Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mtss topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Beverly presenter outlines MTSS framework as district wrestles with scheduling and data challenges

Beverly School Committee (SISLE subcommittee) · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the March 11 SISLE meeting, Aaron Brown presented a district-level Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), describing tiered instruction and interventions, data practices and gaps in tools/scheduling that the district says must be fixed to improve targeted supports for students.

Aaron Brown, identified in the meeting as the district presenter, described MTSS as "a proactive, data-driven and preventative framework," and walked the Beverly School Committee through how the district uses tiered instruction to support students.

Brown told the committee that tier one represents universal instruction that should meet grade-level expectations for roughly "80 to 90%" of students, while tier two targets small groups (about "5 to 15%") with unit-specific interventions and tier three provides intensive, diagnostic-driven supports for a smaller group ("1 to 5%"). She emphasized that MTSS is a framework rather than a prescription and that implementation varies by building and grade level.

Brown highlighted five core components of strong tier-one instruction: high-quality curriculum, effective classroom practice, assessment and data use, universal design for learning and a positive belonging environment. She said investments from federal ESSER funds helped the district adopt curricula and noted continuing needs in middle-school science and other areas.

On data and operational questions, Brown and committee members discussed shortcomings in the district's data-entry and housing tools for interventions. Brown said teachers currently use a legacy tool (ERTI) to record interventions but that it is not "teacher-friendly," making longitudinal progress monitoring and special-education referrals harder. The superintendent and staff described the need to prioritize a more user-friendly system so interventions and progress monitoring are preserved and reviewable.

Committee members pressed on scheduling constraints at the secondary level. Brown described newer structures at different schools ("RISE," "WIN," "flex" and a high-school "flex" block) intended to create time for targeted instruction, but she and members agreed those blocks are at different stages of implementation and effectiveness across schools. The district has a partnership with TNTP at the middle school to improve planned, purposeful discourse and is experimenting with an app-based sign-up for flex/rise in some schools.

Brown also outlined social-emotional and behavior supports embedded in MTSS (responsive classroom, advisory, restorative practices) and said some supports are delivered by adjustment counselors and restorative-practice staff in the buildings. When members asked whether restorative practices follow a single evidence-based curriculum, Brown noted that Dr. Morgan and district staff provide trainings and modeling at different levels.

What happens next: staff said they will continue clarifying definitions for tiered supports, review data tools and pursue professional development. Several members urged the district to prioritize clearer timelines and teacher-friendly data solutions during the FY26 budget and implementation planning.

The presentation began at the SISLE meeting and was followed by extensive Q&A with committee members and staff; the district will return with follow-up detail on scheduling, data tools and explicit timelines for SST/BSST processes.