effective Tier 1 instructional system prevents student learning

concerns and behavior problems. Moreover, the expectations within Standard 3

reflect the MTSS concepts of fidelity of effective instruction, evaluation of

instructional effectiveness, and prioritization for Tier 1 improvements when

insufficient outcomes are evident.

• Standards 4 and 5

o The standards of Faculty Development and Learning Environment contribute to

Instructional Plan Implementation in that an effective leader will develop and

support an effective faculty and staff by linking student performance with system-

wide strategic objectives and school improvement strategies. A key feature of

Standard 5 that is that principals will establish an environment that “improves

learning for all of Florida’s diverse student population.” Within this professional

learning environment standard are the MTSS concepts of data-driven professional

learning, differentiated educator supports, and systems coaching in that all these

concepts are applied to implementation of evidence-based practices within school

settings.

• Standard 6

o This standard has a critical role within an MTSS framework that principals are

expected to use data within a “decision-making process” to develop solutions to

problems affecting student and teacher proficiency and to evaluate effectiveness

of actions to improve outcomes.

Making Connections: Aligning Practices, Efforts, Commitments, and Initiatives

• Standards 7, 8, and 9

o Across Standards 7 through 9 exists recognition of the key role principals have in

building the capacity of all educators to implement and sustain effective practices

in a system where relationships are dynamic, changes in routines and faculty

assignments can occur, and changes in student needs fluctuate. These standards

also embody the MTSS concepts of effective leadership and systems coaching to

implement a continuous improvement culture and way of work.

• Standard 10

o Completing the list of principal standards is the overarching importance that

principals act as systems-change problem solvers. Pursuit of highest student

outcomes in the State of Florida drives school improvement planning.

Implementation of school improvement plans, just as with student instructional

plans, will encounter barriers to the fidelity of their use and attainment of desired

outcomes. When barriers arise, Standard 10 highlights the critical role of the

principal to maintain a clear focus on the school vision and lead problem solving

activities designed to address implementation barriers to their improvement plans.

Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs)

The FEAPs represent the main standards for effective educators. They represent the foundation

for the State of Florida’s teacher preparation programs, educator certification requirements, and

school district instructional support appraisal systems. These educator standards are based upon

3 essential principles:

1. The effective educator creates a culture of high expectations for all students by promoting

the importance of education and each student’s capacity for academic achievement.

2. The effective educator demonstrates deep and comprehensive knowledge of the subject

taught.

3. The effective educator exemplifies the standards of the progression.

The Educator Accomplished Practices are organized into two broad categories encompassing 6

standards of practice:

• Quality of Instruction

o Instructional Design & Lesson Planning

o The Learning Environment

o Instructional Delivery and Facilitation

o Assessment

• Continuous Improvement, Responsibility, and Ethics

o Continuous Professional Improvement

o Professional Responsibility and Ethical Conduct

Adoption and implementation of MTSS across a school district supports educators’

demonstration of the FEAPs in that the skills required of effective educators are the same skills

necessary for supporting all students to reach the highest learning goals. The FEAPs align with

MTSS through the concepts of data-based decision making, data-based instructional design and

delivery, homeschool communication and partnerships, the reciprocal relationship between

classroom management and instructional design, and the role of educator as problem solver when

barriers to student growth are evident. Differentiation of instruction, instructional design and

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

modification, and analysis of student progress in response to instructional delivery content and

methods all represent the intersection of a data-based decision-making process (i.e., problem

solving process) and a three-tiered service delivery system. Having a clear understanding of what

educators should know, understand, and be able to do to help students reach their highest

learning outcomes allows all other education professionals to identify their roles and

responsibilities to implement and maintain effective educator practices in an MTSS framework.

Florida’s K-12 Comprehensive Evidence-Based Reading Plan

Every year, school districts must submit a K-12 Comprehensive Evidence-Based Reading Plan

for the specific use of the research-based reading instruction allocation for review and approval

by the Just Read, Florida! Office. The requirements of this state policy share many

characteristics with the implementation of MTSS. This policy requires that decisions about

student instruction and supports in reading and literacy be driven by data, that a sustainable

coaching model be provided to educators with ongoing professional learning, and that all

educators be required to implement a differentiated instructional method based on student data.

Moreover, districts are required to provide differentiated and appropriately matched intensity of

supports to educators based on both student data and educator proficiency progress data. Within

an MTSS framework, Tier 1 is critical to ensuring that problems are prevented or otherwise

addressed early. The model advocated by the Florida Department of Education for literacy

instruction recognizes the critical role of effective universal instruction and supports, the need for

differential options to match the diversity of student needs, and the importance of ongoing

professional learning and data-based decision making to continuously monitor and improve

student outcomes.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a “framework for designing curricula that enable all

individuals to gain knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm for learning. UDL provides rich supports

for learning and reduces barriers to the curriculum while maintaining high achievement standards

for all to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights

into how humans learn.” (Center for Applied Special Technology, CAST). Universal Design is

found in federal legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of

2004 and the Higher Education Opportunity Act.

The National Center on Universal Design for Learning has developed three evidence-based UDL

principles for educators.

• Principle I — Provide Multiple Means of Engagement (the “why” of learning). Affect

represents a crucial element to learning, and learners differ markedly in the ways in

which they can be engaged or motivated to learn. Learning skills and strategies require

sustained effort and persistence. Increasing relevance can help students sustain the effort

and concentration needed to build self-regulation and self-determination skills.

• Principle II — Provide Multiple Means of Representation (the “what” of learning).

Present information and content in a variety of media. Learners differ in the ways that

they perceive and comprehend information that is presented to them. Instructional

materials should be digital and flexible to support adjustments by the user (e.g., enlarging

the text, converting text to speech, etc.). Curriculum content should be provided in text,

graphic illustrations with descriptions, charts, captioned videos, and immersive formats.

Making Connections: Aligning Practices, Efforts, Commitments, and Initiatives

• Principle III — Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression (the “how” of

learning). Learners differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and

express what they know. Options in how students express what they know should be

provided. Examples include choices in writing, presentations, storytelling, and video

production. Interactive, digital instructional materials can provide choices in how

students navigate curriculum content and move quickly between target information,

background information, glossaries, etc.

During the planning process for addressing learning goals, UDL principles (options in

engagement, representation, and expression) should be an integral part of the lesson plans and

should be made available to all students in Tier 1 instruction. Technology-rich learning

environments with digital instructional materials enhance the implementation of UDL. Within a

problem-solving framework, instruction and assessments based on UDL principles should be

provided during any intensive interventions to identify focused, learner specific UDL supports,

and instructional scaffolds needed for rapid engagement, academic success, and increased learner

independence (release of responsibility). The resulting information on effective UDL supports

and instructional scaffolds of these UDL assessments should then be incorporated into Tier I to

support these students in that setting as well as provide a focused and customized data-driven

implementation of UDL in that school.

Integrating Student Improvement Initiatives While Implementing MTSS

With various federal, state, and district demands that exist targeting increased student outcomes

and performance, state, districts, and school leaders can no longer attempt to implement or

comply with each demand in isolation of the others. As schools and districts confront the

challenges involved in building consensus, making connections, aligning efforts, developing an

infrastructure, and responding to legislative requirements among all the various educational

policies and procedures, it is essential that a comprehensive framework be used to guide the

integrated implementation of all student/school improvement initiatives in a way that meets

compliance with policy requirements, but also maximizes efficiency of operations and use of

resources to (1) implement those policies and procedures with fidelity, and (2) evaluate

effectiveness of those policies and procedures to produce desired student outcomes. The crucial

point to understand is that successful implementation of an MTSS encompasses all general

education initiatives that impact all students.

Therefore, leaders must help all educators acknowledge the need for change and embrace a

shared purpose of ensuring all students learn at high levels and take collective responsibility for

achieving this shared purpose. This represents a shift from operating within departmental silos to

depending on blended expertise and resources.

MTSS integrates the following domains:

• Student Outcomes

• School, Family, & Community Engagement

• Lesson Study, UDL, LIIS

• FL Principal Leadership Standards & FL Educator Accomplished Practices

• State Strategic Plan, ESSA, IDEA, School Improvement, & Student Progression

Improving Outcomes for All Students

Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem Solving, Third Edition illustrates a comprehensive way

in which data-based problem solving is universally applied to decision making in Florida,

including, but not limited to, decisions related to eligibility for special education services and

supports. It is intended to:

• Guide the application of district- and schoolwide problem solving within a Multi-Tiered

System of Supports (MTSS) as a system-wide school improvement model

• Provide districts and schools with the practical decision-making tools that maintain the

integrity of the problem-solving process using response to instruction/intervention data

• Reinforce the purpose of effective instructional decision making to improve the effects of

instruction for all students while acknowledging its role in evaluation and eligibility

decisions related to special education

Foundational Beliefs

Florida’s educators who are involved in the systematic implementation of an MTSS share the

following beliefs about the ideal educational conditions for promoting student achievement.

Using these beliefs to guide efforts is one way to ensure consistent movement toward

maximizing student achievement.

1. Highly effective personnel deliver scientific, research-based instruction and evidence-

based practices.

