Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Supports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elk Grove Unified details MTSS tiered supports and RFA pathway; trustees press for fidelity and language access
Summary
District MTSS staff told the board the multi-tiered system of supports relies on data-driven RFAs, tier 2 small-group and tier 3 intensive interventions, and timebound progress monitoring; trustees asked for regional implementation reports, better fidelity checks and broader Synergy translation.
The Elk Grove Unified School District presented a detailed third "spotlight" on its Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) on March 10, outlining how students move from universal classroom instruction to small-group (tier 2) and individualized (tier 3) interventions.
Dr. Travis Collier and MTSS staff described a two-pathway intake: (1) assessment-data identification using district benchmarks and Illuminate/Synergy cut points and (2) a teacher-initiated Request for Assistance (RFA) that compiles evidence, prior interventions, attendance and family contact. A multidisciplinary tier 2 team reviews an RFA, creates a hypothesis about a student’s barrier to learning and prescribes an evidence-based, time-limited intervention with a named implementer and progress-monitoring targets.
Presenters emphasized that tier 1 remains the foundation — high-quality instruction, formative checks and classroom differentiation — and that tier 2 interventions are typically small-group, regularly scheduled supports provided by staff with additional training. Tier 3 supports are more intensive and often individualized. The SST (Student Study Team) was described as a separate, deeper review used when tier 2 efforts don’t resolve concerns; SST outcomes may include additional tiered supports, a 504 plan, or referral for special-education assessment, but not automatically an IEP.
District staff walked trustees through anonymized student vignettes showing typical pathways: Jordan, whose behavior plan kept him in class with in‑class supports; Alex, who improved after high school social‑emotional group counseling; and Leo, who received small-group reading instruction after falling below reading cut points.
A parent and student (Nina Salas and Juliana Durian) described intensive reading supports that Juliana received; both credited the intervention with measurable gains in confidence and classroom participation.
Trustees asked detailed implementation questions. Board members requested regular regional reports on MTSS implementation and fidelity, pressed staff on safeguards against bias in referral and intervention decisions, and asked for clearer metrics for success. Staff said a formal program-implementation tool is in use and that teams are standardizing processes and note-taking; they recommended 4–6 weeks as a rule of thumb for formal progress reviews while noting providers should monitor some interventions every two weeks.
On language access, presenters said Synergy is translated to Spanish only; consent forms and parent communications are translated into many languages and staff work with the multilingual education department or translators when families need direct support reviewing interventions and monitoring data.
The presentation closed with the board thanking staff and requesting follow-up materials showing by-region implementation status, fidelity measures and the district’s MTSS program implementation tool.
