MTSS progress monitoring that checks the sessions happened before a team judges a student, with every plan drafted and cited
Plans drafted in minutes, and no student judged on sessions that never happened.
See one case, screen by screen ↓MTSS Intervention Planning & Progress Monitoring is MTSS progress monitoring software for school data teams. Seven agents bring in each screening window and propose tiers by the district's rule, draft every Tier 2 and Tier 3 plan from the screener, the diagnostic and the district menu, read the intervention logs every week, and prepare a cited recommendation for each student on the data-team agenda. The team decides, and the coordinator approves every plan change and referral packet.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
MTSS progress monitoring is the weekly or biweekly probe that tells a school data team whether a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention is working. Three times a year every student takes a universal screener; the students below the district's cut points get an intervention plan, are probed against an aimline, and every six weeks or so the team decides whether to continue, intensify, fade or refer for a special education evaluation.
Today the plan is a form typed from three systems: the screener report, the diagnostic and the district's intervention menu. The intervention log is a spreadsheet or a paper sheet, and misses are rarely coded, so the team calls a non-response without knowing whether the intervention happened. A parent who asks for an evaluation can be told to finish the tiers first, and the letter home often goes in English only. MTSS Intervention Planning & Progress Monitoring puts seven agents in front of that work, so the coordinator and the team spend their time deciding.
Estimated split of the staff hours one Tier 2 student takes in a six-week review cycle, by hand and with the agents. Our arithmetic, kept modest; the hand-typed plan is the 30–45 minutes the spec estimates.
Seven agents place, plan, read every session log and prepare each decision; the team decides, the coordinator approves, the liaison checks.
Mateo R. is in grade 4 at Pellwood Elementary, on a Tier 2 math plan since September 8. His last four scores sit below his aimline. Here is what happens before, during and after Thursday's data-team meeting, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Alicia opens Pellwood's math: 134 of 612 students in Tier 2 or 3, 87% of scheduled sessions delivered since September 8, six students with four scores below the aimline, and two evaluation clocks open. Her list starts with the data-team meeting at 2:45 p.m.
Tier 1 holds 478 students, Tier 2 98 and Tier 3 36. Arrows mark the 11 students who changed tier since the October 8 meeting, rings mark the 11 on today's agenda, and hollow dots are the 14 make-up screeners waiting for confirmation. Selecting Mateo opens his progress-monitoring chart beside the pyramid.
12 of 18 sessions delivered · 67%
Mateo's baseline was 12 digits correct, with a goal of 24 by November 13. His scores read 14, 15, 14, 16, 15 and 17. Clicking the last one shows the grade 4 computation probe, form 8, given by Devon Okafor on Friday, October 16: 17 digits correct against an aimline of 19.2 that day.
The Fidelity agent read every intervention log and found six of Mateo's sessions not held, from September 29 to October 8, while Mr. Okafor covered a grade 4 classroom vacancy. Six students lost the same six sessions, 36 in all. Devon confirmed the log; the staffing gap can go to the principal, Marcus Hale, in one step.
The Decision agent applied rule 4.1, four scores in a row below the aimline, then rule 4.4: below 80% delivery, restore before judging response. It read the cause of every missed session, found no evaluation request, and recommended continuing Tier 2 with three weeks of full delivery, Monday make-ups and a review on November 19. Confidence 0.91.
Continue Tier 2 and restore full delivery for three weeks.
The team agrees. Alicia records the decision: restore full delivery from October 26 to November 13, not judged as a non-response. The note cites the six dates the sessions were not held and the log confirmation of October 19.
Devon records plan change v2 from the team's decision: the same intervention, M2-03 Computation fluency small group, three 30-minute sessions a week, plus Monday make-ups on October 26, November 2 and November 9. The goal of 24 digits correct stays. Alicia approves it; the person who records a plan change never approves it.
The Family letter agent drafts the letter to Mateo's mother, Sra. Rocío R., in Spanish beside the English. It says that 6 of his 18 sessions did not happen, that all sessions resume on October 26, and that she may ask in writing for a special education evaluation at any time. Lucía checks it, with a translation confidence of 0.96, before it can be sent.
Jaylen T., grade 3, is in Tier 3. His mother asked in writing for an evaluation on October 14, so the agents started the response clock and took every "wait for more data" option away. Dr. Raman assembled the referral packet: 3 screener windows, 3 plan versions, 31 progress scores and 96 of 105 sessions delivered. Alicia approves and sends it.
Response due Wednesday, November 4 · day 6 of 15.
Every view, recommendation, decision, plan change and letter is on the audit trail, with each agent named by its version. The export pack for state monitoring builds in one step, with other students redacted.
The same students, seen by the five people who carry them: what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents place, plan, read every session log and prepare each decision; the team decides, the coordinator approves, the liaison checks.
Imports each screening window's results in math, reading and behavior, including make-up tests, matches every student to the student information system, and flags missing, invalid or rushed tests.
Applies the district placement rule and proposes each student's tier, citing the score and the cut point.
Drafts each Tier 2 or Tier 3 plan from the screener, the diagnostic and the district intervention menu: need, intervention, group, interventionist with open seats, measure, baseline, goal, aimline from the district norm table, and review date, with every field cited.
Reads every intervention log each Monday at 6:00 a.m., counts the sessions delivered against the plan, codes the cause of each missed one, and flags students under the fidelity threshold before their review.
Applies the district's decision rules, delivery first, and drafts continue, restore delivery, intensify, fade or refer for each student on the agenda. It reads family messages and call notes for an evaluation request.
