3.2 Child Find, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) & Initial Referral

The Statutory Mandate of Child Find

The foundation of special education identification in the United States rests upon the Child Find mandate, codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3) and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR § 300.111. Child Find is not a passive intake mechanism; rather, it imposes an affirmative, continuous, and proactive legal obligation upon State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to identify, locate, and evaluate all children residing in their jurisdiction who have disabilities, or who are suspected of having disabilities, and who are in need of special education and related services.

Broad Jurisdictional Scope and Protected Populations

The statutory reach of Child Find is extensive, spanning from birth through age 21. For infants and toddlers (birth through age two), Child Find mandates interagency coordination between local educational bodies and lead agencies administering Part C of IDEA (Early Intervention Services). For children aged three through 21, the responsibility falls squarely under Part B of IDEA.

Courts and federal administrative rulings have repeatedly confirmed that LEAs cannot restrict Child Find activities solely to students formally enrolled in standard public school classrooms. The mandate explicitly encompasses:

• Children attending private schools: LEAs must conduct Child Find for children enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, including religious institutions, located within the geographic boundaries of the LEA, regardless of the child's legal district of residence.
• Highly mobile children: Migrant children, children of military service members, and transient families.
• Children experiencing homelessness: Students protected under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, who often experience disrupted academic histories.
• Wards of the state and children in foster care: Youth residing in group homes, juvenile detention centers, or state-administered foster networks.
• Children advancing from grade to grade: A student who earns passing marks or advances academically is not automatically excluded from Child Find if behavioral, executive functioning, or emotional indicators suggest an underlying disability.

Failure to implement systemic Child Find procedures constitutes a gross procedural violation of IDEA that can result in denials of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and trigger legal liability for compensatory education.

---

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) Architecture

A Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) is a comprehensive, data-driven prevention framework designed to address the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of all learners. MTSS encompasses both Response to Intervention (RTI) for academic performance and School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) for behavioral health. Operating on a public health prevention paradigm, MTSS systematically organizes instruction into three distinct, tiered levels of increasing intensity.

Tier 1: Universal Core Instruction & Universal Screening

Tier 1 represents universal, high-quality core curriculum and classroom instruction delivered to 100% of the student body within general education environments. Instruction in Tier 1 must be grounded in scientifically based research, aligned with state academic standards, and delivered with high fidelity using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles.

• Universal Screening: Conducted three times per school year (Fall, Winter, Spring) for all students using brief, normed, curriculum-based screening instruments (e.g., DIBELS/Acadience Reading, AIMSweb, MAP Growth). Screening identifies students performing below grade-level cut scores who are at risk of academic or behavioral failure.
• Expected Benchmark: In a healthy, functioning educational ecosystem, high-quality Tier 1 instruction should meet the instructional needs of approximately 80% to 85% of the general student population without supplemental intervention.

Tier 2: Targeted Small-Group Evidence-Based Interventions

Students whose universal screening scores fall below designated benchmark thresholds (typically below the 25th percentile) or who demonstrate persistent academic or behavioral struggle in Tier 1 are referred to Tier 2. Tier 2 interventions are supplemental to—and never a replacement for—core Tier 1 instruction.

• Target Population: Approximately 10% to 15% of the student body.
• Intervention Modality: Standardized, evidence-based small-group instruction targeting specific, identified skill deficits (such as phonemic segmentation, reading fluency, math computational algorithms, or self-regulation routines).
• Group Size & Dosage: Small homogenous groups of 3 to 5 students, meeting 3 to 4 times per week for 20 to 30 minutes per session.
• Progress Monitoring: Administered bi-weekly (every two weeks) using standardized Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) probes to track the student's rate of skill acquisition against an established aimline.

Tier 3: Intensive Individualized Interventions

When a student demonstrates an insufficient rate of improvement (flat slope) and low absolute performance levels despite sustained Tier 2 intervention delivered with fidelity, the student transitions to Tier 3.

• Target Population: The most vulnerable 1% to 5% of the student population.
• Intervention Modality: Highly individualized, explicit, and systematic instruction customized to the student's granular diagnostic skill deficits. Tier 3 often utilizes specialized multi-sensory curricula or intensive behavioral support plans.
• Group Size & Dosage: Extremely small groups (1 to 2 students) or one-on-one instruction, occurring 4 to 5 times per week for 45 to 60 minutes per session, representing a substantial increase in instructional dosage.
• Progress Monitoring: Administered weekly using standardized CBM probes to enable rapid, data-informed instructional adjustments.

---

The Legal Intersection of MTSS and Initial Special Education Referrals

A critical area of confusion in educational practice involves the intersection between multi-tiered intervention processes and the formal special education evaluation timeline. Historically, some school districts operated under the erroneous belief that a student must exhaustively progress through all cycles of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 interventions—often spanning several months or academic years—before a formal referral for special education could be initiated.

OSEP Memorandum 11-07: The Prohibition of RTI Delay

To resolve systemic misapplications of RTI, the United States Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued OSEP Memorandum 11-07 in January 2011. This binding policy guidance clarified that:

1. An LEA cannot use an MTSS or RTI process to delay or deny a timely initial comprehensive evaluation for special education.
2. A parent has the statutory right under IDEA to request an initial evaluation at any time, regardless of whether the child is currently receiving Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 interventions.
3. School districts cannot require parents to wait until a specific number of intervention weeks or tiers have been completed before acting upon an evaluation request.

When a parent submits a written or verbal request for an initial special education evaluation while the child is participating in an MTSS process, the LEA cannot simply inform the parent that "district policy requires 8 weeks of Tier 2 first." Doing so constitutes an explicit violation of federal law.

The LEA's Procedural Obligations Upon Parental Request

Upon receiving an initial evaluation request from a parent, the LEA must immediately follow formal procedural safeguard protocols. The district has exactly two lawful options:

1. Agree to Evaluate: The LEA issues Prior Written Notice (PWN) proposing to conduct an initial comprehensive evaluation and provides the parent with an informed consent document outlining all proposed assessment domains.
2. Refuse to Evaluate: If the LEA possesses robust, documented instructional evidence demonstrating that the child does not have a suspected disability and does not require special education, the LEA must issue formal Prior Written Notice (PWN) explaining the exact reasons for the refusal, detailing the data considered, and providing the parent with a copy of their IDEA Procedural Safeguards Notice, which informs them of their right to challenge the decision via mediation or an impartial due process hearing.

---

Pre-Referral Intervention Teams & Intervention Fidelity

School-based problem-solving teams (variously designated as Student Support Teams [SST], Child Study Teams [CST], or Intervention Assistance Teams [IAT]) serve as the multidisciplinary engine of MTSS. These teams review universal screening data, diagnose specific skill deficits, formulate targeted intervention hypotheses, select evidence-based instructional programs, and systematically track student progress.

Essential Components of Data Collection and Fidelity

For MTSS data to serve as legally defensible evidence during a subsequent special education eligibility determination, schools must meticulously document treatment integrity and instructional fidelity:

• Curriculum Selection: Proof that the intervention relies on peer-reviewed, scientifically validated instructional methodologies.
• Dosage Verification: Objective logs recording attendance, session durations, and total intervention minutes delivered.
• Implementation Fidelity: Direct fidelity observations conducted by instructional coaches or administrators verifying that the interventionist adhered to the publisher's standardized scope, sequence, and instructional protocols.
• Trendline and Dual Discrepancy Data: Documenting that the student exhibited both a low absolute level of performance and an insufficient slope of improvement when compared to national benchmarks and local peer cohorts.