Why do intervention lists keep growing instead of shrinking?
You’ve invested in reading specialists, extended learning time, and purchased programs – yet every benchmark assessment reveals another cohort of students who need support.
The truth is, this isn’t an intervention problem: it’s a Tier 1 instruction problem. And fixing it is the single most powerful lever district leaders have to close learning gaps before they form.
When core instruction is strong, intervention becomes targeted support for the few who need it, not a revolving door for students who should have succeeded the first time.
Here are five signs your Tier 1 foundation needs strengthening, and the proven solutions district leaders are using to turn things around.
Understanding Tier 1 within your MTSS framework
Before we dive into the roadblocks, let’s ground this in what you’re already doing. Your Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework is designed to meet students’ academic, behavioral, and social needs through three tiers:
Tier 1 delivers high-quality, school-wide instruction designed to meet the needs of 80% or more of students. Tier 2 provides targeted support for students who need additional help. Tier 3 offers intensive, individualized interventions for students with significant learning gaps.
When district leaders ask us about improving outcomes, they often focus on Tiers 2 and 3. But here’s the reality: if Tier 1 isn’t strong, you’re spending intervention dollars to fix what could have been prevented. The most cost-effective investment you can make is getting core instruction right from the start.
Sign #1: Your curriculum covers content, but overwhelms working memory
District curriculum maps often check all the standards boxes, but scope isn’t the same as instructional design. When lessons introduce too much new information at once without adequate scaffolding, even capable students can’t retain what they’re learning. This isn’t a student capacity issue: it’s a cognitive load issue.
Cognitive load theory tells us that working memory has limits. Students can only process a finite amount of new information before they become overwhelmed. Without explicit instruction, systematic practice and careful sequencing, your well-intentioned curriculum can actually work against learning.
What this means for district leaders: When reviewing curriculum adoption, leaders should assess how materials manage cognitive load. Instruction should be explicit and systematic, with cumulative practice built in – not left to individual teacher discretion. Ask vendors: How does this program manage cognitive load? Is instruction explicit and systematic? Are practice opportunities scaffolded and cumulative? Programs with these principles embedded, reduce the burden on teachers to reinvent research-based instructional design.
Prioritize evidence-based programs that build in explicit, systematic instruction with scaffolded practice. This isn’t just good pedagogy – it’s smart resource allocation.
Sign #2: Your literacy focus is strong, but math gets less strategic attention
In recent years, reading instruction has undergone a revolution. Thanks to Science of Reading initiatives and state mandates, teachers have received extensive professional development on structured literacy, phonics progression, and evidence-based practices. District leaders have invested in high-quality materials and curriculum audits.
But here’s the gap: numeracy hasn’t received the same intentional focus. While teachers can now articulate the Science of Reading, far fewer can explain the research behind early numeracy development – number sense, subitizing, magnitude comparison, or how mathematical reasoning connects to executive function.
The result? Students are leaving early grades with stronger reading foundations than math understanding. Recent NAEP data shows fourth-grade math proficiency dropped 7 points since 2019, confirming this growing imbalance. If we want equitable outcomes, we need to apply the same rigor and investment to early math that we’ve brought to literacy.
What this means for district leaders: State your commitment to evidence-based instruction in both domains. Just as you evaluate literacy programs against Science of Reading principles, evaluate math programs for explicit instruction in foundational concepts like number sense and problem-solving. When districts implement complementary programs – they’re building interconnected foundations, not creating competing priorities.
Bring the same strategic focus to numeracy that you’ve brought to literacy. Both domains deserve evidence-based instruction at Tier 1.
Sign #3: You have high-quality assessment data, but it’s not driving Tier 1 decisions
Many districts invest in benchmark assessments like NWEA MAP Growth, Renaissance Star, or iReady. You have dashboards full of data – RIT scores, Lexile levels, percentile rankings. But here’s the question: is that data actually informing your Tier 1 instructional decisions, or is it just identifying who needs intervention?
Assessment data is most powerful when it tells teachers what students are ready to learn next, not just what they’ve missed. RIT scores, for example, place students on a continuous scale that extends from kindergarten through high school. When you connect those scores to instructional starting points, teachers can differentiate Tier 1 instruction to meet students where they are.
What this means for district leaders: When evaluating instructional programs, ask whether they align with your assessment system. Can teachers use MAP scores, Lexile bands, or other data to place students at the right instructional level? Beyond placement, look for programs that provide reports allowing teachers to track progress against state benchmarks.
Choose instructional materials that connect assessment data to actionable next steps and provide transparent, standards-based reporting, so your investment in testing translates directly to better Tier 1 teaching.
Sign #4: You’re investing in intervention, but Tier 1 gaps keep refilling your Tier 2 pipeline
This is the most costly sign of weak Tier 1 instruction. You hire reading specialists, purchase intervention programs, and extend the school day but every benchmark assessment reveals a new cohort of students who need support.
The issue isn’t that intervention doesn’t work. It’s that Tier 1 isn’t preventing the need for intervention in the first place. When core instruction is inconsistent, under-resourced, or not aligned to research, you end up perpetually treating symptoms rather than addressing root causes.
What this means for district leaders: Audit your intervention spending against your Tier 1 investment. Districts often spend five times more on remediation than prevention. If that ratio sounds familiar, you have an opportunity to reallocate resources strategically. Strengthening Tier 1 redirects those dollars to where they have the greatest long-term impact – it won’t eliminate the need for intervention entirely, but it should significantly reduce how many students require it.
Rebalance your investment. Strong Tier 1 instruction is the highest-leverage, most cost-effective decision you can make.
Sign #5: Teachers have autonomy, but no shared definition of high-quality Tier 1 instruction
Teacher autonomy is valuable until it becomes instructional inconsistency. When every classroom operates differently, students experience vastly different levels of instructional quality depending on which teacher they’re assigned. That’s not equitable, and it undermines your MTSS framework.
District leaders often hesitate to define Tier 1 too prescriptively, worried about affecting teacher morale or stifling creativity. But clarity isn’t rigidity. Teachers need a shared understanding of what evidence-based instruction looks like, and access to high-quality materials that embody those principles.
What this means for district leaders: Establishing curriculum coherence doesn’t mean eliminating teacher voice. It means ensuring every student (regardless of classroom assignment) receives research-based instruction. When you adopt programs aligned to ESSA evidence standards, you’re giving teachers a strong foundation while freeing them to focus on responsive teaching.
Define your non-negotiables for Tier 1 instruction and provide high-quality, ESSA-aligned materials to support implementation.
The case for Tier 1 investment
When core instruction is strong, fewer students need intervention and every dollar spent on support services goes further. The question isn’t whether to invest in Tier 1, but how soon you can make it stronger.
Research shows that literacy and numeracy develop hand in hand, particularly in the critical PreK–2 years. Strengthening both foundations together with evidence-based programs doesn’t add to teachers’ workloads: it creates classrooms where every student has the chance to thrive.
To dive deeper into the research and strategies behind effective Tier 1 instruction, download our free eBook ‘Get It Right from the Start: Laying the Foundation for K–2 Success’.
