school problem solving team

• PowerSchool
• Intranet Login
• Infinite Visions

Translate/Traducir

• Facebook (opens in new window)
• Twitter (opens in new window)
• YouTube (opens in new window)
• Let's Talk
• Employee Service Portal
• Core Instruction

MTSS Problem-Solving Team

Roles and responsibilities.

Collaboration among members of a school problem-solving team is an essential component to ensuring the success of the MTSS processes. A successful problem-solving team will accurately identify student needs and challenges and—with successful collaboration—can design and implement solutions and measure the effectiveness of interventions. It is imperative that the team analyzes all interventions a classroom teacher has completed and reviews a child’s academic and behavioral history to design the most effective and intensive program. When problem-solving teams engage in successful collaboration, student success can be achieved and ultimately maintained.

The director of MTSS provides leadership and commitment to MTSS at all three tiers. Together with administrators, the director of MTSS leads implementation, participates on the MTSS team and provides relevant and focused professional development linked to MTSS, as well as supports to incorporate MTSS into the school improvement plans. Administrators also review universal screening data to ensure Tier 1 instruction is meeting the needs of a minimum of 80% of the school population. The director of MTSS and the MTSS Building Leadership team monitor the integrity of instruction at both the core and intervention levels.

Classroom teachers are the front line of MTSS. General education teachers have the best opportunity to enhance intervention and instruction in their classrooms by providing standards-based and differentiated core instruction for all students. Whether it is meeting the needs of students who are gifted, students who are learning English, or students who have IEPs, regular classroom teachers have the greatest daily impact on learning. Classroom teachers know and understand intervention plans for groups and individuals, allowing for follow-up and additional supports in the regular classroom. General education teachers and/or core subject teachers participate in data collection—both school-wide screening and progress monitoring. With this knowledge, these teachers are best able to change or adapt instructional strategies based upon information gained through the data collection process. Whether directly responsible for data collection or not, teachers review all their students’ data to understand performance levels and inform instruction.

Classroom teachers work with their MTSS team to identify and plan interventions for Tier 1 (in the classroom) and Tier 2. If a student demonstrates need for Tier 3 support, classroom teachers collaborate with the school’s MTSS Team.

Grade/Department-Level Teams (GLMs) serve a critical role in problem-solving at Tiers 1 and 2. They provide a collaborative learning environment to support effective differentiated instruction and classroom management strategies at all tiers. They plan for grouping, content, and delivery of instruction at Tiers 1 and 2. Professional Learning Committees (PLCs) review universal screening data and use this information to inform Tier 1 differentiated instruction.

Additionally, GLMs identify students who are not responding successfully to core instruction and supports, and utilize differentiated instruction to support them. GLMs make data-informed decisions to identify students in need of Tier 2 interventions. GLMs meet regularly for instructional planning, data review, intervention plan adjustment, paperwork completion and instructional decision-making (e.g., student movement between tiers). 

GLMs  work with the MTSS team to generate interventions based on individual problem-solving when students are considered for, or already receive, Tier 3 supports. MTSS teams review Tier 1 progress data to determine if Tier 3 targeted interventions are resulting in student success with core instruction and supports. Within an MTSS framework, it is recommended that classroom teachers manage students who are in Tier 1, while the MTSS team manage students in Tier 2 and Tier 3 (a teacher familiar with the student is generally a part of the MTSS team meeting).

Under the leadership and guidance of the site administrator, the MTSS team identifies key personnel to provide high-quality intervention and instruction, matches evidence-based instructional materials to student needs, and designs well-planned schedules to maximize the delivery of services within the three-tiered model. A critical resource in all schools is the highly-qualified support staff, who lend expertise to supporting student success. 

MTSS Problem-Solving Team Plan of Action

Monitoring core instruction.

• Are all students working with grade-level materials and standards? 
Are teachers well-supported in implementing adopted programs and items from the approved supplemental list?
 Is content for students appropriately paced?
• 
Does the movement through material attend to the developmental readiness of the student?
• Is there evidence of differentiated instruction?
• Is small-group, leveled instruction provided multiple days each week?

Monitoring Intervention Integrity

• Is the intervention plan implemented with integrity?
• Administrator signs off on integrity of instruction and intervention across tiers.

Establishing Feedback System Regarding Instructional Integrity

• Make quality instruction a part of the annual goals for all teachers.
• Acknowledge staff members who are delivering quality instruction and support those who are not to raise their level of performance. 
• 2020-21 Initiatives
• District Curriculum
• Common Assessments
• Middle School Grading Policies
• Elementary School Report Cards
• Illinois Learning Standards
• MTSS Overview
• MTSS Guidelines and Expectations
• Elementary Enrichment
• Second Step
• Early Childhood
• State Report Cards
• GTD Ad Hoc Committee
• Academic Acceleration
• Summer Launch
• Middle School Math Enrichment Program
• Newcomer EL Program
• Band and Orchestra Camp
• Bravo Summer Camp
• CAST Summer Camp
• Other Summer Programs
• Family-Teacher Conferences
• Middle School Math (6-8)
• Staff Contacts

This site provides information using PDF, visit this link to download the Adobe Acrobat Reader DC software .

