Several of us at JumpRope have engaged in a years-long conversation about the missed opportunities we see as schools adopt and learn to use standards-based practices alongside their existing implementation of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Supports and Interventions (SWPBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI), which, in combination, are commonly referred to as Multitiered Systems of Support (MTSS). As Clayton (2023) tells us, it’s not uncommon for teachers to feel like using MTSS simply adds to their workload. That same refrain is also consistently invoked when schools shift to using standards-based practices (SBP). Learning new things, or even trying to do the familiar things better, is hard. For some teachers, layering in any additional school-wide practices can feel daunting, especially in a culture and climate where the expectations placed on them are already high. Invoking my July 2025 post which opens with some research on meeting the challenges presented by change, I’d like to offer some thinking on how schools might consider the common ground between the data-driven goals of MTSS and the practices most closely tied to a standards-based model. To be clear, the research presented here does not call on studies that address the overlap between these two methodologies, but instead relies on research on MTSS and our experiences of standards-based practices at JumpRope.
Our goal at JumpRope is to make learning more meaningful. This goal is supported by our core values of clarity, equity of opportunity to learn, learner agency, and continuous improvement. We advocate for and strongly encourage the use of school-wide and classroom instructional practices that exemplify our core values and therefore deepen learning. According to Scotta, et. al., the goal of SWPBIS, and therefore by extension, MTSS, “is to increase students’ access to instruction and thereby improve academic performance” (p. 308). They go on to remind us that “from a purely logical point of view, schoolwide strategies that do not specifically involve effective instruction in academic areas are unlikely to result in increased academic achievement” (p. 309). If we consider JumpRope an ambassador for SBP, then it’s easy to see how the instructional strategies we promote serve as a valuable link between MTSS and SBP.
A quick tour of the Equity of Opportunity to Learn tag in our blog reveals our extensive collection of posts that address effective SBP instruction. Titles such as Meeting the Range of Students’ Needs, Matching Instructional Strategies to Learning Goals, and Providing Feedback, are just a few you’ll find that offer guidance on high quality, student-focused instruction. While the methodologies in that section address SBP, they are also among those recommended by Durrance (2023) as they “strengthen core instruction to reduce the need for intervention” (p.7). More specifically, the author notes instructional approaches that improve learning for struggling students “include modeling and repetition; are explicit, structured, and systematic; provide guided and controlled opportunities to practice; scaffold learning supports; and include corrective and immediate feedback” (p.7). Clayton (2023) writes that one of the greatest challenges we face in implementing MTSS is in addressing the Tier 1 supports which are meant to be used universally across instruction for all students. When those supports and instructional strategies are implemented well, across the general student population, we should see the need for Tier 2 and 3 supports in only 5%-10% of the total student population. Further, Kim, et. al. (2018) reminds us that, in general, we’re not likely to see gains in academic achievement if we fail to use high quality academic instruction.
While improved academic performance is certainly one aspect of making learning more meaningful, at JumpRope we also strongly believe that habits of work and learning, skills distinct from, but still strongly related to academic gains, are part of the calculus of deepened learning. For further discussion on that topic, take a look at Standards-Based Grading Systems Effectively Communicate Student Learning, and Standards-Based Grading for New Teachers: Five Bonus Tips. Scota, et. al. (2019) note the close correlation between emotional and behavioral challenges and literacy and language deficits, writing that “the evidence suggests that effective schoolwide intervention must provide a focus on both academics and behavior” (p. 309). Further, we’re less likely to see problematic behavior from students who experience effective academic instruction (Fleming, Harachi, Cortes, Abbott, & Catalano, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005) and more likely to see academic success (Greer-Chase, Rhodes, & Kellam, 2002; McIntosh, Chard, Boland & Horner, 2006). The circle is complete in recognizing that mitigating problematic behaviors positions teachers to provide the effective academic instruction they strive for (Scota, et. al., 2019). All this means that the SBP of considering habits of work and learning (HOWLs) and academic achievement independent of, yet connected to one another, is a practice that also directly supports the work of MTSS.
Another point of tight intersection between MTSS and SBP is the consistent collection and use of data to guide the work with students. In fact, JumpRope’s software is specifically designed to support educators to capture, examine, interpret, and consume student data. As Clayton (2023) reminds us, MTSS relies on establishing benchmarks and collecting data for progress monitoring in order to assess and reassess skill development and academic performance. Consensus holds that the decisions made based on data are best made in collaboration, (Averill & Rinaldi, 2011; Eagle et al., 2015; Mahoney, 2020) a process easiest to undergo when the data is readily accessible to all parties – a feature endemic to JumpRope.
The fundamental tenets inherent in JumpRope’s core values and that are central to SBP share considerable common ground with MTSS implementation. Both rely on efficacious instruction that addresses the needs of all learners in the classroom. Both practices make clear distinctions between academic and behavioral targets and gains, and also rely on the consistent collection of discrete, robust data for the purposes of informed decision making. If educators can embrace these overlaps, it seems they might have an easier time surmounting the challenges they perceive in implementing these two practices.
Works Cited
Averill, O. H., & Rinaldi, C. (2011). Multi-tier system of supports (MTSS). District Administration, 48(8), 91–95.
Bohanon, H., Wu, M-J., Kushki, A. & LeVesseur, C. (2024). A preliminary study connecting school improvement and MTSS with student outcomes. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 48, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2023.15
Clayton, J. (2023). Navigating the practical challenges of MTSS implementation. Communiqué, 52(4), 12-16.
Durrance, S. (2023). Implementing MTSS in secondary schools: Challenges and strategies.
Greensboro, NC: SERVE Center at UNC Greensboro.
Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Holtzman, E. G. (2015). Implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960
Fleming, C. B., Harachi, T. W., Cortes, R. C., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Level and change in reading scores and attention problems during elementary school as predictors of problem behavior in middle school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266040120030101
Fuchs, D., Gilmour, A. & Wanzek, J. (2025). Reframing the most important special education policy debate in 50 years: How versus where to educate students with disabilities in America’s schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 257–273.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251315196
Kim, J., McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., & Nese, R. N. (2018). Longitudinal associations between SWPBIS fidelity of implementation and behavior and academic outcomes. Behavioral Disorders,
43(3), 357–369. https://doi:10.1177/0198742917747589
Mahoney, M. (2020). Implementing evidence-based practices within multitiered systems of support to promote inclusive secondary classroom settings. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 9(1), n1.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
Scotta, T., Gageb, N., Hirna, R., Shearer Lingoa, A., & Burta, J. (2019). An examination of the association between MTSS implementation fidelity measures and student outcomes. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(4), 308–316.