Assembles the full intervention history for a special education referral: screeners, tiers, plan versions, progress scores, sessions and family contacts, with other students redacted.
Drafts every letter home in plain words, in the family's language beside the English, including the parent's right to ask for an evaluation.
Decide, approve and check. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any student, plan, session or rule, or say what to prepare. Every answer cites its source and opens the screen where the work is done.
Why restore delivery for Mateo instead of a referral?
Because the intervention did not fully happen. Mateo's last four scores are below his aimline, but only 12 of 18 sessions were delivered: six were not held between September 29 and October 8 while Mr. Okafor covered a classroom. Rule 4.4 says to restore delivery before judging response, and the family has not asked for an evaluation. The recommendation is three weeks of full delivery with Monday make-ups and a review on November 19. The team decides.
Which students got under 80% of their sessions?
Seven of the 134 on plans. Mateo R., Kai L., Ruby F., Theo G., Andre K. and Mila P. each had 12 of 18, all lost to the same staffing gap; Hana S. had 13 of 18 after five absences. Fidelity is open so you can schedule make-ups or send the gap to Marcus Hale.
Can Jaylen finish another round of Tier 3 before we evaluate?
No. His mother asked in writing for an evaluation on October 14. A parent may request an initial evaluation at any time, and MTSS cannot be used to delay or deny it. Tier 3 support continues while he is evaluated. The district's response with prior written notice is due November 4, and the packet is ready for your approval.
Draft plans for the five new Tier 2 students
Five drafts are ready, from the make-up screener, the October 20 diagnostics and the district menu, each field cited. Noor A. gets M2-07 Math facts fluency with Devon Okafor at 10:40 a.m., where two seats are open. Kiara B.'s Tier 3 plan stays held until Monday's diagnostic. They are waiting for your approval.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The district MTSS director sets the rules the agents apply. Every change is a new version, and every recommendation names the version it used.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Placement cut points (rule 3.1) | Tier 2 at the 25th percentile, Tier 3 at the 10th | Stepped; each change a new version |
| Second data source for Tier 3 | On | A diagnostic or classroom assessment |
| Scores in a row below the aimline (rule 4.1) | 4 | To indicate a plan change |
| Scores in a row above the aimline (rule 4.2) | 3 | With the goal met, to consider fading |
| Fidelity threshold (rule 4.4) | 80% | Below it, restore delivery before judging response |
| Tier 3 plan changes without response (rule 4.3) | 2 | Before a referral is considered |
| Child Find guard | Always on | An evaluation request always overrides MTSS timing |
| Evaluation request response | 15 school days | Escalates to the district director at day 10 |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: 34 CFR 300.301(b) (a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time) · OSEP Memo 11-07, January 21, 2011 (RTI cannot be used to delay or deny an evaluation) · 34 CFR 99.10 (parents' right to inspect education records within 45 days) · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "estimated" = our arithmetic from the sample district's volumes. Marlow Bay Unified School District, Pellwood Elementary, and the people and students named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
MTSS Intervention Planning & Progress Monitoring is MTSS progress monitoring software for school data teams. Seven agents bring in each screening window and propose tiers by the district's rule, draft every Tier 2 and Tier 3 plan from the screener, the diagnostic and the district menu, read the intervention logs every week, and prepare a cited recommendation for each student on the data-team agenda. The team decides, and the coordinator approves every plan change and referral packet.
The Fidelity agent reads every intervention log each week, counts the sessions delivered against the plan and codes why each missed one was missed. When delivery is under the district's threshold, 80% in the working solution, the Decision agent will not call a non-response: it recommends restoring delivery and cites the missed dates.
No. A parent may request an initial evaluation at any time (34 CFR 300.301(b)), and the Office of Special Education Programs has said that RTI or MTSS cannot be used to delay or deny one (OSEP Memo 11-07). When a request appears in a message or a call note, the agents start the district's response clock, offer no "wait for more data" option and assemble the referral packet for the school psychologist.
The Planner agent drafts each plan from the student's screener, the diagnostic and the district's own intervention menu: the need, the intervention, the group, the interventionist with open seats, the measure, the baseline, the goal and the aimline from the district norm table. Every field cites its source. The interventionist edits, and the coordinator approves.
Each student on the agenda arrives with a recommendation from the Decision agent (continue, restore delivery, intensify, fade or refer), with the rule it applied and the evidence. The team agrees or chooses another option with a reason, and the plan change and the letter home in the family's language follow within minutes.
Yes. The agents propose and explain; they never decide, approve, send, or edit a log or a score. The data team decides, the coordinator confirms placements and approves plans and packets, the person who recorded a change never approves it, and the parent liaison checks every translation before it goes home.
Yes. Cut points, the second data source for Tier 3, the number of scores below or above the aimline, the fidelity threshold, the referral rule, the intervention menu, roles, retention and the response deadlines are settings. Every change is a new version on the audit trail; only the Child Find guard is always on.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your MTSS handbook, your intervention menu and a sample of past screener data and logs, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own data first.
Every lesson drafted from the adopted curriculum, every activity cited to a standard.
1-min demoAI Essay FeedbackStudents get feedback in days, not weeks, with every comment signed by their teacher.
1-min demoLiteracy & Dyslexia ScreeningEvery flagged reader's family told in its own language, inside the state deadline.
1-min demoWe'll run MTSS Intervention Planning & Progress Monitoring on a sample of your own screener, plans and intervention logs.