2. Curriculum and instructional approaches, aligned with standards, have a high probability

of success for most students.

3. Instruction is differentiated, includes appropriate scaffolds and accommodations, and is

based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to meet individual learning

needs.

4. Reliable, valid, and instructionally relevant assessments include the following:

• Screening Measures — Assessment tools designed to collect data for the purpose of

measuring the effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction and identifying students who would

benefit from additional interventions and support.

• Diagnostic Measures — Formal or informal assessment tools that measure skill

strengths and weaknesses, identify skills in need of improvement, and assist in

determining why a problem is occurring.

• Progress Monitoring Measures — Ongoing assessment conducted for the purposes

of guiding instruction, monitoring student progress, and evaluating

instruction/intervention effectiveness.

• Formative Measures — Ongoing assessment embedded within effective teaching to

guide instructional decisions and provide indicators for scaffolding, accommodation,

and/or accessibility solutions.

• Summative (Outcome) Measures — Typically administered near the end of the

school year to give an overall perspective of the effectiveness of the instructional

program.

5. Ongoing, systematic problem solving is consistently used for all students from enrollment

to graduation to make decisions across a continuum of student needs.

Improving Outcomes for All Students

6. Student data are used to guide meaningful decision making.

7. Professional learning and follow-up coaching with modeling are provided to ensure

effective instruction at all levels.

8. Actively engaged administrative leadership for data-based decision making is inherent to

the school culture.

9. All students and their parent(s) are part of one proactive and seamless educational

system.

Making System-Wide Changes

The most significant factor driving educational reform is the focus on improving outcomes for all

students and not just those being considered for Exceptional Student Education eligibility. To

that end, the question becomes “What do we want students to know and be able to do?”

Responding to this question requires educators to possess a complete understanding of the

behavioral and academic expectations for students throughout the course of the academic year.

To illustrate the broad range of students who benefit from being educated within a school culture

of data-based decision making, consider the application of systematic problem solving to gifted

and high-achieving learners. These students may also benefit from services beyond Tier 1

instruction and, therefore, require supplemental interventions for acceleration and enrichment

purposes.

Rule 6A-6.0331(1)(e), F.A.C., requires that schools implement evidence-based interventions to

address the identified area(s) of concern in the general education environment. These

interventions must be developed through a problem-solving process that uses student

performance data to identify and analyze the area(s) of concern, select and implement

interventions, and monitor the effectiveness of the interventions. The intensity and instructional

focus of the interventions should match student need, and interventions must be implemented as

designed and for long enough to determine whether the interventions have had the expected

effect, rather than for a predefined amount of time

Per this rule, the local school district is responsible for developing and implementing a multi-

tiered system of support, that integrates a continuum of academic, behavioral, and mental health

interventions for students who need additional support to succeed in the general education

environment using a data-based problem-solving process. This includes virtual settings. The

provision of educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports are included as

permissible problem-solving activities.

It is important to note that “good” problem solving does not just “happen.” It should be part of a

school’s or district’s planning for system-wide changes to improve outcomes for students. And

just “knowing what to do” is not sufficient, either. Effective implementation of change practices

requires support so that practices are used and used effectively to achieve desired outcomes. But

this takes time, and schools and districts are encouraged to consider the importance and

integration of the right people at the table, staff training and coaching, data systems that support

decision-making, and the role of leadership to make change happen. Implementation science is

the study of improvement methods that focus on how educational programs, practices, and

processes can most successfully be implemented. The model considers effective practices,

effective implementation and enabling contexts, to result in improved outcomes. It requires

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

solving problems or addressing barriers that may arise during implementation efforts. Identifying

the variables that may be impeding improvement efforts allows schools and districts to make

needed adjustments so that desired student outcomes are attained. Readers are encouraged to

learn more about “implementation science” at the National Implementation Research Network’s

website https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/national-implementation-research-network.

Consistent with implementation science, Rule 6A-6.0331 underscores a need for reconsidering

professional learning for teachers and other school staff. Based on the provisions of this rule,

teacher and staff learning should support the delivery of evidence-based literacy instruction;

academic behavioral, and mental health interventions; and the use of adaptive and instructional

technology. When educators and stakeholders consider the question “What do we want students

to know and be able to do?” improved academic, behavioral, and mental health outcomes result.

Problem Solving within Florida’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports

MTSS involves regular, systematic, and objective use of data to most efficiently allocate and

evaluate resources at all levels of the system and, most importantly, improve learning and

outcomes for all students. Data-based problem solving within an MTSS enables teams to address

problems and achieve goals from the broader district level to the more narrowly focused level of

the individual student. To ensure efficient application of resources, schools begin with the

identification of trends and patterns using schoolwide and grade-level data. If data indicate that

Tier 1 instruction is insufficient (resulting in too few students meeting expectations), adjustments

are objectively and systematically made and monitored. Students for whom Tier 1 instruction

alone remains insufficient, are provided targeted, supplemental, or intensive interventions at

increasing levels of intensity.

The four critical parts of the on-going problem-solving cycle as a consistent way of work for

teams are as follows:

1. Define the problem by determining the difference between what is expected and what is

occurring. Ask, “What specifically do we want students to know and be able to do when

compared to what they currently know and are able to do?”

Improving Outcomes for All Students

2. Analyze the problem using data to determine why the issue is occurring. Generate

hypotheses (reasons why students are not meeting performance goals) founded in

evidence-based content area knowledge, alterable variables, and instructionally relevant

domains. Ask, “Why is/are the desired goal(s) not occurring? What are the barriers to the

student(s) doing and knowing what is expected?” Gather assessment data to determine

valid/non-valid hypotheses, and establish a performance goal.

3. Develop and implement a plan driven by the results of the team’s problem analysis by

linking validated hypotheses to instruction/intervention. The hypotheses should lead to

evidence-based instructional decisions, and the intervention selected or designed should

directly reduce or eliminate those barriers. Plan development should include how the

students’ progress will be monitored and how intervention fidelity will be supported.

Ask, “What are we going to do?”

4. Measure response to instruction/interventions by using data gathered from progress

monitoring at agreed upon intervals to evaluate the effectiveness of the planned

intervention(s). Progress-monitoring data should directly reflect the targeted skill(s). Ask,

“Is it working? If not, how will the instruction/intervention plan be adjusted to better

support the students’ progress?” Team discussion centers on how to maintain or better

enable learning for students.

While not an exhaustive list, the following information describes essential components of a

highly functioning MTSS as well as considerations for data-based problem solving at each of the

tiers.

Universal Instruction – Tier 1

• Evidence-based, high-quality, general education instruction and support

• Screening and/or benchmark assessments for all students

• Data collection informs instruction

• If Tier 1 instruction results in less than 80% of students meeting expectations, engage in

Tier 1 problem solving

Supplemental Instruction – Tier 2

• Supplemental instruction and intervention are provided based on data that indicate for

some students, the evidence-based, high-quality, Tier 1 instruction and support are

insufficient

• Interventions and progress monitoring are targeted to specific skills to remediate or

enrich, as appropriate

• Progress monitoring occurs more frequently than at the Tier 1 level to ensure that the

intervention is working

• Supplemental interventions are aligned with Tier 1 instruction

• If more than 20% of students are receiving support at this level, engage in Tier 1 problem

solving

Intensive Instruction – Tier 3

• Intensive instruction and interventions based on individual student needs and aligned

with Tier 1 instruction

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

• Students receive may need prolonged interventions to meet grade level expectations

Progress monitoring occurs more frequently than at Tier 2 to ensure maximum

acceleration of student progress

• If more than 5% of students are receiving support at this level, engage in Tier 1 and Tier

2 problem solving

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-

Solving Process

Steps of the Problem-Solving Process

Regardless of whether teams are examining the sufficiency of Tier 1instruction or determining

the need for more intensive supports for groups or individual students (Tier 2 and Tier 3), they

should engage in a data-based problem-solving process. School teams can use Problem

Solving/RtI Worksheet (https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/PS-RtI_Worksheet.pdf) to

systematically address the steps of problem solving. The components within the worksheets

capture many of the elements addressed in Rule 6A.6-0331., Florida Administrative Code. The

school team members are prompted to use critical thinking skills to apply the four steps of

problem solving effectively.

Florida’s model includes a four-step problem solving process. The four steps of are:

• Step 1: Goal Identification (Problem Identification) – What exactly is the problem

or discrepancy between the current performance and expected performance?

• Step 2: Problem Analysis – Why is the problem occurring?

• Step 3: Intervention Design and Implementation – What exactly are we going to

do about it?

• Step 4: Response to Instruction/Intervention – Is the plan working?

Within this cyclical process, the problem is defined as the discrepancy between the expected

level of performance and the current level of performance. Hence the existence of a discrepancy

is defined, in part, by the difference between expected and current performance as opposed to

any former discrepancies, such as the discrepancy between ability and achievement. Central to

problem solving is an analysis of factors that impede performance beyond those that may (or

may not) reside within the learner. As a result, all factors that impact learning (i.e., instruction,

curriculum, environment, and learner variables) are considered through the analysis of student

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

performance data when assessing the effectiveness of instruction/intervention and determining

students’ instructional needs.

