The SENIA International Inclusive Practice Standards provide schools with a roadmap for examining the systems, structures, and practices that allow a wider variability of learners to thrive. In the first article, we explored how leadership, vision, mission, and admissions can lay the foundation for meaningful disability inclusion. In the second article, we examined how Universal Design for Learning can anticipate barriers and build flexibility into instruction and assessment. The third article explored how intentional professional learning and career pathways can strengthen teaching assistants’ skills, leadership, and contributions to inclusive practice. This fourth article turns to how schools can use data within a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) to understand students’ needs, strengthen core instruction, and make informed decisions about targeted support, keeping student experiences and voices at the center of the process.
A Name on the List
Note: Miguel is a fictional student created to illustrate a simplified version of Domain 4 in practice.
It is late September, and the Grade 3 team is gathered around a table covered in screener results, peering up at color-coded scores projected on the screen. Toward the bottom of the reading fluency column is a name highlighted in red: Miguel.
I've sat in many well-intentioned data meetings like this one. Even with a solid protocol in place, the color coding bears unspoken weight, and the group discussion often jumps to who is below benchmark and scheduling a Tier 2 intervention. Does this sound familiar in your setting? Everyone’s heart is in the right place, and they want to help students like Miguel get the support they need. However, additional questions should be surfacing: What additional data might we need to understand the whole picture? What does this mean for my Tier 1 instruction?
It may be helpful to know the following information about Miguel. He is 8; this is his second international school, but a new country; his home language is Spanish; he speaks Spanish and some English at home; he was placed at WIDA level 4 for the second year in a row. His beginning-of-the-year math screener results sit comfortably within the grade-level benchmark range, and his reading fluency is well below it. On a spreadsheet identifying “well below,” “below,” “meeting,” “exceeding,” he is considered a student who belongs on a Tier 2 intervention list.
Connecting to MTSS
Schools collect more student data now than ever before, including academics, social-emotional, behavioral, and more. But within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), data often gets reduced to sorting: who is below or well below academic benchmark, who needs intervention, who needs extension, who should move tiers. Perhaps this is due to well-known time constraints in schools. However, making sense of collected data to inform action steps is much different and more meaningful than collecting and sorting it.
In Street Data: A Next Generation Model for Equity, Pedagogy, and School Transformation, Shane Safir and Jamila Dugan (2021) urge educators to look beyond standardized metrics. They separate data into three types:
Satellite data: large-scale test scores and demographics. For Miguel, this was his screener result.
Map data: systemic patterns and trends. For Miguel, this was how his results compared with the rest of his grade level.
Street data: the direct, lived experiences of students, staff, and families. For Miguel, this was what he and his parents could tell us.
For MTSS, this framework is crucial. Assessment scores can inform us that a gap exists, but something like street data can help us understand why the gap is there and help us move toward purposeful action on behalf of a student. SENIA International's Disability Inclusion Standards support this approach. Domain 4 (Identification and Case Management) stresses that data should be used to map student strengths, tailor support, and track progress over time (SENIA International, 2025). Alongside Street Data, it reinforces that data should help us identify students who need additional support, understand our learners, evaluate our responses, and adjust the systems and structures that affect student learning. Miguel's red-highlighted score was the start of that work, not the conclusion.
Tier 1: Evaluating the System First
As Lee Ann Jung (2026) recently put it on Instagram, “MTSS/RTI is more about prevention in ALL classrooms than it is intervention.” When core, universal instruction is accessible and designed to support a range of learners, fewer students should need targeted interventions. So how do we evaluate whether core instruction is actually working?
Universal screeners are a valuable tool, essential to MTSS. Every student is included, and results show what each student can already do as well as where they may need more guidance. This helps teams identify needs early rather than waiting for difficulties to appear. Screeners can be especially powerful when examined at two levels: individual results and patterns across a class or grade level. If a larger subset of students struggles to meet a benchmark on the same skill, it can serve as useful information about curriculum and instruction design, leading to an opportunity to improve Tier 1 for all. In this case, teams may ask: Are tasks designed to make the learning target clear? Do students have enough opportunities to practice? Do the assessment conditions allow multiple means of action and expression so students can show what they know?