Data Integrations

NEW: SRSS-IE Integration

Branching Minds OVERVIEW

• Improve Academic Achievement
• Whole Child Support & Wellness
• Communication, Collaboration, & Engagement
• Teacher Satisfaction & Retention
• Cost-Effective & Efficient Systems
• Professional Learning Series
• Customized Coaching
• The MTSS Learning Hub
• The MTSS Success Package
• Success Stories
• Testimonials
• MTSS Hall of Fame
• Pathfinders Community
• Schoolin' Around Podcast
• Quick Access to Guides & Toolkits
• MTSS Quizzes
• Funding & Grants
• Sign Up for Our Newsletter
• MTSS Summit 2024 [new!]
• MTSS Summit 2023
• MTSS Summit 2022
• Summer 2024 MTSS Mini-Summit
• 2023 Professional Learning Retreat
• Our Approach
• Data Privacy Practices
• Meet Our Team
• Awards & Accolades

Developing a Successful MTSS/RTI Team

Print/Save as PDF

The MTSS/RTI team is a school-based, problem-solving team; it is the engine that drives the MTSS/RTI practice. The MTSS/RTI team exists to proactively address system needs by reviewing school-wide data (within grade levels and classrooms) and support individual student growth by helping to monitor progress and make decisions for students at Tier 3. The site administrator should play an active role in recruiting and ultimately designating the composition of the MTSS/RTI team. The most successful teams consist of volunteers, so it is important that site administrators make an effort to designate members who truly want to be involved. MTSS/RTI team membership is made up of both standing members who contribute expertise from their respective disciplines and those who may be invited to address a specific concern. Examples of standing members on the MTSS/RTI team include: administrator, general education teacher, school psychologist/counselor, dean, content area specialist, ELL teacher, special education teacher, and grade-level or department representatives. 
 

How to Develop a Successful School Level MTSS/RTI Team?

Whether developing a team for the first time, filling open “positions,” or refining your current team dynamics, it is important to spend time reflecting on individual and group qualities that make for a success team. In order to do this, we must have a good understanding of what the team does, what individual characteristics help make the team successful, what skills the team members need to bring to the group, and what expectations can be established to help the team be successful, which we will cover below.

What Are the Responsibilities of the MTSS/RTI Team?

In a typical school, the MTSS/RTI team meets regularly with a structured agenda that varies throughout the month to: 

• Review universal screening data;
• Review school-wide data, consider feedback and concerns from PLCs/grade or content teams, and make data-based decisions;
• Provide input on professional development as it relates to the school’s MTSS/RTI practice and Tier 1 needs; 

• Provide input regarding school site intervention/enrichment schedule, curriculum, and/or course offerings; 

• Support grade levels/departments in serving students during intervention blocks in collaboration with general education teachers; 

• Discuss and communicate with the site administrator on issues relevant to the MTSS/RTI process; 

• Consult and collaborate with administrators, counselors, teachers and parents about MTSS/RTI
, problem-solving practice, and procedural integrity; 

• Hold problem-solving meetings (that include parents) for individual students; 

• Refer students for comprehensive special education evaluations when data indicate this step is warranted.

What Are the Characteristics of Effective MTSS/RTI Team Members?

MTSS is a system level practice, therefore, an MTSS team should consist of educators capable of leading system level change and management. According to the work of Chenoweth and Everhart (2002), effective leadership teams consists of individuals possessing the following characteristics:

• they are committed to school-wide change;
• they are respected by colleagues;
• they possess leadership potential;
• they demonstrate effective interpersonal skills; and
• they are self-starters with perseverance to see projects through

To promote a healthy school climate, the MTSS/RTI team, like any leadership team, should reflect the diversity of the staff, students, and broader community. In addition, the team members should bring a diversity of skills and expertise to best fill out the responsibilities of different roles. 

What Roles & Responsibilities Do MTSS/RTI Team Members Hold?

Successful teams clearly articulate everyone’s roles and responsibilities so people are adequately able to prepare for what is expected of them and bring their best to the team. The following are typical roles and responsibilities that should be explicitly assigned to members of the MTSS/RTI team, given individual strengths and abilities:

• Provides leadership at MTSS/RTI team meetings
• Facilitates monitoring of instructional integrity within grade levels/departments
• 
Ensures progress monitoring for all students in Tiers 2 and 3 (both for students with IEPs and those without IEPs) 
 
• Ensures school schedule and resource allocation enables a successful MTSS practice
• Celebrates and communicates success
• Coordinates and sets agenda for MTSS/RTI team meetings
• Provides expertise to MTSS/RTI team regarding problem-solving protocol 
• Provides expertise in data analysis 
• Identifies trends in student/staff need across school
• Serves as a liaison between PLC/grade-level/department team and MTSS/RTI team 

• Attends grade level PLC/MTSS/RTI meetings on a regular basis
• Identifies trends in student/staff need across grade-level or content area
• Presents data/background information on student being discussed (in absence of classroom teacher)

• Provides expertise to MTSS/RTI team regarding interventions and skill remediation
• Supports MTSS/RTI team with data interpretation and ensures linkage of data to selected interventions 
• Gathers progress monitoring data from PLCs and Tier 3 interventionists for review during MTSS/RTI meetings
• Consults/collaborates with classroom teachers regarding differentiated instruction 
• Provides experience with and knowledge of student being discussed
• Presents data/background information on student
• Ensures next steps are documented and communicated with student and/or family

How Can a Team Be Set up for Success?