Goal Identification (Problem Identification) (Step 1):

During goal or problem identification, teams consider academic and behavioral standards to

clarify what students are expected to know and be able to do as well as data to determine peer

performance in relation to these expectations.

Consideration must be given to the percentage of peers demonstrating performance similar to

that of the targeted student as the response may lead to the hypothesis that the issue is related to

instructional, curricular, or environmental variables. As demonstrated below in the Decision-

Making Rubric for Use with Schoolwide Screening, when 20% or more students show similar

problems, it is likely that intervening at the group or systemic level will result in the greatest

improvement for the most students through efficient use of available resources.

Conducting a gap analysis can help teams determine at which Tier they should intervene

(regardless of whether the student receives exceptional student education services). Teams must

ask, “Is it a large group problem, a small group problem, or an individual student problem?”

More importantly, by identifying the percentage of students with similar problems, educators can

determine if class-wide instruction should be the focus or if individual/small groups of students

would benefit from targeted, supplemental intervention. The Decision-Making Rubric for Use

with Schoolwide Screening can assist teams in determining how to focus their problem solving.

If the discrepancy between the benchmark and peer group performance is large and the

discrepancy between peer group performance and the student’s performance is minimal, it would

not be appropriate to automatically determine that the student would benefit from exceptional

student education. Nor would it be appropriate, in this example, to assume that we would only be

focusing on an individual student. The Gap Analysis section of the Problem Solving/RtI

Worksheet (https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/PS-RtI_Worksheet.pdf) further illustrates

this thinking.

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

The Decision-Making Rubric for Use with Schoolwide Screening shown above begins by asking

the overarching question: Is this an individual student problem or a larger systemic problem?

Then the following specific questions are posed:

• Are more than 20% of students not meeting expectations? If so, then engage in problem

solving targeting improvement of whole group instruction. OR

• Are between 5% to 20% of students not meeting expectations? If so, then engage in

problem solving targeting improvement of small group instruction. OR

• Are fewer than 5% of students not meeting expectations? If so, engage in problem

solving targeting improvement of individual student instruction.

Regardless of the scenario, continue problem solving and monitoring instructional effectiveness.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Problem Analysis (Step 2):

During problem analysis, the team addresses the question, “Why is the problem occurring?”

Teams develop hypotheses or educated guesses to explain why the problem is occurring and

predict what might prevent the problem from occurring in the future. Hypothesis statements are

structured as “The problem is occurring because __________.” Subsequently, prediction

statements are written as “If __________ would occur, then the problem would be reduced.”

Data are collected to confirm or reject the hypotheses that were developed. During this phase, it

is important to determine if the problem reflects a skill deficit (i.e., “can’t do”) or motivation

deficit (i.e., “won’t do”). In addition to looking at student skill deficits, it is imperative that

educators do their due diligence to look at curricular, instructional, or environmental factors that

can be inhibiting students’ success. For information on problem analysis and, more specifically

on hypotheses development, see the Problem Solving/RtI Worksheet at

https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/PS-RtI_Worksheet.pdf.

Instructional/Intervention Design and Implementation (Step 3):

During instructional/intervention design and implementation, the team focuses on “What are we

going to do about it?” Specifically, the Problem Solving/RtI Worksheet guide teams through the

process of identifying who is responsible for intervention plan implementation, what will be

done, when will it occur, and where will it occur. Components of the comprehensive intervention

plan found in the Problem Solving/RtI Worksheet also include a support plan, that may include

relevant training for the individual responsible for implementing carrying out the intervention or

a consistent period for someone to check in with the individual and offer coaching and support.

Other components include intervention documentation (see the Intervention Documentation

Worksheets at

https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/intervention_documentation_worksheets.pdf) to ensure

fidelity of implementation and monitoring the plan to determine student rate of progress.

Response to Instruction/Intervention (Step 4):

Evaluating the students’ actual response to the instruction/intervention is a critical component of

this model. Data review and analysis are used to determine if the plan is working. For Step 4, the

Problem Solving/RtI Worksheet guide the team through careful review of graphed data to

determine if there has been a positive, questionable, or poor response to intervention.

Decision Rules

Subsequent instructional decision-making varies based on the whether the student response is

positive, questionable, or poor. Individual student and group examples are described and

illustrated below.

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

Positive Response to Intervention (RtI)

RtI is considered positive when the gap between expected performance and observed

performance is closing. Ideally, the point at which the target student will “come in range” of

grade-level expectations — even if it is the long range — can be extrapolated or estimated.

Under positive response conditions, the current instruction/intervention may be continued with

the same or increased goal. Alternatively, the current level of instruction/intervention may be

faded gradually to determine whether the same level of intensity of instruction is necessary for

student success. See the illustrations below for individual and group decision rule examples of

positive response.

Decision Rule for Positive Response – Group of Students

Positive Response

•

Gap is closing.

•

Point at which target student(s) will “come in range” of target can be extrapolated—even

if this is long range.

Potential Actions

• Continue intervention with current goal.

• Continue intervention with goal increased.

• Gradually fade intervention to determine if student(s) have acquired functional

independence.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Decision Rules for Positive Response – Individual Student

Positive Response

•

Gap is closing.

•

Point at which target student(s) will “come in range” of target can be extrapolated—even

if this is long range.

Potential Actions

• Continue intervention with current goal.

• Continue intervention with goal increased.

• Gradually fade intervention to determine if student(s) has acquired functional

independence.

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

Questionable Response to Intervention

RtI is considered questionable when the rate at which the gap is widening slows considerably but

is still widening, or when the gap stops widening but closure does not occur. The student(s)

response to instruction/intervention is considered poor if the gap continues to widen with no

change in rate of progress after the instruction/intervention is implemented with fidelity.

When the response is questionable, the first question to be asked is one of instruction or

intervention implementation fidelity: “Was the instruction or intervention implemented as

intended?” If not, then supports to increase implementation fidelity are put in place. A variety of

tools are used to measure intervention implementation fidelity and may include both qualitative

and quantitative methods such as direct observations, self-reports, checklists, and intervention-

specific tools. If implementation fidelity is demonstrated, then the intensity of the current

instruction/intervention may be increased for a brief period. If the rate of progress improves, then

instruction is continued at the more intense level. If the rate does not improve, then a return to

Steps 1 and 2 of problem solving is necessary. See the illustrations below for individual and

group decision rule examples for questionable responses.

Decision Rule for Questionable Response – Group of Students

Questionable Response

•

Rate at which gap is widening slows, but gap is still widening.

•

Gap stops widening, but closure does not occur.

Potential Actions

• Was instruction or intervention implemented as intended?

• If no, employ strategies to increase implementation fidelity.

• If yes, increase intensity of current instruction or intervention for a brief period and

assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem

solving.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Decision Rule for Questionable Response – Individual Student

Questionable Response

•

Rate at which gap is widening slows, but gap is still widening.

•

Gap stops widening, but closure does not occur.

Potential Actions

• Was intervention implemented as intended?

• If no, employ strategies to increase implementation fidelity.

• If yes, increase intensity of the current intervention for a brief period and assess impact.

If rate improves, continue. If the rate does not improve, return to problem solving.

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

Poor Response to Intervention

When RtI is poor, the same question of implementation fidelity is asked. Again, if

implementation fidelity is problematic, supportive strategies to increase implementation fidelity

are employed. If implementation fidelity is good, then the steps of problem solving are retraced,

asking: “Is the instruction/intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis, or are there other

aligned interventions to consider?” (Intervention Design), “Are there other hypotheses to

consider?” (Problem Analysis), and “Is the problem identified correctly?” (Problem

Identification). See the illustrations below for individual and group decision rule examples for

poor responses.

Decision Rule for Poor Response – Group of Students

Poor Response

•

Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Potential Actions

• Was instruction or intervention implemented as intended?

• If no, employ strategies to increase implementation integrity.

• If yes,

o Is instruction or intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis? (Intervention

Design)

o Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis)

o Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification)

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Decision Rule for Poor Response – Individual Student

Poor Response

•

Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Potential Actions

• Was intervention implemented as intended?

• If no, employ strategies to increase implementation integrity.

• If yes,

o Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis? (Intervention Design)

o Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis)

o Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification)

Applying Problem Solving Across Tiers

The application of the problem-solving cycle across the three tiers is an essential component of a

functional system. The underpinning idea is that the level of support a student requires to be

successful exists on a continuum. The continuum includes students needing no support beyond

the differentiated Tier 1 curriculum and instruction to those who would benefit from

extraordinary support. Tiered resources are arranged along that continuum such that students

have access to instruction/intervention at a level of intensity corresponding with what data

indicate they need. There are Imperative Questions for Problem Solving with an MTSS for teams

to address to guide discussions about the effectiveness of instruction at each tier.

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Imperative_Questions_ProblemSolving-MTSS.pdf)

Tier 1: Schoolwide Universal, Tier 1 Instruction

To what extent are all students provided with well-delivered, evidence-based instruction and

curriculum that is effective for the desired outcomes? How is this verified?

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

What assessment tools or processes are used to identify student needs and the students’ response

to learning supports provided?

Is universal, Tier 1instruction effective?

