Process Evaluation of a Problem-Solving Approach for Analyzing Literacy Practices within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports Framework

Two elementary schools tried a new way to fix reading problems. They used a five-step problem-solving cycle inside their MTSS team meetings.

The steps were: look at data, name the problem, pick a fix, try it, check if it worked. Teams met every two weeks.

No new books or programs were bought. They just got better at using what they already had.

After one school year, both schools saw better reading scores. The biggest gains were in first and second grade.

Teachers said the cycle helped them spot which kids needed help faster. They also changed how they taught the whole class based on the data.

The special-ed team used the same steps to improve their pull-out lessons.

Mulvaney et al. (1974) showed that a principal's praise could boost math scores. Murdoch et al. (2024) shows the same leader power works when principals run data meetings instead of giving praise.

HMelegari et al. (2025) found that rural schools needed three years of coaching to hit PBIS fidelity. The new study shows an MTSS literacy cycle can work in one year without extra coaches.

Nangle et al. (1993) proved that fourth graders learn more math when they track their own work. The 2024 study moves that self-check idea up to the whole-school level.

You can copy this five-step cycle in your school right now. Use the reading data you already collect. Meet every two weeks. Pick one small change to try. Track if it works. No new money needed.