Chris Birr, Ed.D., Educational Consulting - MTSS/RTI, Intervention, School Psychology
CONNECTEDMTSS | Chris Birr, Ed.D.
Connecting Research, Implementation, and Practice in MTSS
ConnectedMTSS explores how schools can make evidence-informed decisions, implement effective practices, and evaluate the impact of their systems of support.
Statutory Vetting & Intervention Selection
Selecting interventions is now a matter of strict statutory compliance.
Ensure your Tier 2 and Tier 3 tools align with state HQIM registries, bridge core curriculum directly to targeted interventions, and pass NIRN Hexagon local infrastructure fit before deployment.
Intervention Selection
This section provides systems-level frameworks for school psychology practitioners, administrators, and leadership teams to systematically select, evaluate, and scale evidence-based practices. By structuring our data analysis and program selection, we ensure that precious instructional resources are directly aligned with the specific intensity of students' needs.
The Intervention Selection Process
Rather than simply adopting materials based on publisher claims, leadership teams should follow a structured, independent review process to evaluate any new product or program:
Identify the Discrete Skill: Clearly define the specific academic or behavioral sub-skill addressed by the intervention. Although RTI/MTSS is intended to be a general education initiative and lead to efficient and effective use of resources, inventorying interventions to ensure that each area of the Specific Learning Disabilities skills is addressed can be a good starting point. Then, identify whether behaviors or SEL areas are in need based on school or district data. Are executive functions mentioned in every problem-solving meeting? What are the objective skills or behaviors associated? Engagement? Task initiation? Task completion?
State Legislation and Approved Intervention Mandates
Selecting an academic intervention is no longer just a matter of local preference or historical legacy practices; it is increasingly a matter of strict legal compliance. To phase out unvalidated methods, state legislatures have established rigid, legally enforced approved registries for Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions.
Across the country, the legislative landscape has shifted dramatically. Under comprehensive early literacy mandates and "Science of Reading" laws, a massive subset of states (including Ohio, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Colorado, and Virginia) now dictate the exact instructional choices districts are permitted to purchase and deploy.
Failing to align local inventories with these rapidly expanding state-adopted lists can result in funding penalties, forced program decommissioning, or systemic compliance violations during state audits.
Navigating the Intersection of Vetting and Compliance:
When selection committees review a prospective tool, the evaluation must occur in two distinct phases:
-
Statutory Screening: Verify that a prospective intervention tool is actively approved on your specific state registry to ensure baseline legal compliance and protect district funding.
-
Contextual Infrastructure Fit: Vetting cannot end at a state list. Just because a tool is legally approved by the state does not mean it automatically fits your building's unique resources, staff training capacity, scheduling limits, or student demographic profile. The program must still be subjected to a rigorous local vetting framework, such as the NIRN Hexagon framework, before implementation.
Resources and Compliance Links
-
State Vetted Registries (Ohio Approved List of Evidence-Based Reading Interventions) - Direct portal to state-approved reading intervention materials and High-Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM) directives.
Local Vetting Process- Intervention Selection
Independent Research Review: Conduct an objective literature review using academic databases and clearinghouses (such as ERIC, What Works Clearinghouse, National Center for Intensive Intervention, Evidence for ESSA, and Google Scholar) to compile independent supporting research.
Review Publisher Claims: Analyze the internal research, demographic groups, and validation data provided by the publisher. Marketing has become increasingly appealing. When educators returned from conferences, I would receive several requests to purchase a new program or intervention. Maybe it was incredibly effective, maybe not.
Analyze Local Data: Review district, school, or grade-level assessment data to determine if the intensity and number of students who demonstrate a need, warrants the systemic implementation of the tool. How many demonstrate a need for comprehension? Based on what data? Do those students also have a need for decoding? Drill down to identify the root cause and prevalence in your district.
Develop a Limited Pilot Plan: Deploy the intervention or product to a restricted, representative pilot group of students. Select a professional team to oversee and evaluate the initial implementation. Collect clean data!
- But.... don't use a pilot to prevent students from access to needed instruction.
* Determine if the need is so clear that a pilot will slow access and necessary services. Skip if the need is clear.
Establish Program Evaluation Metrics: Select reliable pre- and post-test assessments to measure the explicit effect size and growth rate of the pilot group.
Complete the NIRN Hexagon Tool: To summarize findings, evaluate operational capacity, and plan for future scaling, the representative team completes the Hexagon Tool framework before broad adoption. I used to start the Hexagon as soon as a request came in. I would start to complete what I could and then share with the team or educators who requested the program. Show your "math."
I used a template to compile data and input about interventions. And when the district was pursuing multiple interventions, I used a spreadsheet and kept all information in one place.
Spreadsheet Headings when evaluating multiple programs.
Deep Dive: The NIRN Hexagon Tool - click for NIRN link
I rely directly on The Hexagon Tool from the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) to explore contextual fit and feasibility. This framework provides a thorough process to guide teams through a balanced evaluation of six critical indicators divided into two distinct categories:
Program Indicators (The "What"):
Evidence: Does research show the program works for our target outcomes?
Supports: Is there robust training, coaching, and technical assistance available for staff?
Usability: Is the program clearly defined, operationalized, and highly teachable?
Implementing Site Indicators (The "Where"):
Need: Does this program explicitly address our specific student and community data?
Fit: How well does this align with our current initiatives, school values, and MTSS priorities?
Capacity: Do we have the staff, time, funding, and administrative infrastructure to sustain it?
Download Intervention Selection Reflection Questions (PDF) - Strategic prompts for leadership teams evaluating new materials. Not an exhaustive list but meant to generate questions.
References:
Blase, K., Kiser, L., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). The Hexagon Tool: Exploring context. National Implementation Research Network, FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The instructional hierarchy: A model for planning instructional objectives. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23-40). Charles E. Merrill Publishing.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2008). Response to intervention: Blueprints for implementation: District level.