• What percent of students are achieving standards/benchmarks/expectations (80% or

more)?

• What percent of students in subgroups are achieving standards/ benchmarks/expectations

(80% or more)?

• When addressing an individual student’s needs, what percent of students in their

subgroup are achieving benchmarks/standards/expectations (80% or more)?

If universal, Tier 1 instruction/curriculum is not effective:

• Is the schoolwide instruction appropriately matched to what data indicate would benefit

students?

• Do systems or structures need to be changed to promote more effective instruction?

• Are resources and assistance provided to educators for implementation fidelity?

To what extent is the school-based leadership team engaged in Tier 1-level problem solving to

increase the effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction?

How are parents and students involved or engaged in selecting and implementing universal

learning supports?

How do teams determine when student(s) will require supplemental and more intensive,

individualized instruction/intervention?

Tier 2: Supplemental Instruction/Intervention

What specific supplemental instruction/intervention is planned to improve the performance of

students who would benefit from additional instruction and support in addition to and aligned

with universal supports?

Consider these six key components when planning supplemental interventions and supports:

• Amount of additional academic-engaged time needed

• Focus of the intervention and support

• Specific academic or mental health support

• Method and frequency of progress monitoring assessments

• Evidence of fidelity of implementation

• Sufficiency of learning support

How is the supplemental instruction/intervention implemented and integrated into Tier 1?

• Academic-engaged time – How much more time is provided?

• Curriculum/Program/Method – What is used?

• Personnel – Who provides the learning support? Are the highest levels of expertise and

skill matched to the students with the most significant needs? How is assistance to

educators provided to ensure fidelity of implementation?

• Time and setting for small group intervention – What is the setting?? How often and for

how long (i.e., times per week, minutes per session)?

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

• Parents – How are the students’ parents involved or engaged in supporting the

intervention?

How effective is the supplemental instruction/intervention for groups of students who would

benefit from additional support?

• What assessments are used for ongoing data collection aligned with universal learning

supports so that impact on learning outcomes is measurable?

• How frequently are data collected? How frequently are the data analyzed by the team?

• How are the student’s parents engaged in the progress monitoring and analysis of student

engagement, level of performance, and rate of progress?

• How does the team determine whether the instruction/intervention is effective?

• If the learning support is ineffective (poor or questionable student response), how does

the team monitor and assist with implementation fidelity?

• How will the team determine if student(s) will require more intensive, individualized

support?

Tier 3: Intensive Individualized Intervention

What specific intensive individualized learning supports are planned to improve the rate of

progress of the individual student in addition to and aligned with universal and supplemental

learning supports?

Consider these seven key components when planning individualized interventions and supports:

• Amount of additional academic-engaged time needed

• Reduction of group size

• Narrowed focus of the learning support

• Specific instructional/behavioral/mental health strategies

• Method and frequency of progress monitoring assessments

• Evidence of fidelity of implementation

• Sufficiency of learning support

How is the intensive, individualized learning support delivered and integrated with Tier 1 and

Tier 2 Instruction/intervention?

• Academic-engaged time – How much more time is needed?

• Curriculum/Program/Method – What does the student need?

• Personnel – Who provides the intervention? Are the highest levels of instructional

expertise and skill being matched to the student with the most significant needs? How is

assistance provided to ensure fidelity of implementation?

• Time and setting for instruction – Where does the intervention take place and when?

• Parents – How are the students’ parents involved or engaged in supporting Tier 3

support?

How effective is the intensive, individualized intervention for the student?

• What assessments are used for ongoing data collection aligned with Tier 1 instruction so

that impact on learning outcomes is measurable?

• How frequently are data collected? How frequently are they analyzed by the team?

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

• How, and to what degree, are the student’s parents involved or engaged in the progress

monitoring and analysis of the student’s level of performance, and rate of progress?

• How unique is the student’s response in comparison to peers?

• How does the team determine whether the intervention is effective?

• How does the team determine what adjustments may be needed?

• If the intervention is ineffective (poor or questionable student response), how does the

team monitor and assist with implementation fidelity?

• If the intervention was delivered with fidelity and is ineffective, how are decisions made

to adjust the design or delivery?

Critical Guiding Questions for Problem Solving at Every Tier

The critical questions used at Tiers 2 and 3 are extensions of the basic guiding questions used in

Tier 1. Problem Identification and Goal Setting, or Step 1 of the problem- solving process for

Tier 1, is key to ensuring integration across the tiers while simultaneously ensuring a balance

between effectiveness and efficiency of using resources to provide matched supports to all

students.

In short, the goal(s) identified in Step 1 of Tier 1 should be the same overall goals used to drive

analyses and decision making at Tiers 2 and 3. The following are the Critical Guiding Questions

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Critical_Guiding_Questions.pdf) that would be

considered for students identified as needing additional supports in addition to Tier 1

improvement plans, organized in the order of the cyclical problem solving process:

Step 1 - Define: What is the problem?

• What do we expect students to know, understand, and do as a result of universal learning

supports?

o Are there students for whom the Tier 1 learning supports are ineffective? (How

sufficient is Tier 1?)

o Is there any disproportionality in academic, behavior, and/or mental health

outcomes (i.e., race, ethnicity, sex, disability, grade level, class distribution,

English language learner status, etc.)?

o Are more than 20% identified for additional supplemental learning supports (i.e.,

Tier 2)? If yes, does the Tier 1 improvement plan address this?

o Are more than 5% identified for intensive learning supports (i.e., Tier 3)? If yes,

does the Tier 1 improvement plan address this?

• Are there groups of students for whom Tier 2 and Tier 3 learning supports currently

being provided are not sufficient?

o Are there any students who are represented in multiple groups (e.g., demonstrate

needs in academic, behavior, and mental health domains)?

o Has the team considered the function and/or type of the problem?

Step 2 - Analyze: Why is it occurring?

• Since the Tier 1 and/or supplemental learning supports are NOT sufficient for either a

group of students or an individual student, what barriers have or could have precluded

students from reaching expectations?

o Are hypotheses focused on alterable factors?

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

o Are data available to validate hypotheses?

o Is there a clear understanding of the situations (i.e., antecedents) that result in the

outcomes being achieved for the group/student who is not meeting expectations?

Step 3 - Implement: What are we going to do about it?

• What instruction and supports will be used?

o Are the instruction, strategies, and learning supports being designed or planned

matched to the function and specific needs of the student(s) and related Tier 1

expectations?

o Are there any standard protocols or generic approaches that might be beneficial

for use?

o Are there students for whom intensive or complex needs require individualized

learning supports?

• What resources (initial and ongoing) are needed to support implementation of the plan?

• How will sufficiency and effectiveness of Tiers 2 and 3 learning supports be monitored

over time?

o What additional data will be collected to monitor progress of instruction and

learning supports designed to improve targeted and specific skills/behaviors needed

to help the student(s) meet Tier 1 goals?

o Do improvements in student(s) progress monitoring data result in improvements in

Tier 1 outcome data for those same students? In other words, what impact has Tier

2 and/or Tier 3 had on improving student outcomes in Tier 1 expectations?

• How will fidelity be monitored over time?

o What educator practices will be monitored to ensure fidelity of learning supports

are delivered as planned/designed? How long/often will this monitoring occur?

o Are the tools used to monitor fidelity of the specific interventions appropriately

selected and matched to the area of concern?

• How will “good,” “questionable,” and “poor” student responses to learning supports be

defined?

o Are the specific or narrow goals of Tiers 2 and 3 aligned with ensuring to help the

student(s) reach their overall Tier 1 goals? That is, if the students make progress

in response to Tier 2 or 3 learning supports, is there an increase in performance at

Tier 1?

Step 4 - Evaluate: Is it working?

• Have planned learning supports at Tiers 2 and 3 been effective?

o Does the team have a set of guidelines to structure a common approach to

analyzing the data (e.g., “decision rules”)?

o If students’ progress in response to Tier 2 or Tier 3 learning supports

demonstrates a “good” response, and there is no increase in Tier 1 performance,

what decision(s) will the team make?

o If students’ progress in response to Tier 2 or 3 services demonstrates

“questionable” or “poor” responses, is there adequate fidelity of implementation

of the learning supports? If yes, or no, what decisions will the team make?

The effectiveness of each tier of instruction must be regularly monitored to ensure the strength of

the entire system. The problem-solving process is a recursive, self-correcting, ongoing

Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process

methodology used for effective decision making at all levels within the system. This logic and

theme of data-based decision making is embedded in a variety of existing structures such as

school improvement, student progression (including student progress monitoring plans and

individual educational plan (IEP) present levels and goals), reading plans, positive behavior

support, standards implementation, and district policies and procedures.

Team Engagement

Parent Involvement

Parent involvement in education has been widely reviewed and found to be highly linked to

student learning and achievement. Reporting data to parents and involving them in decision

making is critical for student success, and it is a requirement of both the Every Student Succeeds

Act (ESSA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Schools must help

facilitate parent understanding and involvement in this decision making.

Parental involvement is a key component for having an effective Multi-Tiered System of

Supports (MTSS) within a school. Schools need to include parent communication and input in all

phases of the problem-solving process. Some districts have reported benefitting from reviewing

their current parent involvement policies to ensure that they are in line with IDEA and ESSA.