In the Grade 3 data meeting that included Miguel’s teacher, the team noticed eight students fell below grade level for reading fluency, and four were multilingual learners. This information helped inform the team about the system before exploring more information about Miguel or his peers. The team’s response, in addition to Tier 2 support, was to strengthen Tier 1 across the grade level by consistently adding daily decodable texts, preteaching of key vocabulary with language scaffolds before each read-aloud, and structured oral rehearsal before written responses. They agreed to partner more with the Multilingual Learner Specialists to ensure appropriate language scaffolds and targets were in place.
Starting with a mini analysis of data across classrooms and grade levels can help teams spot areas that should be addressed in Tier 1, aligning directly with SENIA's Domain 4 guidelines (SENIA International, 2025). When screening data is used to analyse broader trends, schools can fix gaps in core instruction early and often. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) encourages teachers to use data to plan for variability from the start, building flexibility into engagement, representation, and expression so that barriers are removed before students stumble (CAST, 2024). As Katie Novak (2022) highlights, blending UDL and MTSS creates a structure where universal design keeps Tier 1 strong, while the tier response model within MTSS provides a structure for responding when universal provision is not enough.
The Grade 3 team met six weeks later for a check-in. Formative assessment and progress monitoring showed six of the eight students who were below benchmark had grown, with scores close to grade-level benchmarks. Miguel had made some minor gains, but far fewer than his peers.
Seeing the Whole Student
A single score rarely gives a complete picture of a student, and standardized assessment scores tell us what a student can do under particular conditions. Observations show us how they apply skills in practice. A short check-in with the student can reveal how they feel about the work, and family feedback adds essential context about language, culture, and life outside school. As Safir and Dugan (2021) stress, we have to ask whose voices are represented, what information is missing, and how the child experiences learning every day. SENIA's Domain 4 emphasizes grounding decisions in balanced evidence (SENIA International, 2025) with the aim of understanding. The Grade 3 team used four practical questions to guide their conversation about Miguel:
What can the student already do independently? Miguel retold stories in rich detail, explained his math reasoning clearly, and recognized many high-frequency words on sight.
What is the student experiencing during instruction? His teacher noticed he was lively in class discussions but went quiet, and sometimes asked to go to the toilet when independent reading began.
What specific demands is the task placing on him? Unfamiliar words had to be sounded out one sound at a time, and by the end of a sentence he had often lost its meaning.
What shifts occur when we adjust the task or support? When a text was read aloud to him, his comprehension was at grade level.
Honoring Student Voice
The screener gave the team a benchmark score, formative assessment gave them further information, and a brief conversation with Miguel gave them meaning. Miguel’s classroom teacher, a trusted adult, asked him how school was going and eventually what reading was like for him. He said he liked the stories when the teacher read them, but that reading by himself was "tiring" because "the words take too long." He also said he thought he was "not good at reading." That comment was powerful because he had already started to explain his difficulty to himself, likely impacting motivation and self-esteem. Talking to students does not replace objective testing, but it helps us make sense of the results. Safir and Dugan (2021) advocate getting close to students' experiences and letting those insights shape decisions.
In MTSS, student voice should be a key component, as students are rarely too young to share key pieces of information, and it is worth the time and effort. SENIA's Domain 4 also focuses on structured case management and goal-setting (SENIA International, 2025) because plans work better when students and families help design them. Families and students know what feels manageable, what feels overwhelming, and which strategies actually help at home or in class. Checking in with students should not stop once a plan is running. Their lived experience is invaluable data, and it can show whether support is truly working or creating new, unintended obstacles. We are not trying to move students efficiently through tiers. We are trying to understand barriers and respond in ways that improve access and participation.
Supporting Multilingual Learners Thoughtfully
Miguel's teacher had first advocated for more time for him, as he was still acquiring English academic language. He had also just had a major life transition, moving far from home. Children learning an additional language are developing that language while also learning grade-level concepts, and it is important to view that as a journey rather than a deficit. Low reading assessment scores might signal a learning need. They could equally reflect unfamiliar academic vocabulary, heavy language demands, or background knowledge the student has not yet acquired. The goal is to explore these factors carefully, without making assumptions and without overlooking genuine learning needs. The multilingual learner specialist teacher and the classroom teacher worked through these questions together:
The teachers met with the family. With an interpreter to provide access for all, they asked Miguel's parents how he read in Spanish. They explained that reading had always been hard for him, even at home, and that his previous teacher had suggested extra practice. A short Spanish reading sample showed the same decoding pattern he showed in English, which was an important piece of evidence.
