A few years ago, I accepted an interim leadership role in a new district. It was intended to be a short-term assignment, so when I met with my new team I asked a simple question:
“What project could I help move forward while I’m here?”
The answer seemed straightforward.
Review and revise the district’s MTSS handbook.
As I began reading, I found thoughtful work. The district had made meaningful improvements to its intervention system. Schools were using more research-based practices. There were clear procedures for identifying students who needed support, and detailed guidance for intervention teams.
On paper, the system looked comprehensive.
But something kept bothering me.
At the same time, the district was implementing new instructional resources in mathematics and English language arts. Schools were strengthening Tier 1 instruction. Teams were working on curriculum. Student support processes were evolving.
Very little of that appeared in the handbook.
The more I read, the more I found myself asking a different question.
“Who is helping all of these pieces fit together?”
Eventually, I asked whether there was an active district leadership team responsible for overseeing MTSS as a system.
The answer was no.
Some schools had leadership teams, but their work varied widely. There was no shared structure helping leaders understand how curriculum, instruction, intervention, assessment, and student support connected.
At that moment, I realized something.
The handbook wasn’t incomplete.
It was disconnected.
Every chapter described an important piece of the work.
Very little explained how the pieces worked together.
That realization completely changed my project.
Instead of rewriting a handbook, our team began building a leadership system.
We reassembled a district leadership team that had existed only on paper. We brought together educators from across grade levels and departments to deepen a shared understanding of MTSS—not simply as intervention, but as an organizational framework for supporting every learner.
Together, we identified two priorities.
Strengthen team-based leadership.
Strengthen Tier 1 instruction.
Only then did the handbook begin to make sense.
Looking back, I realize I wasn’t asked to rewrite a document.
I was invited to see a system.
Since then, I’ve started asking a different question whenever someone tells me a handbook, protocol, or process needs to be revised.
What if the document isn’t the problem?
What if it’s simply revealing where the organization itself lacks coherence?
Question for leaders: Before revising a process, have you paused to ask whether the real opportunity is redesigning the system that supports it?
The Insight Studio by Stacie Angel 
Leave a comment