By Leigh Buettler, M.S.Ed.
A few years ago, I decided to learn how to knit, and took advantage of easy access to a local yarn shop that offered a variety of high-quality classes. I began with a true beginner’s course and a simple project: a scarf. The instruction was paced to match our needs, and the group was made up of people at the same skill level. Our teacher was always available to reteach or break things down further when needed. We learned together, supported one another, and grew more confident with every class.
My knitting foray mirrors what effective Tier 2 instruction should look like in a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): students flexibly grouped by skill level – not by general ability, grade level, or randomly – who receive targeted instruction aligned to their current needs.
Flexible, skill-based grouping in Tier 2 intervention has strong research support as an effective method for improving student learning outcomes. Studies show that grouping students based on their specific instructional needs—rather than broad categories like ‘low,’ ‘average,’ or ‘above average’—leads to more targeted and responsive instruction. Regular regrouping based on progress monitoring ensures interventions remain aligned to student growth.
Instead of some learners being far ahead and waiting for others to catch up, are your students mastering foundational skills in progression together? Is assessment showing you who needs additional time and support, so instruction evolves with skill development?
This is the goal of Tier 2: to provide timely, targeted, and flexible support so that students can catch up, close gaps, and move forward without needing ongoing intervention. Remember that Tier 2 groups can be flexibly re-formed to allow for more focused or intensive instruction for a subset of students who need that additional time and support.
To maximize success, research recommends small group sizes (3–5 students) and homogeneous skills within each group. This structure empowers educators to deliver the “just-right” instruction that helps struggling learners catch up over smaller periods of time.
It can be hard to create and manage systems and structures to provide flexible, responsive small group Tier 2 instruction that can frequently change based on data. That’s where the Stern Center for Language and Learning comes in. Some of what we offer includes:
- Flexible, small-group skill-based instructional services in reading, writing, and math
- Professional development for teachers and administrators to help support setting up effective systems and routines for all instructional tiers, including how to analyze and utilize data
- Social-emotional learning and speech therapy instruction tailored to fit the needs of learners
- Summer services to extend student learning, attain IEP goals, and prepare for the fall
If you’re interested in learning more about our instructional services, our social learning and speech therapy services, or our professional development, let’s talk! You can reach me at lbuettler@sterncenter.org.
References
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (2008). Best practices in school-based problem-solving consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 625–636). National Association of School Psychologists.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0804_1
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800301
Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Preventing early school failure: What works? Allyn & Bacon.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). Preventing early reading failure for English language learners by means of a tiered intervention model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035561
