Reading Reform in Action: MTSS Implementation Across Differing School Performance Trends in Kentucky

• In Event: Science of Reading Legislation's Effects and Their Mechanisms: Studies of Legislation from Three States

Abstract

Purpose
Having passed its science-of-reading (SoR) legislation in 2022, Kentucky is beginning to reform reading instruction. Understanding initial successes and challenges may offer actionable intervention points to improve teacher working conditions and student outcomes. Accordingly, the present paper examines how 21 schools with differing reading proficiency trends are responding to reform mandates requiring a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Kentucky’s MTSS includes SoR-aligned instruction, progress monitoring and evidence-based interventions for struggling readers.

Perspectives
Although MTSS can improve schoolwide reading outcomes, research suggests variations in its effect (Author). For example, Lane and colleagues (2015) found schools were better equipped to deliver instruction than intervention, especially in elementary. Additionally, team functioning, including clearly defined member roles, can influence effective implementation (Billingsley et al., 2018).

Methods
We interviewed MTSS teams (administrators, coaches, teachers responsible for reading instruction or intervention), from 21 schools that were purposefully sampled on their Grade 3 reading performance trend profiles from state tests administered 2021/2022 to 2023/2024. We determined four profiles by dividing all elementary schools into quantiles and identifying changes in proficiency rates.
• Profile 1 (Stable High): Performance within ±10 points yearly, consistently top quantile.
• Profile 2 (Stable Low): Changes within ±5 points, consistently 1st or 2nd quantile.
• Profile 3 (Continuous Increase): Gains >5 points annually, top quantile.
• Profile 4 (Continuous Decline): Decline >5 points annually, 1st or 2nd quantile.
All interviews used a validated protocol with 22 structured questions assessing four domains: MTSS team, general instruction (Tier I), small group (Tier II) and individual interventions (Tier III, Author). Scores were calculated using a codebook (Table 1) and formed the dataset used for descriptive statistics and future statistical analyses.

Results
Average domain scores are in Table 2. Results varied across profiles. Stable High schools demonstrated strong overall implementation. Their MTSS Team score suggests a functioning school-wide team, Tier I score reflects strong instruction. Slightly lower Tier II and III scores suggest early intervention practices are less systematic. Stable Low schools report relatively high Tier II and III scores, reflecting a focus on interventions. Lower Tier I scores point to weaker instruction potentially reducing ability to prevent reading difficulties. Increasing schools reported the highest scores across all domains indicating strong team structures. High instruction and intervention scores suggest effective MTSS meets student needs, a hypothesis supported by reading score growth. Decreasing schools had the lowest overall score, weak MTSS Team and Tier II performance. Their lower Tier I and relatively high Tier III scores reflect fragmented support. Gaps likely contribute to achievement declines. Future analyses include significance tests for school differences and inclusion of school-level covariates including school size, teacher turnover, student demographics. These contextual factors play a meaningful role in MTSS implementation. Conclusions from the study will include these results.

Significance
By measuring differences in initial reform efforts, we can address the conference theme of transforming education policy. Specifically, policy can be implemented more effectively by allocating resources toward individual school needs. This intentional deployment may improve teachers’ instruction and intervention, which can improve student reading outcomes.




 

Authors

• Sangbaek Park, University of Louisville

• Jennifer R. Pollard, University of Louisville

• Jennifer Fosbinder, University of Louisville