According to the Center for Collaborative Education , the following areas and questions should be considered:

• How often do we need to meet in order to do our work?
• Where and when will we meet?
• What equipment/tools do we use to facilitate our meetings?
• How long should our meetings be?
• Will we start on time or wait for any late team members?
• What is our plan for addressing tardiness and attendance of team members?
• How will we show respect for each other?
• How will we encourage active listening?
• How will we encourage everyone’s participation?
• What is our decision-making process?
• Is consensus needed for decision-making?
• How do we document and communicate our decisions?
• How can we ensure workload is distributed?
• How do we help each other balance our MTSS team work with other school responsibilities?
• How do we prioritize our workload?
• How will we make sure that tasks are completed on time?
• Enforcement of norms
• How do we hold ourselves accountable to these norms?
• What is our plan if norms are not followed?

In addition to clearly communicating individual roles and responsibilities, healthy and successful teams have a shared understanding of how they are expected to function as a group. While some groups develop these expectations or understandings organically, it should not be assumed that everyone is aligned. Clearly articulating expectations, or operational norms, will help promote a healthier team dynamic.

References:

Chenoweth, T. G., & Everhart, R. B. (2002). Navigating comprehensive school change: A guide for the perplexed. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Dr. Eva Dundas

Dr. Dundas is the Chief Learning Officer of Branching Minds, where she pursues her mission to bridge the gap between the science of learning and education practice. Dr. Dundas has a Ph.D. in Developmental and Cognitive Psychology from Carnegie Mellon University where she conducted research on how the brain develops when children acquire visual expertise for words and faces. Her research also explores how the relationship between neural systems (specifically language and visual processing) unfolds over development, and how those dynamics differ with neurodevelopmental disorders like dyslexia and autism. She has published articles on that subject in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuropsychologia, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Dr. Dundas also has a M.Ed. in Mind, Brain, and Education from Harvard University; and a B.S. in Neuroscience from the University of Pittsburgh.

Connect with Dr. Eva Dundas

Related posts.

Tagged: Instituting MTSS , Leadership in MTSS

Comments (0)

School-Based Problem-Solving Teams: Educator-Reported Implementation Trends and Outcomes

• Published: 11 March 2022
• Volume 27 , pages 442–456, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Wesley A. Sims 1 ,
• Kathleen R. King 2 ,
• Maribeth Wicoff 3 ,
• Nina Mancracchia 1 ,
• Tyler Womack 1 &
• Jessica Mercado Anazagasty 1  

492 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 22 March 2022

This article has been updated

Research has demonstrated that school-based problem-solving teams (SB PSTs), a term describing teams engaging in efforts to remediate problems in school settings, can effectively improve student functioning while reducing special education referrals and disproportionality. Unfortunately, questions remain as to the effectiveness of SB PSTs in the absence of research oversight. Additionally, despite widespread use, little is known about how research and best-practice guidance have translated to applied SB PST implementation. Survey responses from 3233 educators were used to begin this exploration. Study results provide insight into SB PST prevalence, processes, procedures, composition, and targeted outcomes, as well as educator perceptions of team efficiency and effectiveness. Study findings suggest SB PST implementation varies widely across team name, activities, membership, roles, and functions. Stakeholder reports suggest poor alignment with practices endorsed in SB PST literature, including an apparent underutilization of school psychologists, well-qualified to contribute to, if not lead, SB PSTs. Overall, administrators, teachers, and school mental health service providers indicated favorable perceptions of the efficiency and effectiveness of their SB PSTs. Administrator ratings appeared slightly more favorable generally across these SB PST outcomes, and were significantly more favorable than ratings provided by teachers. However, ratings of perceived efficiency and effectiveness seemed inconsistent with prior empirical SB PST research, leaving clear room for improvement. Furthermore, when compared to other survey item responses, perceptions of efficiency and effectiveness appeared inconsistent, if not contrary to the widely espoused goals of SB PSTs, to remediate student challenges. These findings may be related to an apparent infrequent alignment of reported practices with evidence-based guidance, as indicated by participant responses. Collectively, this study suggests the need for (1) continued research related to SB PSTs, particularly applied SB PST practices, and (2) increased support for SB PST implementation through more explicit, prescriptive guidance, as well as initial and ongoing training and performance feedback for stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Effective School Teams: Benefits, Barriers, and Best Practices

Soft Expulsion: What Happens When School-Based Supports aren’t Enough

Solution Team: Outcomes of a Target-Centered Approach to Resolving School Bullying

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Availability of Data and Material

The data used in this study may be reviewed. Written requests to review study data should be made to the manuscript’s corresponding author.

