Panorama Student Success has a report which displays Intervention Analysis data for students currently enrolled in school and assigned interventions in Student Success. Interventions marked complete are not included in the percentages.
This report shows the percent of students in tier 1, 2, and 3, allowing for multiple views and filtering to explore the data. But what do those tiers mean? How do we ensure quality data?
Understanding Tiers Can Help Ensure Quality Data
A healthy universal tier of instruction will support the instructional needs of approximately 80% of students or more. In Student Success, this is called tier 1. Tier 1, or the universal tier, is what all students receive with healthy scaffolds and differentiated support.
Some students may need additional support, and these supports are called tier 2 and tier 3. Tier 2 provides targeted support to students and tier 3 provides more intensive support. [ESSA Supports: Supplemental and Intensive Tiers]. The “tiers” should be defined in more detail locally and applied with consistent understanding across teachers. Tiers should not be defined by program (eg. Title or special education). Instead, they should reflect a match to student needs and intensity of support. It’s a fuzzy line sometimes between classroom universal tier supports and tier 2. Formal, written intervention plans and weekly progress monitoring could be a good indicator of tier 2 or tier 3 intervention.
It is a general assumption for MTSS that most systems can effectively support no more than about 10-15% of students in targeted interventions (tier 2) and 5% or less in intensive interventions (tier 3). Trying to provide more than this can be taxing to the system, or could result in diluted, ineffective interventions. This is not an exact science. The proportion of tier 2 and 3 could vary by capacity and resources of the district/building, as well as other factors. Small groups with an instructional focus using either standard routines or a broad areas (eg. “reading”) might be considered tier 2, while tier 3 might require more diagnostics and specific instructional targets. Intensity of resources and changes in alterable variables (more time, more opportunities to respond/smaller groups, and specialized instruction or materials, etc) may be another way to define the differences between tier 2 and tier 3. Consistent definition of tier 2 and tier 3, as well as consistency in applying those definitions will make the display more meaningful.
Using the Interventions Report to Analyze
The intervention report can provide general information about when the universal tier of instruction might need to be enhanced and when the amount of students in tiers 2 & 3 is excessive. By using the different views and filters, it is possible to explore for inequities in delivering services at various levels of intensity.
Tip: When looking at the data at the AEA and State level (and perhaps even district data) be aware that the definitions of tiers 2 & 3 may be highly varied, resulting in summary data that may not be appropriate to interpret. For this reason, we recommend paying the most attention to the global trends at tier 1, meaning students with no additional interventions logged in the system.
Applying one or more demographic filters can help focus on a specific subgroup of data. Viewing the report by various subgroups could reveal a pattern of differences across the three tiers, which may suggest concerns for equity in instruction or provision of interventions. In particular, viewing by literacy status could reveal whether students who should receive an intervention are not currently set up with one. Changing the view by grade level, building, or demographic variable could help identify differences in MTSS processes that should lead to further analysis to understand the reasons, and what to do about the differences.
Example Analysis:
Viewing by literacy status reveals that 55% of students who are persistently at risk are currently in tier 1. Since all persistently at risk students K-3 must have an intervention by law, I would expect to see a very low percentage in tier 1 when filtering by those who are persistently at risk. Remember, tier 1, or the universal tier, is what all students receive with healthy scaffolds and differentiated support. It is the lowest level of support.
Since the data displayed here are for all grades, the next question would be: Is it possible that this is the result of data for higher grades where ELI requirements are less clearly understood?
By switching to a grade level view and filtering by literacy status, it is easy to see that even in Kindergarten the majority of students who are persistently at risk still do not have an intervention logged in Student Success. It is not clear if this means no intervention is being delivered, or just that the interventions are not being logged into Student Success.
From here, further exploration might include clicking in to find which locations are not entering interventions, and then explore what the barriers are that are keeping them from doing so.
Digging Deeper with the Interventions Summary Report
Intervention analysis is about reflecting on the health of the system and its ability to match supports to student needs. For a deeper analysis of intervention effectiveness, the Interventions Summary page provides more detailed insight into how all interventions are performing across your school. This report is intended to support you in understanding and addressing questions of equity and efficacy concerning specific intervention types and strategies as you work to improve your supports for all students.