Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline Mtss topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henniker administrators describe tiered MTSS behavior system, logging and supports to board
Summary
At the Dec. 4 Henniker School Board meeting, administrators walked the board through the district’s multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS) for behavior, the Student Support Center, referral and logging tools, and how those systems inform scheduling and interventions for students.
Get email alerts on the School Discipline Mtss topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its Dec. 4 meeting, the Henniker School Board heard a detailed presentation from district administrators about the district’s multi‑tiered systems of support for student behavior and how staff are documenting and responding to classroom disruptions.
Administrators said MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) organizes interventions into tiers so staff can match supports to student needs. “So I just kind of defined what MTSS is. It's a multitiered system support,” the presenter said. The board was shown the district workflow for MTSS A (universal supports) and MTSS B (behavioral interventions), weekly review meetings, referral forms and a shared spreadsheet used to track plans and actions.
District staff described three tiers: tier 1 for supports available to all students (classroom strategies, responsive classroom training, advisory and social‑emotional learning), tier 2 for targeted interventions and team responses, and tier 3 for intensive, individualized supports including 504s and IEPs. Administrators said the Student Support Center (SSC) pools counselors, paraprofessionals and a board‑certified behavior analyst to provide immediate behavioral processing and to help students return to class in a timely way. “The student support center is anyone a lot of people are on the MTSS team are part of the student support center. School counselors, we have some paras devoted to it, admin, our BCBA person,” the presenter said.
Teachers initiate MTSS work by submitting a Google referral form (available on the staff website) that populates a tracking spreadsheet. The form lets staff indicate academic, speech/OT or behavior concerns; teams assign a point person, collect additional data if needed, and create action steps. Administrators explained that tier 1 interventions are tracked in a daily discipline log so patterns can be spotted; when a pattern emerges, teams escalate to tier 2. “When it's tier 2, it sends a notification… when it's tier 1, it's about I'm tracking and I'm unlocking this so that if there is a pattern, it can be evaluated and seen,” an administrator said.
Board members and parents pressed staff on how the system handles repeat disruptions and how data are shared with families. Administrators said tier 1 work is typically handled in class and documented; when a teacher or team determines additional support is needed they make a referral and families are involved at the appropriate step. The district uses the referral and processing forms, PowerSchool incident logs and special‑education systems to document escalations that can trigger suspension, police reporting or mandated procedures when required by law or policy.
Administrators said MTSS data informed recent schedule changes for grades 7–8, where the district reconfigured groups and advisory blocks “based on that data.” They also said documentation helps the district assign staff, adjust supervision at recess and target supports where patterns appear. Board members and parents urged consistent logging of tier‑1 incidents so newer teachers have records to act on and patterns do not become normalized in classrooms.
Students who spoke earlier in the meeting about the New Hampshire Youth Voices Summit were referenced by board members as illustrating that students want learning environments that minimize disruptive behavior. The presentation concluded with staff saying the forms and workflow are in the handbook and that point persons and weekly team meetings ensure follow‑up.
The board did not take a formal vote on policy changes at this meeting; administrators said the materials are intended to document current practice and to give the board visibility into systems that guide classroom and disciplinary decisions.