Code Availability

Declarations related to code availability are not applicable for this manuscript.

Change history

22 march 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00412-w

Bahr, M. W., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). The need for problem-solving teams introduction to the special issue. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (1), 2–5.

Bailey, L. R. (2010). Teacher perceptions of student support team and response to intervention effectiveness [PhD Thesis]. Liberty University.

Baker, B., & Ryan, C. (2014). The PBIS team handbook: Setting expectations and building positive behavior. ERIC.

Batsche, G. (2014). Multi-tiered system of supports for inclusive schools. Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools , 183–196.

Bennett, M. S., Erchul, W. P., Young, H. L., & Bartel, C. M. (2012). Exploring relational communication patterns in prereferral intervention teams. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation , 22 (3), 187–207. PsycINFO. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2012.706128

Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Smith-Thomas, A., & Cook, K. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69 (3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900306

Article   Google Scholar  

Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of prereferral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40 (5), 437–447.

Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M. L., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of pre-referral intervention teams for use in a problem solving model. School Psychology Quarterly, 20 (1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.20.1.89.64192

Carrington, D. (1978). Collaborative consultation in the secondary schools. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 56 , 355–356.

Chalfant, J. C., Pysh, M. V., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2 (3), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511031

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 135–144.

Deno, S. L. (2005). Problem-solving assessment. Assessment for Intervention: A Problem-Solving Approach , 10–40.

Doll, B., Haack, K., Kosse, S., Osterloh, M., Siemers, E., & Pray, B. (2005). The dilemma of pragmatics: Why schools don’t use quality team consultation practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16 (3), 127–155.

Dowd-Eagle, S., & Eagle, J. (2014). Team-based school consultation. Handbook of Research in School Consultation , 450.

Dowd-Eagle, S., Eagle, J., Erchul, W. P., & Sheridan, S. M. (2014). Team-based school consultation. Handbook of Research in School Consultation , 450–472.

Dowd-Eagle, S. E. (2007). Pre-referral intervention with parents as partners (PIPP): An investigation of efficacy, implementation fidelity, and parent involvement in team-based problem solving procedures . The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Duhon, G. J., Mesmer, E. M., Gregerson, L., & Witt, J. C. (2009). Effects of public feedback during RTI team meetings on teacher implementation integrity and student academic performance. Journal of School Psychology, 47 (1), 19–37.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Public Law 94–142. U.S. Code. 20 1975. § 1400 et seq. 1975.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1996). Consultation as a technology and the politics of school reform reaction to the issue. Remedial and Special Education, 17 (6), 386–392.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bahr, M. W. (1990). Mainstream assistance teams: A scientific basis for the art of consultation. Exceptional Children, 57 , 128–139.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Harris, A. H., & Roberts, P. H. (1996). Bridging the research-to-practice gap with mainstream assistance teams: A cautionary tale. School Psychology Quarterly, 11 (3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088932

Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part I. The Model. Exceptional Children, 51 (5), 377–384.

Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (1), 42–52.

Haight, S. L., Patriarca, L. A., & Burns, M. K. (2001). A statewide analysis of the eligibility criteria and procedures for determining learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11 (2), 39–46.

Google Scholar  

Harrington, R. G., & Gibson, E. (1986). Preassessment procedures for learning disabled children: Are they effective? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19 (9), 538–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948601900904

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Henderson, J. L. (2008). Disproportionality in special education: The relationship between prereferral intervention teams and the special education process . http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cps_diss/22/

Huebner, E. S., & Gould, K. (1991). Multidisciplinary teams revisited: Current perceptions of school psychologists regarding team functioning. School Psychology Review, 20 (3), 428–434.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Public Law 108–446. U.S. Code. 20 2004. § 1400 et seq. 2004.

Keller-Margulis, M. A. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (4), 342–352.

Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (1), 16–25.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (3), 170–183.

Kovaleski, J. F. (2002). Best practices in operating pre-referral intervention teams. Best Practices in School Psychology IV, 1 , 645–655. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-03715-042

Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990).  Behavioral consultation in applied settings: An individual guide . Springer Science & Business Media.

Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1978). Training school psychologists: Some perspectives on a competency-based behavioral consultation model. Professional Psychology, 9 (1), 71.

Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 187–200.

McDougal, J. L., Moody Clonan, S., & Martens, B. K. (2000). Using organizational change procedures to promote the acceptability of prereferral intervention services: The school-based intervention team project. School Psychology Quarterly, 15 (2), 149.

McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates and eligibility findings. Exceptional Children , 69 (2), 181–193. PsycINFO.

Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., Taylor, L., Dodd, J. M., & Reavis, K. (1991). Prereferral intervention: A review of the research. Education and Treatment of Children , 14 (3), 243–253. JSTOR.