Suggestions regarding what level of involvement and communication should take place during

the problem-solving process at each tier are provided in the following paragraphs.

Prior to the start of each school year, a plan should be developed for informing parents about

using data-based problem solving within an MTSS. Districts and/or schools may wish to

download or create parent handouts or brochures, such as Florida’s MTSS brochure for parents

or parent video (https://player.vimeo.com/video/49760122), which outline what MTSS looks like

within their school. A description of the school’s data-based problem solving and MTSS should

be included in the school’s handbook. Student services personnel, such as a school psychologist,

school social worker, or school counselor, can share additional information with parents as

needed. Display boards, video clips, and PowerPoint presentations can be used to help describe

these concepts and benefits to children at teacher-student orientation meetings.

Various kinds of information should be shared with parents depending upon what level of

support is being provided to their child. Specific to Tier 1 instruction, data reflecting student

progress within the Tier 1 academic and/or behavioral curricula should be shared with parents of

all students. During parent-teacher conferences, graphs of student progress should be provided

with explanations regarding student performance. Strategies, materials, and technology tools for

home instruction also should be shared. Also, parents may want to use a participation form to

help them record notes during problem-solving meetings. A Parent Participation Notes example

can be accessed at https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Parent_Participation_Notes.pdf.

The progress of students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction, in addition to the Tier 1

academic and behavioral curricula should be monitored more frequently. Reports of student

progress also must be shared with parents more frequently at this level. Obtaining parent input

and engaging parents at this phase is critical for student success. Parents should be offered

specific support regarding skills that need improvement. It might be helpful to provide parents

with written documentation of what data have been collected, the intervention plan(s) put in

place to improve skills, and how the plan(s) are monitored. For students receiving additional

support through tutoring, schools should make efforts to communicate with the parents and tutor

to help bridge the understanding of deficit skills and evidence-based interventions that are being

used to address the areas of concern. This helps to ensure that the supplemental intervention

being provided is aligned with the Tier 1 instruction and supports.

Team Engagement

The progress of students receiving Tier 3 intensive interventions should be monitored most

frequently. Parents should be invited to participate in the problem-solving meetings to analyze

their child’s progress (response to the Tier 3 interventions) and help make decisions about their

instruction. Schools should encourage parents to document and share information about any

services that are being provided outside of the school day. Parents should also be provided with

detailed graphs and clear explanations of their child’s response to instruction/intervention over

time. If the team involved in problem solving is considering the need for evaluation procedures

to potentially access exceptional student education resources, parents also must be informed of

their procedural due process rights under IDEA.

Parent Involvement within an MTSS

Involving multiple stake holders, including parents, is a key component for having an effective

system of supports within a school. Schools should include parent involvement and input in all

steps of the data-based problem-solving process. Schools and parents benefit when parents are

routinely provided information about how they can be involved and participate in this process.

The following is an example of what level of involvement and communication should take place

respective to the level of tiered instruction.

Tier 1

Activity: Preparation for opening of school

How to Involve Parents:

• Develop a campaign to inform the public regarding data-based problem-solving process

within an MTSS.

• Include clear description of data-based problem-solving process within an MTSS in

school handbook (parent and/or student).

Activity: Initiation of school year

How to Involve Parents:

• Send parent brochure or handout home to all parents reviewing processes initiated within

the system to address supports provided to all students.

• Disseminate information through conferences, websites, newsletters, and/or open houses

to facilitate parents’ understanding of the problem-solving process and its benefit to their

student(s).

• Consider using resources, such as a PowerPoint, video, or a display board at an open

house or student orientations.

Activity: Universal screenings

How to Involve Parents

• Provide data reflecting student progress within the Tier 1 curriculum for all parents at

their request.

• Conduct parent/teacher conference during which student data will be shared, and which

strategies, materials, and technology tools for home instruction are offered.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Tier 2

Activity: Teams (content area, grade level, etc.) meet to identify students to receive targeted

supports

How to Involve Parents

• Obtaining parent input is critical. Solicit input from parents when appropriate.

Activity: Documentation of progress

How to Involve Parents

• Continue to send home reports and continuous progress monitoring data reviewed by

team.

• Involve parent in the intervention process. (Note: If teaching a targeted skill, the parent

should know about this and be guided in helping their student at home to the extent the

parent is willing and able.)

• Consider providing the parent a copy of the Parent Participation Notes

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Parent_Participation_Notes.pdf) to the parent as

a way of helping them understand and document what support is being provided to their

student.

• Consult with parent regarding any tutoring services the student may be receiving.

Tier 3

Activity: Team meets to review progress and make instructional decisions.

How to Involve Parents

• Invite parents to participate in meetings and/or receive any of the data the team uses with

a summary of the meeting in writing.

• Encourage the parent to use the Parent Participation Notes

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Parent_Participation_Notes.pdf).

Activity: Decisions that result in a student spending more time in intensive instruction than

typical peers

How to Involve Parents

• Continue to communicate with parents and present them information on intervention

plans and progress monitoring.

• If a team is considering the need for an evaluation, communicate this need to the parents

using the data collected during the intervention process and solicit consent from parents.

Educator Involvement

Effective leadership is a vital component for a school to be successful within a multi-tiered

system. Collaboration among administrators, content area specialists, data specialists, and other

school and district staff should represent instructionally relevant team membership. Problem-

solving teams should be identified or created and used to address problems at various levels

(school level, grade level, class level, subgroup level, or student level) and may include various

members, depending on the issue or concern. Though referred to with a wide variety of names,

any team engaged in problem solving is considered a problem-solving team. Level of expertise,

Team Engagement

skill, and knowledge will determine the members of these teams, rather than title. Additionally,

members of the problem-solving team will need to have a shared consensus regarding a clearly

stated purpose of engaging in problem solving: to increase student learning, as is continually

verified by students’ positive response to the instruction/interventions being provided.

The makeup of the team engaged in problem solving varies depending upon the purpose and

level of the problem solving. Membership for effective problem solving at the school or grade

level should include individuals who are knowledgeable about expected schoolwide (or grade

level) academic and behavioral performance and rate of progress and have an in-depth

understanding of the specific challenges in the school. Members include, but are not limited to,

administration, grade-level representation, intervention specialists (academic and behavioral),

problem solving facilitators, school psychologists, intervention support personnel, parents, and

data coaches.

Problem-solving teams at the individual student level should always include the parents of the

student. Team members should be included according to their knowledge of the student; grade-

level expectations; the problem-solving process; evidence-based academic, behavioral, and

mental health interventions; progress monitoring; and diagnostic assessment to inform

instruction. Members, who should be added depending on the student’s needs, include:

• the school administrator

• a general education teacher

• a special education teacher

• a school psychologist

• someone knowledgeable in reading, math, and/or behavior

• student service representatives

• a problem-solving facilitator

• data coaches

When forming team membership at all levels of the framework, consider the following example:

If the student would benefit acceleration or enrichment in one or more areas to remain engaged

in the curriculum, then the specialist for gifted learners is an important member of the problem-

solving team. Administrators should consider all potential resources on staff, such as fine arts

teachers, media specialists, etc. Depending on the nature of the problem, anyone the school

employs may be identified as a valuable resource. Administrators should also consider existing

teams, such as grade-level teams, that should engage in systematic problem solving at the Tier 1

and Tier 2 levels.

Responsibilities

The general role of the problem-solving team is to focus on improving outcomes for students. To

accomplish this task, the problem-solving team will need to have certain responsibilities. An

effective problem-solving team begins by reviewing student performance data at the whole

school, grade, class, and subgroup levels. When reviewing the data, it is important to identify any

trends that may demonstrate an area of concern. Once an area is identified, the problem-solving

team develops hypotheses as to why the problem is occurring. Once a team has verified one or

more hypotheses, an intervention plan will be created to improve the area of concern. It will be

essential to consider the resources available at the school and how best to use them. The

problem-solving team will review the effectiveness of the intervention and adjust as needed.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Refer to the section Continuous Improvement: The Problem-Solving Process for detailed

descriptions of problem solving at each of the four steps in the process.

For meetings to be effective, problem-solving teams should consider the frequency and duration

of their meetings as well as the roles and procedures used during the meetings. For instance, a

school-level problem-solving team may not need to meet as frequently as a grade- or individual-

level team. It is also important to have a structured format that is consistently used during

meetings to ensure that the time is spent efficiently. Problem-solving team meetings should

conclude each occurrence with a written plan that outlines not only the intervention plan but also

the ongoing responsibilities of each of the team members. As many members of the team as

possible should be proficient using the problem-solving process so that the discussion and

decision-making can be effectively facilitated.

Special Education Eligibility Decisions

Using Information Gathered During Problem Solving

There are multiple state board rules that require school districts to use a problem-solving process.

They include:

• General Education Intervention Procedures, Evaluation, Determination of Eligibility,

and the Provision of Exceptional Student Education Services (Rule 6A- 6.0331, Florida

Administrative Code, [F.A.C.])

• Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (Rule

6A-6.03018, F.A.C.)

• Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Language Impairments and

Qualifications and Responsibilities for the Speech-Language Pathologists Providing

Language Services (Rule 6A-6.030121, F.A.C)

• Exceptional Student Education Eligibility for Students with Emotional/Behavioral

Disabilities (Rule 6A-6.03016, F.A.C.)

School districts in Florida are required to use a problem-solving process that determines how a

student responds to scientific, research-based interventions when determining whether that

student is, or continues to be, eligible for special education. The primary catalyst for these

changes came from the 2004 reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act and the corresponding regulations issued in 2006. Specifically, 34 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.307 allows a state education agency to adopt criteria to identify

students in the category of specific learning disabilities (SLD) using a process that determines

how a student responds to evidence-based interventions and requires school districts to use the

established criteria.

Using information on how a student responds to evidence-based instruction and intervention

when determining whether a student is eligible for special education services shifts away from

identifying and diagnosing characteristics that are internal to the student and moves to

identifying effective instruction and intervention for the student. The central question is: “What

about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learner, and learning environment should be

altered so that the student will learn?” not: “What about the student is causing the performance

discrepancy?” This redefines the target as the determination of those conditions that enable

learning, rather than identifying disabling conditions. When using a student’s response to

intervention as a basis for special education eligibility decisions, teams ask the following

questions:

• What is the discrepancy between the student’s level of performance and the peer group

and/or grade-level standards?

• What is the student’s educational progress as measured by rate of improvement?

• What are the instructional needs of the student?

There are many advantages to using data collected within a multi-tiered system to support

eligibility decisions over more traditional models of disability identification, including the

following:

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

• Student learning and outcomes are addressed proactively. The monitoring of student

progress is early and frequent, which allows for evidence-based instruction and

intervention to be delivered as soon as possible.

• The delivery of evidence-based instruction and intervention reduces the number of

students who require resources through special education due to ineffective instruction

and/or a mismatch between the instruction, curriculum, environmental conditions, and the

student’s needs.

• Staff members spend their time focusing on finding what works for students and the

conditions under which they are most successful instead of attempting to identify

problems that are inherent to the student and presumed to be stable across environments

and across time.

• Eligibility determinations are based more emphatically on educational need. Those with

the greatest need are given the most support.

• Problem solving continues while students receive special education supports, and the

school team continues to work to provide instruction and interventions that result in the

student achieving expectations. The team continues to make regular and ongoing

instructional decisions based on data, including when special education resources may no

longer be necessary.

Consent and Evaluation Requirements When Determining Eligibility

The integration of a problem-solving framework in State Board of Education (SBE) rules has

promoted new ways of thinking about addressing outcomes for all students. Because Rule 6A-

6.0331(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), General Education Intervention Procedures,

Evaluation, Determination of Eligibility, Reevaluation and the Provision of Exceptional Student

Education Services, permits districts to conduct academic and behavioral evaluations when

planning interventions in the general education setting, districts must clarify when parental

consent is required and how to determine completion of the evaluation procedures when students

are referred for an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education.

The following questions and answers are intended to clarify requirements regarding consent and

evaluation:

What is an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education and related services?

Many parents and professionals use the term “evaluation” to mean a test, or battery of tests, that

are scheduled and administered on a given date. Although an evaluation may include specific

assessment instruments, in the context of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and

corresponding Florida State Board of Education rules, an evaluation refers to all the procedures

used to determine whether a student is a student with a disability and the nature and extent of the

student’s special education and related service needs (Rule 6A-6.03411(1)(l), F.A.C.). An

evaluation consists of all relevant assessment tools and strategies used to collect functional,

developmental, and academic information about a student to determine specialized instructional

need. Therefore, an evaluation includes existing data collected prior to obtaining parental consent

for an evaluation (e.g., classroom performance; observations; interviews; screening, progress

monitoring, diagnostic assessments; and district and state assessments; private assessments; and

parental input) and any additional assessment procedures conducted after receipt of parental

consent.

Special Education Eligibility Decisions

What constitutes the need to obtain consent per Child Find?

Parental consent is required whenever the district proposes to conduct assessment procedures for

the purpose of determining eligibility for special education and related services. Within an

ongoing problem-solving process, the school team monitors student response to intervention and

initiates an evaluation if the data suggest that the student needs special education and related

services. Circumstances that trigger the district’s Child Find obligations include the following

situations:

• The school-based team determines that a K-12 student’s response to intervention

indicates that intensive interventions are effective but require a high level of intensity and

resources to sustain growth or performance (empirically established by fading the

intervention) beyond that which is accessible through general education resources.

• The school-based team determines that a K-12 student’s response to interventions

indicates that the student does not make adequate growth

given effective Tier 1

instruction and intensive, individualized, evidence-based interventions.

• The results of a developmental screening for a child age three to kindergarten entry age

indicate that the child may be a child with a disability who needs special education and

related services.

• A parent requests an evaluation and there is documentation or evidence that the student

may be a student with a disability and needs special education and related services. If,

upon review of the parent’s request, the district determines the evaluation is not

appropriate, then the parent must be provided with written notice of its refusal to conduct

the evaluation.

When a school-based team suspects that a student may be a student with a disability, consent is

required for any subsequent evaluation procedures, including the collection of additional

progress monitoring data. The district has 30 days to request consent to conduct an evaluation

whenever any of the circumstances identified above is present unless the district and parent agree

to a different time period or in the case of a parent-initiated request.

Is consent required to conduct evaluations or assessment procedures that inform general

education interventions?

Parental consent is not required if the sole purpose of obtaining assessment data is to inform

instruction or intervention as part of problem solving embedded in general education intervention

procedures (Rule 6A-6.0331(1), F.A.C.). The purpose for collecting assessment data, not the

assessment procedures, determine when consent is required. Whenever assessment and data

collection procedures are conducted for the purpose of determining eligibility, then consent is

required (Rule 6A-6.0331(4), F.A.C.).

How does the team determine what an evaluation should include?

The team, including the parent, must review existing data on the student and based on the review

and input from the parents, identify what additional data are needed to determine eligibility. In

determining what additional data are needed, the team must ensure that the evaluation identifies

the student’s special education and related service needs as well as establishes the presence of a

Growth is measured relative to state-approved, grade-level benchmarks/standards or relative to behavioral

expectations.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

disability. The evaluation must be full and individual, and comprehensive enough to identify all

the special education needs, requiring that the team address the unique circumstances of each

student as well as the characteristics of the suspected disability.

The district is required to provide written notice of its proposal to evaluate the student. Prior

written notice must include a description of the action proposed (or refused) by the district and

an explanation of why the district proposes (or refuses) the action (Rule 6A-6.03311(1)(c),

F.A.C.). In the case of an evaluation, the notice should include a description of the evaluation

procedures the district proposes to conduct and the rationale for conducting the procedures.

How is the evaluation completion date determined?

The “evaluation completion date” is defined in the Database Manual

(http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/data-sys/database-manuals-updates) for the Automated

Student Information System as “the date all applicable initial evaluation procedures prescribed in

Rules 6A-6.03011 through 6A-6.03019 and 6A-6.03020, 6A-6.03022, 6.03027, 6A-6.03030 and

6A-6.03031, F.A.C., are completed for the purpose of determining a student’s initial eligibility

for exceptional student education.” For most students, this will be the date of the last

standardized norm-referenced assessment, observation, progress monitoring data collection or

other evaluation procedure. However, if the team determined that existing data were sufficient to

establish disability and educational need without conducting further evaluation procedures, the

evaluation completion date is the date that decision was made (for more information see the

technical assistance for Rule 6A-6.0331, [F.A.C.] at

https://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-7505/dps-2015-152.pdf.

After receiving parental consent on the district consent form, the district must complete the

evaluation within 60 calendar days. Summer vacation, school breaks and holidays, and absences

beyond eight (8) days are excluded from the 60 calendar day requirement (Rule 6A-10.019,

F.A.C.). For specific learning disabilities only, the 60-day evaluation timeline may be extended

by mutual agreement between the parent and the team (Rule 6A-6.03018(3)(b), F.A.C. —

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=6A-6.03018).

Consent for Evaluation within the Problem Solving and Response to

Instruction/Intervention Framework

Each district and school is responsible for implementing an MTSS to improve outcomes for ALL

learners, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from

impoverished backgrounds. A multi-tiered system begins with the provision of effective Tier 1

instruction and leverages additional resources and supports that address barriers to learning and

maximize success with state grade-level standards. An effective MTSS integrates Tier 1

instruction, supplemental and intensive interventions, and specially designed instruction using a

data-based problem-solving process that matches the intensity of support to student needs.

District-Initiated Evaluation

Provide Effective Tier 1 Instruction

Schools are to provide a coordinated continuum of evidence-based support that begins with

effective Tier 1 instruction for all students. Universal screenings and Early Warning Systems

monitor the effectiveness of Tier 1 instructional practices and identify students who would

benefit from additional support. In a functional multi-tiered system, data-based problem-solving

Special Education Eligibility Decisions

teams use student data to identify the scope, focus, and target of support. For students with the

most intense needs, supplemental and intensive interventions may need to occur simultaneously

rather than sequentially.