If we do not take into account language acquisition, culture, prior education, and the language of instruction, we risk two opposite mistakes. We may misidentify language acquisition as a learning disability, or we may miss real learning needs by putting every difficulty down to language acquisition. For Miguel, "give him even more time," without further investigation, may have contributed to further gaps.
Moving From Identification to Hypothesis
Effective data-informed practice is a question-driven process. Instead of jumping from a low score to an intervention, teams should step back and ask: What patterns are showing up? What might explain them? What evidence will help us test our ideas? A student who struggles with reading comprehension might need foundational decoding support, but they may also be struggling with vocabulary, background knowledge, or a social-emotional need. Often several factors overlap, so a useful guiding question for teams is: What do we think is happening here, and what evidence could prove us right or wrong?
By November, given various data collected and conversations had, Miguel's team hypothesized that Miguel's main barrier is decoding, in both Spanish and English. They felt that if they were right, targeted structured literacy instruction would improve his decoding, and his comprehension of read-aloud text would stay strong. They also noted that if his decoding improved quickly with a short burst of practice, the difficulty was more likely to be a gap in previous instruction. If his comprehension dropped even with text read aloud, they would need to look again at language or other factors. This matches SENIA's Domain 4, which treats identification as the start of an ongoing problem-solving cycle rather than a final verdict (SENIA International, 2025). Teams should leave every meeting with a clear hypothesis, a concrete action, and a simple plan to check whether it worked, which is what Miguel's team did.
Tier 2: Designing Support With Intent
Effective data-informed practice is a question-driven process, and teams should step back and ask: What patterns are showing up? What might explain them? What evidence will help us test our ideas? Often several factors overlap, so a useful guiding question for teams is: What do we think is happening here, and what evidence could prove us right or wrong? The team hypothesized that Miguel's main barrier is decoding, in both Spanish and English. They felt that if they were right, targeted structured literacy instruction would improve his decoding and his comprehension of read-aloud text would stay strong. They also noted that if his decoding improved quickly with a short burst of practice, the difficulty was more likely to be a gap in previous instruction. If his comprehension declined even with text read aloud, they would need to look again at language or other factors. This matches SENIA's Domain 4, which treats identification as the start of an ongoing problem-solving cycle rather than a final verdict (SENIA International, 2025).
Tier 2 is a targeted, intentional step up in support. Every plan should be rooted in clear evidence gathered during Tier 1. A strong plan sets out explicit learning goals, the specific strategy being used, the schedule, clear roles, and realistic progress checks.
Miguel's plan followed directly from the hypothesis. He joined a small group for structured literacy intervention three times a week for eight weeks, with progress monitoring every other week on decoding and fluency. His classroom teacher kept read-aloud access to texts in class so that his learning of content was not held back while his decoding developed. Establishing a plan is only the beginning. Teams also need to check whether support is being delivered as intended and whether it is useful for the student:
At the four-week review, Miguel's progress line showed a minimal amount of growth. The tempting conclusion was, "He needs more." Instead, the team discovered that Miguel had attended only seven of twelve planned sessions due to school events, illness, and a holiday falling on the intervention days. When asked, Miguel said he liked the group but "sometimes I miss it, and then I forget." The team moved his sessions to more protected times, and Miguel attended every session. His decoding slowly improved, and his rate of growth was still well below his peers in the group. At the eight-week review mark, Miguel had not shown much growth overall.
Domain 4 highlights that interventions should not exist on an island, separate from everyday classroom instruction (SENIA International, 2025). Responsibility is shared between teachers and specialists. If progress stalls, do not automatically assume the student needs more intensive intervention. The strategy might be wrong, delivery might have been inconsistent, or the hypothesis might need a second look. Stalled growth is a cue to re-evaluate: What did we learn? What should we adjust? How will we track the change?
Tier 3: Greater Precision
Moving to Tier 3 should not be an automatic reaction to slow Tier 2 growth. Increasing the intensity of support means designing a more precise response based on what we have learned so far. At this stage, teams should ask what they learned from Tier 1 and Tier 2, what the progress data shows, and what still remains unexplained.