Newton, J. S., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2011). Building local capacity for training and coaching data-based problem solving with positive behavior intervention and support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27 (3), 228–245.

Newton, J. S., Todd, A. W., Algozzine, K., Horner, R. H., & Algozzine, B. (2009). The team initiated problem solving (TIPS) training manual. Unpublished Training Manual). Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. Available from Www. Pbis. Org .

Newton, J. S., Todd, A. W., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., Horner, R. H., & Cusumano, D. L. (2014). Supporting team problem solving in inclusive schools. Handbook of Research and Practice for Inclusive Schools , 275–291.

Nunn, G. D., & McMahan, K. R. (2000). ’IDEAL’ problem solving using a collaborative effor for special needs and at-risk students. Education , 121 (2).

Reinke, W. M., Sims, W. A., Cohen, D., & Herman, K. C. (2018). Problem solving within an RTI Framework: Roles and functions of effective teams. In Handbook of Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (pp. 96–119). Routledge.

Rosenfield, S., Newell, M., Zwolski, S., Jr., & Benishek, L. E. (2018). Evaluating problem-solving teams in K–12 schools: Do they work? American Psychologist, 73 (4), 407–419.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. The Guilford School Practitioner Series. ERIC.

Sims, W. A., King, K. R., Preast, J. L. & Burns, M. K. (2019). Do School-based problem-solving teams work? A Meta-Analysis. Poster presentation at the California Association of School Psychologists (CASP) Annual Conference, Long Beach, CA.

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29 (3), 443–461.

Tilly, W. D. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem solving and the three-tiered model. Best Practices in School Psychology V, 1 , 17–36.

Truscott, S. D., Cohen, C. E., Sams, D. P., Sanborn, K. J., & Frank, A. J. (2005). The current state (s) of prereferral intervention teams A report from two national surveys. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (3), 130–140.

Walcott, C. M., Charvat, J., McNamara, K. M., & Hyson, D. M. (2016). School psychology at a glance: 2015 member survey results . In Special session presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA

Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. M. (1999). What’s the score and game plan on teaming in schools? A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (1), 36–49.

Whitten, E., & Dieker, L. (1995). Intervention assistance teams: A broader vision. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 40 (1), 41–45.

Yell, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39 (1), 1–24.

Yetter, G., & Doll, B. (2007). The impact of logistical resources on prereferral team acceptability. School Psychology Quarterly , 22 (3), 340–357. PsycARTICLES. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.340

Yoshida, R. K. (1983). Are multidisciplinary teams worth the investment? School Psychology Review, 12 (2), 137–143.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside, USA

Wesley A. Sims, Nina Mancracchia, Tyler Womack & Jessica Mercado Anazagasty

Palm Springs Unified School District, Palm Springs, USA

Kathleen R. King

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, USA

Maribeth Wicoff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wesley A. Sims .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

Study authors attest to the ethical treatment of participants and participant-provided data. All study procedures were approved by appropriate Institutional Review Board staff and administrators prior to the commencement of any study procedures.

Consent to Participate

Study participants provided active consent prior to completing study activities. All personally identifying information was protected in compliance with Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program) guidelines.

Consent for Publication

Declarations related to consent for publication are not applicable for this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19.6 KB)

Supplementary file2 (docx 22 kb), supplementary file3 (docx 15 kb), rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sims, W.A., King, K.R., Wicoff, M. et al. School-Based Problem-Solving Teams: Educator-Reported Implementation Trends and Outcomes. Contemp School Psychol 27 , 442–456 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00405-1

Download citation

Accepted : 20 December 2021

Published : 11 March 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00405-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School-based problem-solving teams
• School team
• Intervention
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Multi-Tiered System of Supports Build effective, district-wide MTSS
• School Climate & Culture Create a safe, supportive learning environment
• Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports Promote positive behavior and climate
• Family Engagement Engage families as partners in education
• Platform Holistic data and student support tools
• Integrations Daily syncs with district data systems and assessments
• Professional Development Strategic advising, workshop facilitation, and ongoing support

• Success Stories
• Surveys and Toolkits
• Product Demos
• Events and Conferences

AIM FOR IMPACT

Join us to hear from AI visionaries and education leaders on building future-ready schools.

• Connecticut
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia
• Testimonials
• About Panorama
• Data Privacy
• Leadership Team
• In the Press
• Request a Demo

• Popular Posts
• Multi-Tiered System of Supports
• Family Engagement
• Social-Emotional Well-Being
• College and Career Readiness

Show Categories

3 Strategies for Building Effective Student Support Teams [+ Templates]

Lara Fredrick

A multi-tiered system of supports ( MTSS ) can get complicated quickly. With so many educators and students involved across different school buildings, it’s hard for district leaders to keep track of all of those moving parts.

In order to have a comprehensive system across a district, leaders must align with educators at each school around expectations, practices, and processes. How can district leadership ensure that schools have a framework for providing student support? 

