Ability Is the Consequence

Introducing the Think Forward Educators MTSS Network: From intervention to instructional coherence by Stephanie Dehghani

“Ability is the consequence, not the cause, of what children learn” (Nuthall, 2007).

I keep coming back to this line from Graham Nuthall, which stopped me in my tracks when a friend shared it with me. I asked her to read it out to me so I could hear it again, then I read it aloud to myself to really let the sentiment sink in. It resonated with me so much because I believe it sits right at the heart of the work we are doing when we build Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) in schools.

With the launch of the Think Forward Educators MTSS Network, I have been blown away by the huge amount of thought and energy that teachers and school leaders are putting into getting this right. Over the past week, I have been reading through the early discussions in the MTSS Network, and I have been struck by how similar many of the challenges are, even though the schools and stages of change are very different. Primary schools, secondary schools, large schools, small schools, new schools, established schools. Different resources, different staffing structures, different timetables. But the questions are often the same. How do we timetable intervention? Who should run Tier 2 groups? What do students miss when they attend intervention? How do we support students who are many years behind? How do we manage this with limited staff and budgets? Help?

These are all very real questions, and they are not easy ones to answer. They are also the right questions to be asking. But if we come back to Nuthall’s idea that “ability is the consequence of what students learn”, then MTSS starts to look less like a system for sorting or labelling students and more like a system for organising opportunity to learn (Australian Education Research Organisation [AERO], 2024).

This is where I think one of the biggest misunderstandings about MTSS sits. The tiers are very easily turned into labels. Schools start talking about “Tier 2 students” and “Tier 3 students”, often without even realising it. But the moment that language starts to creep in, expectations quietly change. The work students are given changes. The opportunities they are given change. They are held less accountable in the Tier 1 environment because there is a belief that “they can’t do this”. The ceiling lowers, even though nobody ever intended for that to happen. Which aligns with research showing that teacher expectations and accountability strongly influence student achievement (Lemov, 2015).

A student is not a “Tier 2 student”. A student might receive Tier 2 support for a period of time for a particular concept or subject. That support might increase or decrease over time depending on what they are learning and how they are responding to instruction. The tiers describe the level of support, not the type of student. That distinction is incredibly important because when we start to label students into types, we tend to unconsciously hold them less accountable out of fear of upsetting them, overworking them, or maybe pushing them too hard.

Recently, we had the privilege of hosting David Didau at our school. He showcased a masterclass in inclusive Tier 1 instruction without ever labelling it as that. Before David started teaching the first class of Grade 6 students, he didn’t ask, “What level is this child at?” or “Are there any struggling students I should know about?”. Instead, he went in with incredibly high expectations for all and demonstrated a “no opt out” approach that called upon any student at any time. When a student did not give the correct answer, instead of saying “great try” with an upwards inflection and a “bless your heart” smile, he warmly said, “That is not correct, but listen out to the next student and I will come back to you!”. And guess what? He did just that! David came back to the student, multiple times, with a palpable belief in them, until they were able to give an answer that was not only correct (and scaffolded from the other students’ responses that were repeated multiple times), but that filled this student with a special thing that we call success. The smiles from the student and David were genuine and encouraging. Fireworks and watery eyes from those of us observing!

When schools start building MTSS structures, a lot of the early conversation is about intervention. Groups, programs, withdrawal, staffing, timetables, progress monitoring, and $$$. All of that work is important, and it is complicated. But in the schools where this work seems to be making the biggest difference, the starting point was not intervention. The starting point was Tier 1, and it remained the point of interrogation for years, not terms, which aligns with research highlighting the importance of high-quality core instruction and explicit teaching as the primary driver of student achievement (Rosenshine, 2012; Archer & Hughes, 2011).

This is the part of the work that is less visible, slow burning, completely exhausting, and sometimes less exciting, but it is the part that changes everything over time. Schools start looking closely at their curriculum, their lesson structures, their routines, their explanations, their feedback, their sequencing, and their pacing. They start asking harder questions about what is being taught, how it is being taught, and whether students are actually learning what we think we are teaching. This is slow and sometimes uncomfortable work because it requires adults to change practice and systems, not just create traffic light-coloured lists of students grouped by support.

Once Tier 1 instruction becomes clearer, more consistent, and tightly sequenced across a school, the conversation about Tier 2 becomes much easier. Tier 2 then becomes an additional dose of the same, already interrogated and finessed Tier 1 instruction, with more guided practice, feedback and opportunities to respond, which are key elements of effective instruction (Rosenshine, 2012). Structurally, this is very difficult to timetable and staff, which is why so many of the questions in this network are really timetable and staffing questions. But this does not mean it is impossible or unnecessary.

At some point, schools building an MTSS model realise that the timetable is not just an organisational document. It is a reflection of what the school values and what the school is willing to protect. The timetable quietly reveals priorities, who receives additional support and when, and whether Tier 1 instruction is protected or constantly compromised. Many of the important MTSS decisions are actually leadership decisions about time, staffing, and structures rather than decisions about specific programs, which reflects the broader view of MTSS as a whole-school organisational framework rather than an intervention program (Brown-Chidsey & Bickford, 2016).

Another pattern that came through in the discussions was that some cohorts have larger gaps than others because of the timing of curriculum changes or instructional changes in a school. This is very real and something many schools experience. When Tier 1 instruction improves across a school, the biggest impact is often not seen immediately. It is seen a few years later, when the students who have had strong Tier 1 instruction from the beginning move up through the school. Over time, the number of students requiring Tier 2 and Tier 3 support often reduces because the system has changed and prevention becomes the intention, which is consistent with the prevention model underpinning Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (AERO, 2024).

Which brings us back again to Nuthall’s idea.

Ability is the consequence of what students learn, and what students learn is heavily influenced by the curriculum they are taught, the instruction they receive, the time they are given to practise, the feedback they receive, and the systems schools build around them. If that is true, then MTSS is not really about intervention programs or grouping students. It is about building a school where more students are successful in the core curriculum because the system has been designed to support them to be successful instead of relying on Tier 2 and 3 to do the heavy lifting.

This is slow, tiring, essential work. It involves curriculum, instruction, assessment, timetables, staffing, professional learning, and hard leadership decisions. It looks different in every school at the moment. But the conversations happening in this network suggest that many schools are asking exactly the right questions and doing exactly the kind of thinking that leads to better systems over time.

If you are keen to join the network and the discussion, click on this link: TFE MTSS Network. Thank you to every educator who has contributed by sharing their school journeys to date!

References

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. Guilford Press.

Australian Education Research Organisation. (2024). Introduction to a Multi-Tiered System of Supports. Introduction to a multi-tiered system of supports | Australian Education Research Organisation

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical Handbook of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support. Guilford Press.

Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0. Jossey-Bass.

Nuthall, G. (2007). The Hidden Lives of Learners. NZCER Press.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction. American Educator.