Implement & Monitor Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI)

School teams are to determine and implement appropriate, evidence-based, supplemental

interventions for small groups (Tier 2) and intensive individual interventions (Tier 3) for students

needing additional support to succeed in the general education environment. The evidence-based

interventions (determined by a data-based problem-solving team) are matched in intensity to

student need and integrated/aligned with Tier 1 curriculum and behavioral expectations. School-

based teams monitor student response to intervention and use data from targeted, diagnostic

assessments to guide intervention development.

Monitor Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) - Systematic Review of Data (Child Find)

Teams are to use data to systemically address the district’s Child Find obligation. Group and

individual response to intervention data are reviewed periodically and used to determine when to

modify/intensify intervention supports. The systematic review of student response to intervention

data informs school-based teams when there is reason to suspect that the student may be a

student with a disability and is the most efficient means of meeting the district’s Child Find

obligation. The Child Find obligation is triggered when: 1) the student does not make adequate

growth given effective Tier 1 instruction and intensive, individualized evidence-based

interventions, or 2) the intensive interventions are effective but require an intensity of resources

and support that are typically associated with specially designed instruction. The date the school-

based team reviews the data and determines that (1) or (2) are present starts the 30-day timeline

for requesting parent consent.

Request Consent & Evaluate

The district must request parental consent for an evaluation within 30 days of reviewing student

response to intervention data that indicates there is reason to suspect that the student may be a

student with a disability. Prior to obtaining consent, a group of qualified professionals and the

parent review existing data and determine what, if any, additional data are needed. Based on this

review and other information, the district proposes an initial evaluation with enough specificity

so that the parent understands what they are consenting to.

The district must complete the proposed evaluation within 60 calendar days. The evaluation must

be individual and sufficiently comprehensive to identify all the student’s special education and

related service needs. If no additional assessment data is needed, eligibility staffing can be

scheduled or held.

Determine Eligibility

A group of qualified professionals and the parent considers the evaluation data and information

from a variety of sources and determines whether the student meets eligibility criteria as a

student with a disability AND needs special education. A student may not be determined eligible

if the determinant factor is: 1) lack of appropriate instruction in the essential components of

reading, 2) lack of instruction in math, 3) exclusionary factors (e.g, limited English proficiency,

visual/hearing/motor disability, irregular pattern of attendance), or 4) does not meet the

eligibility criteria specified in State Board rules.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Provide SDI in MTSS

If the student is eligible, the specially designed instruction needed for success in the Tier 1

curriculum is provided within the context of MTSS. Eligibility should never result in a decrease

in support nor limit access to the general education supports/interventions available to all

students. If a student is determined to be not eligible, interventions and supports with general

education resources should continue.

Parent-Initiated Evaluation

Parent Requests an Evaluation

When a parent requests an evaluation, the district has 30 days to respond by either: 1) proposing

an evaluation and requesting consent, or 2) providing parent with a written notice of refusal to

conduct the evaluation.

Obtain Consent

If the district agrees to conduct the evaluation, it must request parental consent within 30 days

unless the parent and school agree otherwise in writing. Prior to obtaining consent, a group of

qualified professionals and the parent review existing data and determine what additional data

are needed. Based on the review of data and other information, the district proposes an initial

evaluation.

Conduct Evaluation & Implement Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI)

The district must complete the proposed evaluation within 60 calendar days. If there is

insufficient data on student response to intensive, individualized interventions, the provision of

tiered support and progress monitoring are conducted concurrently with the evaluation. When a

parent initiates the evaluation, it may be necessary to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3

simultaneously.

Determine Eligibility

A group of qualified professionals and the parent considers data and information from a variety

of sources and determines whether the student meets eligibility criteria as a student with a

disability AND needs special education. A student may not be determined eligible if the

determinant factor is: 1) lack of appropriate instruction in the essential components of reading, 2)

lack of instruction in math, 3) certain exclusionary factors (listed on page 46 of this document),

or 4) does not meet the eligibility criteria specified in State Board rules.

Provide SDI in MTSS

If the student is eligible, the specially designed instruction needed for success in the Tier 1

curriculum is provided within the context of a multi-tiered system of supports. Eligibility should

never result in a decrease in support nor limit access to the general education supports/

interventions available to all students. If a student is determined to be not eligible, interventions

and supports that match student need with general education resources should continue.

Independent Evaluations

As part of an evaluation to determine whether a student has a disability and to identify the

educational needs of the student, a group of professionals determining eligibility must review

existing evaluation data, including evaluations and other information parents provide.

Special Education Eligibility Decisions

Independent educational evaluations (IEEs) must meet the district’s criteria for conducting an

evaluation, including qualifications of the examiner (Rule 6A-6.03311(6), Florida Administrative

Code). If the IEE meets the district’s criteria (including qualifications of the examiner) for

conducting an evaluation, the results must be considered in decisions with respect to the

provision of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student. However, the district

is not obligated to accept the recommendations of the IEE. The authority to determine the

presence of a disability and educational need is placed with the team, which consists of a group

of qualified professionals and the parent(s).

It is likely that districts will need to supplement the results of independent educational

evaluations obtained by a parent, especially if student response to intervention is an eligibility

criterion. The criteria for determining eligibility should be clearly explained to parents and

communicated with independent educational evaluators so that independent evaluations can

provide assessment data relevant to determining disability and educational need. If a parent

presents an independent evaluation that does not meet the district’s eligibility criteria, then the

following should be explained to the parent: (1) the specific eligibility criterion needed and (2)

the reason the independent evaluation does not provide the information needed to determine

eligibility.

Connecting Evaluation to Student Achievement

The primary purpose of assessment is to gather information that leads to improved academic,

behavioral, and/or mental health outcomes for students. Evaluations conducted in educational

settings may include many procedures, both formal and informal, that provide information

relevant for educational programming and that support the development of effective

interventions.

Educationally relevant evaluations include the assessment of instruction, curriculum, and

learning environment, as well as the assessment of student performance and other student-

related variables.

The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) supports models that focus on assessments that are

related to instruction and promote intervention for identified children in the “Analysis of

Comments and Changes” section of the Federal Register implementing the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 71 Fed. Reg. 46647 (August 14, 2006)

(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-08-14/pdf/06-6656.pdf).The increased emphasis on

using information on how a student responds to evidence-based instruction and intervention to

support eligibility decisions is coupled with a decreased emphasis on the use of standardized,

norm-referenced assessments of cognitive ability and cognitive processing. IDEA makes it clear

that the determination of a severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement is not necessary to

identify a student as having a specific learning disability (SLD).

Additionally, none of the federal regulations addressing special education evaluation

requirements, including the additional procedures for SLD identification, specify that a particular

type of assessment (e.g., assessment of psychological or cognitive processing) must be

conducted. Of relevance is the USDOE’s response in the “Analysis of Comments and Changes”

section of the federal regulations:

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

“The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or

cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an

SLD. There is no current evidence that such assessments are necessary or

sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these assessments have

not been used to make appropriate intervention decisions.”

71 Fed. Reg. 46651.

When using student response to instruction/intervention data to determine whether a student is

eligible for special education services as a student with a disability, a variety of sources of

information is needed. Routinely collected screening, progress monitoring, and

diagnostic/prescriptive assessment data can provide the information necessary for determining a

student’s performance discrepancy from the peer group and grade-level standards. It can also be

used to establish a pattern of educational progress over time and identify the educational

circumstances under which the student performs best to inform instructional planning.

Eligibility Decisions in Specific Areas: SLD and LI

Making an eligibility decision for a specific special education category, such as specific learning

disabilities (SLD) and language impairments (LI), occurs within the context of the problem-

solving process and after obtaining consent to evaluate and conduct the comprehensive

evaluation procedures. When engaging in eligibility decision making, consider the context and

order of events as they occur as an ongoing process for the primary purpose of improving the

effect of instruction for the student, rather than for the purpose of deciding on a categorical

placement. If teams maintain focus on the ultimate purpose of increasing the student’s level of

performance and rate of progress, then making an eligibility decision will not impact the ongoing

problem solving and monitoring of the students’ response. Instead of interrupting the process or

Special Education Eligibility Decisions

changing the focus of problem solving, the eligibility decision becomes an event for the purpose

of matching available resources to provide for students’ instructional needs, thereby improving

student outcomes.

The Decision-Making Tool for SLD and LI Eligibility

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Decision_Making_Tool_SLD_&_LI_Elig.pdf) is used

to assist school-based teams in analyzing and evaluating existing data to make eligibility

decisions. In accordance with Rule 6A-6.03018, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.),

Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities, and Rule 6A-

6.030121, F.A.C., Exceptional Education Eligibility for Students with Language Impairments

and Qualifications and Responsibilities for the Speech-Language Pathologists Providing

Language Services, this tool may be used after consent to evaluate has been obtained and the

team determines that all of the necessary assessment data have been gathered.

The purpose of the Decision-Making Tool for SLD and LI Eligibility is not solely to document

procedural requirements for compliance; rather, it is a tool to guide the team’s analysis. As a

secondary purpose, it provides a vehicle for the required documentation.