The answer lies in the Student Support Team (SST ). An SST is a school-based team that focuses on intervention planning. SSTs provide a collaborative and data-driven approach to helping students succeed by identifying and addressing the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of students.

Let’s explore how clear expectations, processes, and practices can help SSTs and other school-based MTSS teams become champions for tiered support in classrooms and schools across a district.   

Access our three most popular templates for rolling out a district-wide MTSS.

What is a Student Support Team?   

A Student Support Team is a type of school-based MTSS team that focuses on planning targeted interventions for individuals or groups of students.

Never heard of an SST? That’s because this learning structure goes by many different names. In your district, these teams may be called: 

• Intervention Teams 
• Tier 2 and 3 Problem-Solving Teams 
• Student Study Team
• Grade Level Teams
• Something completely different! 

No matter the name, the function and structure of this team is roughly the same from district to district. Typically composed of educators, counselors, administrators, and other specialists, SST members work together to provide targeted support to students. This work can include: 

• Early Identification: SSTs work to proactively identify student needs and intervene before small issues become larger problems that negatively impact progress. These can relate to academic growth, social-emotional learning, attendance, or behavior management. 
• Providing Individualized Support: The SST creates a tailored plan for each student based on their unique needs, and monitors student progress toward pre-determined goals. Any student in a school can be given targeted supports, not just students in special education settings.  
• Facilitating Cross-Functional Collaboration: SSTs promote collaboration between classroom teachers, counselors, administrators, and other specialists. This helps ensure that no student falls through the cracks. 

Each team has around 4–6 members, and schools may have more than one SST, depending on the size and needs of the student body. To ensure all SSTs in a district are aligned and doing similar work, many districts employ a district-level MTSS coordinator to communicate with school-based teams. 

The Functions of a Student Support Team

3 Ways District Leaders Can Support SSTs

In order to achieve alignment across a district , it’s important that district leadership provides some direction on how these teams function within the larger MTSS. Here are three ways leaders can support SSTs through expectations, process, and practice. 

1. Define what it means to be an effective Student Support Team member

Leaders need to set clear expectations for support team members. Being on an SST can put team members outside of their typical day-to-day roles, and they may need to adopt a new set of behaviors and mindsets in order to be successful.

Think of these expectations like a job description. What do you hope each team member will bring to the table?

Educators at Bastrop Independent School District (TX) developed their own list of expectations for members of support teams: positive, objective, flexible, and prepared. Those qualities of an effective Student Support Team member are: 

Positive: Finds positive qualities and bright spots in data to discuss with team members, and positively communicates with families, students, and colleagues

Objective: Thoughtfully uses data to understand and report on students’ present grades, assessments, behavior, SEL and attendance

Flexible: Brainstorms how students can make progress, and considers interventions and adaptations that can help a student meet goals

Prepared: Arrives on time, ready to review data and discuss information about students, and respects the time of other team members. 

"With these guidelines, I’ve noticed that the conversations in meetings are very different,” says Jennifer Greene Gast , an Academic RTI Coordinator at Bastrop. “They are very solutions-focused. There’s a lot more kindness, compassion, and understanding when we’re talking about supporting the whole student."

Bastrop ISD's 4 Qualities of a Student Support Team Member

2. Set a strong meeting agenda for school-level MTSS teams

It's important to build time into school schedules for support teams to collaborate. These team meetings can take different shapes depending on who's participating and how much time is available. SSTs should aim to meet on a weekly basis.

Teams should decide what meeting structure works best for them, but it’s always helpful to have a starting point for an SST process. Use the elements below (inspired by the agenda used at Waltham Public Schools, MA) to craft an agenda for your SST meetings: 

1. Launch the meeting and evaluate intervention progress (15 minutes)

Educators give quick updates on the students they've been supporting, and note whether or not the students still need a champion and intervention plan.

2. Review student data and make new "matches" (15 minutes)

Educators analyze data to identify students who are showing signs of struggle and may need to receive Tier 2 interventions. Team members should consider risk factors across all areas— academics, behavior, attendance, and SEL.

3. Plan and share student supports (10 minutes) During this portion of the meeting, educators will develop an intervention plan to support each newly identified student. As part of the planning process, team members may consider:

• which adult will be the student’s “champion”
• which goals to set for the student
• which interventions will be used in the action plan
• how often the educator champion will deliver the intervention
• how the student’s progress will be monitored

4. Reflection and closing (5 minutes)

Reserve five minutes at the end of each meeting to reflect. What did team members find helpful or valuable about the meeting? What would make the next meeting even better?

3. Standardize interventions across literacy, math, SEL, and behavior

The magic of MTSS is in personalization . When educators carefully choose interventions for each student’s unique needs, they ensure that that child is getting the best possible support. 

While no single intervention will work for every student, it's important for educators to have a starting point. This is why many districts develop an intervention menu : a collection of approved strategies across all areas of student growth.

Be sure to make this resource readily available during intervention meetings so team members can easily discuss and choose the best strategy for their students.