For Miguel, the team had learned a lot. The Tier 1 changes made across the grade level had helped most students, but not all. Tier 2 intervention produced slow and minimal growth, and his difficulty appeared in both of his languages. One important question remained: what exactly was making decoding so hard for him, and what would work best? This was the moment for the team to decide if he needed a formal assessment to gather further information, which included a family conversation about a referral, a psychoeducational assessment, and if warranted, an individualized education plan.
Specialist input should improve decision-making, not act as a rubber stamp for extra services or labels (SENIA International, 2025). MTSS tiers are not a ladder that students must climb step by step. They are flexible levels of support that should expand or shrink based on real evidence. Decisions to intensify support should reflect the student's needs, their response to previous support, and the barriers that remain. They should not be based only on time passed, how long a concern has lasted, or an assumption that a student who has not progressed must need a higher tier. Miguel moved to Tier 3 because the evidence and process led there.
Knowing When to Fade Support
MTSS conversations often focus on when to add support or increase its intensity. Less attention goes to an equally important question: when is it right to reduce or fade support? If data is used only to identify additional needs, support can build up without a clear process for reviewing whether it is still necessary. Students may keep receiving formal intervention when they are ready to apply skills more independently, or when the original barriers have changed. Domain 4 emphasizes defining success in a way that includes independence, confidence, and application across settings (SENIA International, 2025). Students and families should always be included in conversations about changes to support. The goal of MTSS is to build independence and agency in regular learning environments, not to keep students on support plans.
Closing the Loop
MTSS should work as a continuous feedback loop, not a one-way path to intervention. We should ask what our intervention outcomes are teaching us about core instruction, which targeted strategies could be brought into general classrooms, and which obstacles appear across several classrooms or grade levels.
Miguel's story changed the school as well as Miguel. Looking back across his Grade 3 year, the team found three lessons for the whole system:
The Grade 3 Tier 1 changes worked for most students: Decodable texts and oral rehearsal became a permanent part of Grade 3 literacy, not a six-week response.
Information about home-language literacy came too late: The intake process for multilingual learners now asks families how their child reads in their home language, so this evidence is available in August rather than November.
Intervention time was not protected: Intervention time is now timetabled first, so assemblies and trips no longer take them by default.
The same principle applies more widely. If many students need Tier 2 vocabulary support, it is time to refine how vocabulary is taught in core classes. If writing tasks lead to frequent referrals, we should look closely at core writing instruction. If multilingual learners express ideas much better orally, classes can include more oral rehearsal. Domain 4 highlights using system data to evaluate intervention effectiveness and guide whole-school improvement (SENIA International, 2025). Some individual needs will always require specialized help, but fixing systemic gaps in Tier 1 reduces unnecessary referrals over time.
Conclusion: The Real Purpose in Data
The goal of data-driven MTSS is not to label struggling children. It is to understand learners, strengthen core instruction, identify obstacles, match support to need, and check whether our actions actually help. This means moving beyond the question of which tier a student is in. We need to ask what the evidence is telling us, what we have learned from the student and family, what we have already tried, what barriers remain, and what we should do next.
The red-highlighted score in September told us that Miguel had a gap. It could not tell us that his classmates' gaps were really a Tier 1 issue, that his difficulty showed up in Spanish too, that he had struggled with this for the previous two years, or that he believed he was "not good at English." As Safir and Dugan (2021) remind us, the most meaningful insights rarely appear on a spreadsheet. They come from student conversations, teacher observations, family stories, and moments when adjusting the environment reveals what a student can do.
Frameworks such as SENIA's Disability Inclusion Standards (SENIA International, 2025), Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2024), and Novak's (2022) work, all point to the same principle: design responsive spaces that expect variability and meet students where they are. Data should help us listen closely, think carefully, and respond with intent to meet students where they are.
References
CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. udlguidelines.cast.org
Emily Easterday is the Director of student success and wellbeing at UNIS Hanoi. She has more than 25 years of experience as an educator, learning support specialist, and international school leader across the United States and Asia. She holds a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in special education, as well as a master’s degree in teacher leadership, and is a National Board Certified Teacher in Early Childhood–Young Adulthood/Exceptional Needs. Emily is currently pursuing a Colorado student support director endorsement and English as an additional language (EAL) certification. Her career has been defined by a commitment to building equitable, sustainable systems that promote the success of all learners. Her leadership roles have included high school activities Director and learning support teacher at Jakarta Intercultural School, Director of student support at The American School in Japan, and Director of student support at Vientiane International School.