Required: Written Summary of the Group’s Analysis

State Board of Education rules require that, for a student suspected of having a specific learning

disability or language impairment, the documentation of the determination of eligibility must

include a written summary of the group’s analysis of the data. The written summary must

incorporate the elements listed in Rule 6A-6.03018 and Rule 6A-6.030121, Florida

Administrative Code:

• The basis for making the determination.

• Observations establishing the relationship between behavior and academic functioning.

• Educationally relevant medical findings.

• Data confirming the existence of a specific learning disability or language impairment,

including performance discrepancy, rate of progress, and educational need.

• The group’s determination of the effect of other factors, and evidence that one or more of

the factors is not the primary cause of the student’s difficulty (resources that can be used

to make this determination are found on the next page under Exclusionary Factors).

• RtI information documenting the intervention plan, student centered data collected, the

level of response of instruction/intervention, parent involvement, and the required

signatures.

The written summary must reflect the professional opinion of the group responsible for

determining eligibility. There is no requirement for any additional formal reports, such as

separate evaluation reports, but districts may develop procedures for documenting and reporting

response to intervention data and the rationale for the eligibility decision. The expectation is that

the rationale and/or justification for the team’s decision be clear from the evidence provided and

the summary of the team’s analysis of that evidence. There is no requirement specifying the

author of the report, as all team members contribute and share responsibility for the analysis.

The elements of the example coversheets for the collection of information summarizing the

group’s analysis have been integrated into the Decision-Making Tool for SLD and LI Eligibility

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Decision_Making_Tool_SLD_&_LI_Elig.pdf). In

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

addition, the required summary of the group’s analysis can be represented by the tool. The first

three sections (A–C) of the tool reflect the team’s decision-making process. Section D of the tool

is a culmination of the team’s process as represented in the preliminary sections (A–C) and

includes the requirements for documentation in the written summary of the group’s analysis.

Exclusionary Factors

Documentation of Factors that Affect Level of Performance and Rate of Progress

Visual, Motor, or Hearing Disability — Sensory screenings; medical records; observation

Intellectual Disability — Classroom performance; academic skills; language development;

adaptive functioning; tests of intellectual functioning

Emotional/Behavioral Disability — Classroom observation; student records; discipline history,

emotional/behavioral screenings; behavior rating scales

Cultural Factors — Level of performance & rate of progress compared to students from same

ethnicity

Environmental or Economic Factors — Level of Performance & Rate of Progress compared to

students from similar economic background (free/reduced lunch); situational factors that are

student specific; performance of siblings

Limited English Proficiency — English language proficiency (oral language, vocabulary, verbal

ability); Level of Performance & Rate of Progress compared to English language learners with

similar exposure to language and instruction

Irregular Pattern of Attendance — Attendance records; number of schools attended; tardies;

discipline records (in- and out-of-school suspensions); migrant status & pattern of attendance; %

of instructional time lost

Classroom Behavior — Classroom observations; Academic Engaged Time (AET); Office

Discipline Referrals (ODR)

Gender — Level of Performance & Rate of Progress compared to students from same gender

subgroup; familial or socio-cultural factors that are student specific

Age — Level of Performance & Rate of Progress compared to same-age peers; situational factors

that are student specific; birthdate

Ongoing Problem Solving

Eligibility for special education services is not the finish line for problem solving. It is important

to note that the four-step problem solving process is systematically applied before, during, and

after the determination of eligibility. Students identified as eligible for special education services

are receiving specially designed instructional, behavioral, and/or mental health supports and, as a

result, require frequent progress monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of those supports.

Special Education Eligibility Decisions

To make informed instructional decisions that are critical for continued success, the four-step

process of problem identification, problem analysis, intervention design/implementation, and

response to instruction/intervention must be used routinely. The Decision-Making Tool for SLD

and LI Eligibility

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Decision_Making_Tool_SLD_&_LI_Elig.pdf) prompts

teams using the tool to plan next steps in the problem-solving process, regardless of eligibility

status.

Reevaluation Decisions

At least once every three years, the district must reevaluate a student with a disability. A

reevaluation may occur more often if a parent or a teacher requests it but may not occur more

than once per year unless the parent and the district agree. As the construct of “evaluation” has

evolved from the administration of a battery of standardized assessments to the review and

analysis of data collected through the problem-solving process in conjunction with formal

diagnostic data as needed, teams have struggled with reevaluation for students identified as

having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD), Emotional/Behavioral Disability (E/BD), or

Language Impairment (LI). However, this should not be complicated. Problem solving does not

stop for students receiving specially designed instruction and related services. Because all

students’ needs are addressed within one integrated MTSS, progress-monitoring, intervention

fidelity and response to instruction and intervention data should be collected as frequently for

ESE students as for general education students and will be dependent upon the specific

interventions and progress-monitoring tools. The student’s response to intervention/instruction

should be part of the existing data the IEP team reviews to determine the appropriateness of the

specially designed instruction (achievement gap is closing and student outcomes are improving)

or if additional information is needed to determine whether the student continues to be a student

with a disability in need of special education and related services.

GUIDING TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING, THIRD EDITION

Beginning with the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

districts have not been required to conduct, for reevaluation, the same comprehensive evaluation

required for an initial evaluation and eligibility decision. Instead, as part of any reevaluation, the

members of the student’s individual education plan (IEP) team, including the parent, review

existing evaluation data, including information provided by the parent; current classroom-based,

local, and state assessments; ongoing progress monitoring; and observations. Because schools

are increasingly operating within a data-based decision-making culture, a wealth of data about

students’ needs are available to the IEP team at any point in time. Based on that review, the team

identifies what additional data, if any, are required to determine the following:

1. Whether the student continues to be a student with a disability and the educational needs

of the student.

2. The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance of the student.

3. Whether the student continues to need special education and related services.

4. Whether any additions or modifications to the student’s special education and related

services are needed to enable the student to meet the measurable annual goals set out in

the IEP and participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

Apart from sensory impairments that require specific formal assessments as part of reevaluation

(i.e., deaf or hard-of-hearing, dual-sensory impairment, visual impairment), the IEP team

determines what information is needed to answer the questions above and the best way to obtain

it. Students continue to benefit from implementation of tiered supports until effective

interventions have been identified and growth can be maintained. This includes both general

education students and students who have been determined eligible for special education

services. Data collected by the team or by individual special education or general education

teachers to measure the student’s progress toward the annual goals may also inform the

reevaluation process, including the decision regarding continuing eligibility and determining the

educational needs of the student.

Note: Every effort should be made to ensure the parent is an active member of the IEP team.

However, if the parent is unable to participate in the IEP meeting and it is determined that no

additional data are needed, the parent must be notified in writing of that decision and the reasons

for it and be informed that they have the right to request assessments. If it is determined that

additional data are needed, the district must request written, informed consent from the parent to

conduct assessments. If the parent does not respond, the district may proceed with the

reevaluation but must retain documentation of the attempts to communicate with the parent to

obtain consent (e.g., detailed logs of telephone calls or home visits, copies of written notices).

Conclusion

The purpose of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is to improve instructional decisions

at every tier to maximize outcomes for students. The problem-solving process is applied specific

to Tier 1 instruction to adjust the main package of services delivered to all students and to result

in a significant percentage of students meeting benchmarks. For Tier 2 instruction, the problem-

solving process is employed to determine appropriate interventions that are matched to the needs

of small groups of students, then monitored for effectiveness. Intensive instructional

interventions for individual students (Tier 3) are designed, planned, and monitored as products of

the problem-solving process.

Regardless of the various educational decisions that are made, teams continue to engage in

problem solving to ensure that student success is achieved and maintained. It is this continuous

problem solving, in relentless pursuit of successful outcomes for students, which characterizes

the broad systems change process that Florida is engaging in to integrate the logic of an MTSS as

a way of work for all educators.

The Tools

The Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem Solving, Third Edition is designed to provide

Florida schools and districts with detailed information on the process for the collection of student

performance data through the system-wide use of a data-based problem-solving process. There

are tools embedded throughout the guide to assist educators using a problem-solving process and

analyzing data to make important educational decisions for all students. These tools, also found

below, are free to copy, use as is and/or modify for your own specific use.

• Self-Assessment of MTSS Implementation (SAM) - revised September 2021

o Instrument

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/sam/sam_revised_2021.pdf)

o Infographic

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/sam/sam_infographic_revised.pdf)

• Problem Solving/RtI Worksheet - revised October 2015

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/PS-RtI_Worksheet.pdf)

• Intervention Documentation Worksheets - revised October 2015

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/intervention_documentation_worksheets.pdf)

• Parent Participation Notes - revised October 2015

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Parent_Participation_Notes.pdf)

• Decision-Making Tool for SLD and LI Eligibility - revised October 2015

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Decision_Making_Tool_SLD_&_LI_Elig.pdf)

• Imperative Questions for Problem Solving within an MTSS - revised October 2015

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Imperative_Questions_ProblemSolving-

MTSS.pdf)

• Critical Guiding Questions - revised October 2015

(https://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/gtips/Critical_Guiding_Questions.pdf)

Additional guides, tools, and other helpful resources are collected in Florida’s PS/RtI Resources

LiveBinder at https://www.livebinders.com/b/2785147.