Remember, an intervention menu is not a fixed resource. As you learn more about your students and what works in your context, continue to add new interventions to the menu. Here are 18 research-based interventions to help you get started.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps for Successful Student Support Teams

Every student support team will look a little different, but these elements can help any team achieve success: 

• Set clear expectations for what it looks like to be a successful MTSS team member 
• Make the most of meetings with a strong, consistent agenda that puts the focus on supporting student growth 
• Align teams around a collection of district-approved strategies across academics, SEL, and behavior to ensure students are getting access to interventions that fit their needs 

By keeping these three ideas in mind, you can set your school-based intervention teams up for success and ensure that they are getting the information and resources they need to support every student.

Click here to download our MTSS/RTI implementation kit with free templates.

Related Articles

AI in Schools: A Strategic Approach for District-Wide Implementation

Discover how AI can transform education and support teachers, students, and staff. Learn practical insights and strategies for implementing AI in schools.

Our 8-Step SEL Intervention Process: How Oxnard School District Uses Panorama Student Success

Learn how Oxford School District uses Panorama Student Success to support the social-emotional learning (SEL) of students with data-driven supports.

What is MTSS?

A multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) provides a guiding, comprehensive framework for educators, school, and district leaders. Learn more about MTSS in this guide.

Featured Resource

3 shareable mtss/rti resources for district leaders.

Download free templates to create a cohesive, district-wide approach to MTSS that establishes best practices and expectations for school teams.

Join 90,000+ education leaders on our weekly newsletter.

A Protocol for Collaborative Problem-Solving

Some issues that educators face can be solved in a short time if school leaders use a collaborative protocol to improve staff dynamics.

Your content has been saved!

My coaching work takes me to several schools to help school leaders and their teaching staffs solve instructional and logistical problems while improving their teamwork dynamics. While systemic problems require extensive work to solve, there are tactical problems that can be resolved through a single meeting or just a few.

Needing a simpler yet collaborative approach for some of my partner schools to work through issues that aren’t overwhelmingly complex but still challenging enough to require thoughtful consideration and creative thinking to solve, I developed an adaptation of the traditional plus-delta protocol . I call the updated version the plus-delta-solution (PDS) protocol. The PDS strategy emphasizes effective collaboration and communication as crucial aspects of problem-solving within teams and in a manner in which everyone on the teaching staff feels safe contributing.

I have implemented the PDS protocol with school and district leaders and achieved good results. Moreover, this protocol can help teaching teams identify challenges to student success , leverage strengths, and, most important, find solutions, all while promoting shared problem-solving, which is currently needed in many schools. The protocol can also be modified for use with kids during lessons and projects and to create social awareness for classroom problems such as internet safety, digital citizenship, bullying, and social exclusion.

4 Ways Using PDS Can Benefit Your Team

1. It promotes structured communication. Drawing structured communication between colleagues creates a platform for everyone to share their ideas, observations, concerns, and solutions while keeping discussions focused. For instance, teams can use this approach to solve instructional issues such as curriculum enhancements, behavior management, and technology integration.

Logistical problems such as resource allocation, timetabling and scheduling, and after-school event planning can also be tackled by teams through structured communication.

2. It encourages the promotion of diverse perspectives. Establishing norms and shared agreements within the protocol can guarantee that everyone who wants to will speak or contribute, ensuring that different viewpoints are considered. This deliberate attention to inclusivity helps explore various angles to a problem and prevents tunnel vision.

3. It creates documentation and review. Using the protocol to document discussions, ideas, and solutions aids in tracking the team’s suggestions, concerns, and decisions. Documented materials can also be reviewed later to continue aligning goals and solutions and to avoid revisiting previously discussed points.

4. It establishes feedback and reflection mechanisms. When the protocol incorporates mechanisms for both feedback and reflection, team members work together to refine thoughts, practices, and approaches to community problem-solving. Doing so promotes a culture of learning and improvement throughout the school that can be transferred to students and other staff members.

The four-step protocol outlined below can be carried out in approximately 25–40 minutes. Whether facilitating with colleagues or students, feel free to customize and adapt directions and timings to serve the needs of your intended audience. Additionally, here are some graphics you can use to guide implementation .

4-Step PDS Protocol

Step 1: Allow the teaching team or school staff to state the problem (5–7 minutes). The purpose here is to arrive at a consensus on the problem that the team will address in the subsequent steps of the protocol. Sometimes, everyone arrives knowing the issue that needs solving, and sometimes, the facilitator has to inquire. The PDS protocol can be opened up according to the team’s needs in one of two ways. If the problem is already agreed upon before commencing with the protocol, that’s fantastic. If not, provide question prompts that allow colleagues to speak freely.

I use some of these when introducing the protocol during faculty meetings or professional development.

• “It’s hard to focus on instruction when ____ behavior is a constant concern.”
• “I’m having difficulty with a specific management task.”
• “I’m struggling to keep up with the intended pacing in my lessons.”
• “I‘m overwhelmed by a constant challenge.”

