MASSP News Center

By Kevin Mowrer,
Principal, Manchester High School

A current elementary model is making its way to the middle and high school ranks. The tiered intervention approach has captured the attention of secondary administrators who are looking for ways to support struggling students in the Michigan Merit Curriculum.

The Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) was identified by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) in 2002. It was funded under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and a grant from MDE to three Intermediate School Districts: Macomb, Ottawa, and Kalamazoo.

What is MiBLSi? It is based upon effective practices in early literacy and positive behavior support which is documented through federally-funded research. According to the MDE memorandum on MiBLSi, “The overall goal of MiBLSi is to develop support systems and sustained implementation of a data driven outcomes model in elementary schools to help students become better readers with social skills necessary for success. This includes all students, including those with disabilities.”

The question secondary school administrators may ask is how does this apply to me? It sounds like an elementary model. While MiBLSi did begin as an elementary framework, its reported success is driving the effort up to middle and high schools. This energy has increased with the Michigan’s Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) and the gradual decrease in alternative education programs around the state. From district to district and region to region, early interventions for struggling students are becoming more essential.

MiBLSi is part of a national movement and gives a name to what effective schools and teachers have been doing for years. MiBLSi falls into the Response to Intervention (RtI) model, which gained popularity in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Iowa. RtI was suggested, though not mandated, by the 2004 update to IDEA. The emphasis of the IDEA law update was to strongly encourage schools to try other interventions before transitioning struggling students into Special Education services. So, instructional leaders were and are charged with ensuring instruction is differentiated for all students, adjusted adapted for some struggling students, and highly adapted for the most challenged students.

The proponents of RtI claim it is more timely and coherent than the current testing model, which is deemed a “wait to fail” model. Under traditional special education testing, a student’s IQ would be compared to his or her academic achievement. If there was a wide discrepancy between the two, the student would qualify for Learning Disabled (LD) services. Proponents of RtL would like to begin helping students before the students fail. This is becoming more of a viable option with 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, opening up 15 percent of special education funding to early intervention. This early intervention takes the form of a tiered approach to services.

Briefly, RtI and MiBLSi both seek to facilitate in schools a three tiered approach to addressing the achievement of all students in the school. They would affect both the behavior and academic component of a student’s performance.

Academic or Behavioral Systems

Tier 3: 1-5 percent of students
Individual Student Interventions
• Individual students
• Assessment-based
• High intensity, research-based procedures

Tier 2: 5-10 percent of students
Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk of failure)
• Economical with personnel and intervention
• Rapid response

Tier 1: 80-90 percent of students
Universal Interventions
• All subjects, all students
• Preventive, proactive

Two further promises of RtI are consolidating services and research-based interventions. RtI has a strong focus on collaborating. The different categorical grants work together to serve all students in the school. This is the blessing and the curse of RtI: it brings many different services of the school together. The research basis of the interventions on the different tiers is emphasized in RtI. Struggling students, RtI theory says, should not be experimented on, rather be given the most proven interventions.

Many secondary schools currently are utilizing many of the techniques and methods of RtI, and the state is piloting and implementing its own version, MiBLSi. Though commonly implemented at lower levels, secondary school administrators need to be aware of the tiers of intervention and the data that corresponds to those levels.