Step 2: Individually identify pluses and deltas pertaining to the problem (4 minutes). To promote a positive mindset toward problem-solving while identifying the difficulties associated with the problem(s) and using small posted notes, each team member identifies pluses (what’s working well) and deltas (the drawbacks, challenges, or areas that need improvement). Request that the team members not focus on solutions in this step.

Step 3: Discuss the pluses and deltas within small groups (7 minutes). To get everyone comfortable discussing their reflections from step two, adapt and provide the following directions and time for folks to communicate with team members.

• Identify two grade-level colleagues to work with.
• Collaborate to develop and complete a PDS chart, which includes three columns—one labeled plus, one labeled delta, and one for solutions—using your posted notes from step 2. Avoid redundancy by discarding posted notes with similar text.
• Have the teams discuss their pluses and deltas without focusing on solutions. Everyone needs to be comfortable discussing the pluses as well as the deltas as they are.

Step 4: Begin to develop answers (10–20 minutes). This part of the protocol is intended to find appropriate solutions to the identified problems through thoughtful reflection and consideration. Sometimes the room isn’t able to find a solution, and it’s fine to bring in an outside expert to help. Further exploration by team members may be necessary. Display directions for this step using the following prompts:

• On a posted note, offer solutions and/or resources to address the problem. Do this independently, and don’t feel obliged to provide a solution if you don’t have one (5–10 minutes, depending on how many issues are being addressed).
• Reconvene with your thought partner from step 3 to discuss the solutions provided.
• Participate in reflection and open discussion with the entire team.

Problem-solving isn’t easy. It requires careful thought and consideration, but it doesn’t have to be stressful. Having a system like PDS, which focuses on solutions through collaboration, can really encourage a staff to see the value in working together to find answers.

• Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools »
• Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Collaborative Problem Solving »

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Collaborative Problem Solving

Collaborative Problem Solving ® (CPS) is an evidence-based, trauma-informed practice that helps students meet expectations, reduces concerning behavior, builds students’ skills, and strengthens their relationships with educators. The Collaborative Problem Solving approach integrates with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) in educational settings. Though often thought of as an intervention to be utilized with students who have significant behavior challenges, CPS benefits all students and can be implemented across the three tiers of support within an MTSS framework.

Tier 1 (Universal Support)

Collaborative Problem Solving is both a universal approach to be used with all students and an intervention that can be used to meet the needs of students with emerging needs. Educators use the core mindset of “kids do well if they can” and the practice of CPS to increase positive interactions with all students. These practices improve classroom and school climate and build positive relationships. This shifts adults to view behaviors as skill-based, to model empathy and other thinking skills, and create classroom structure and routines that honor the varying developmental needs of groups of students.

Universally, a problem-solving structure (Plan B) is utilized to gain perspectives from students in everyday situations and class discussions and is used with groups of students to proactively work on common “hard to meet” expectations, i.e., coming in from recess, having a substitute teacher, engaging in group discussions, etc. When the components of CPS are used in the classroom, it helps to develop essential skills that allow students to effectively communicate and collaborate with others, understand different perspectives, problem solve, think flexibly, manage emotions, and build positive relationships with peers and adults.

Tier 2 (Targeted Support)

Educators embed structured problem solving, Plan B,  into existing targeted intervention times such as counseling groups, academic support classes, and/or morning meeting to practice thinking skills and problem-solving. Progress with Plan B interventions can be monitored using data from CPS assessment and planning tools and thinking skills checklists.

Tier 3 (Intervention Support)

CPS provides an assessment process and a proven intervention centered around problem-solving that builds skills for students requiring the most support. Additionally, the individualized information gathered in the assessment process is used to inform Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA), to write goals for Behavior Support/Intervention Plans (BSP/BIP) or Individualized Education Plans (IEP), and to monitor progress towards those goals. The assessment data and Plan B interventions can also inform accommodations for 504 plans.

Bring CPS to Your School

We can help you bring a more accurate, compassionate, and effective approach to working with children to your school or district.

Collaborative Problem Solving integrates well with the goal of MTSS to effectively identify and meet the diverse social emotional and behavioral needs of students in schools. CPS can be utilized across all three tiers of support to foster strong adult and peer relationships, teach important cognitive thinking skills, and foster a learning environment that is grounded in collaboration, empathy, and curiosity.

Privacy Overview

Practice Guides

How School Teams Use Data to Make Effective Decisions: Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS)

Data-based Decision Making

School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG)

School-Wide

April 8, 2022

Suggested Citation:

Chaparro, E. A., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., Daily, J., & Nese, R. N. T. (April 2022). How School Teams Use Data to Make Effective Decisions: Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS). Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. www.pbis.org

Related Resources

Comparison of office discipline referrals in u.s. schools by population densities: do rates differ according to school location, the whys and hows of screening: frequently asked questions for families, ditch the clip why clip charts are not a pbis practice and what to do instead.

This website was developed under a grant from the US Department of Education, #H326S230002. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Mohamed Soliman.