Earlier this summer, when Governor DeWine signed Senate Bill 19 into law, it marked the end of a long legislative process and the beginning of what could be a turning point for Ohio education. Collectively, the math-focused Senate Bill 19 and the sweeping early literacy initiative already underway have the potential to boost student achievement.
Around the same time lawmakers were putting the finishing touches on SB 19, TNTP released its latest report on coherence. While an earlier report focused on how schools could champion instructional coherence (aligning instruction, content, and goals so students are prepared for grade-level learning), the latest report focuses on systems coherence (ensuring that policies, structures, and practices across a state or district make instructional coherence possible).
The report offers a “practical roadmap” aimed at helping state leaders establish and sustain coherent instructional systems. To their credit, Ohio leaders have already laid a solid foundation. In fact, TNTP’s report spotlights Ohio’s progress in connecting intervention to core instruction.
Ohio, like most states, employs a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). MTSS uses screening, progress monitoring, and data-based decision-making to proactively identify the academic, social, and behavioral intervention that students need. It divides support into three tiers: Tier 1 (high-quality, schoolwide programming), Tier 2 (small-group, standardized interventions to support those identified as at-risk), and Tier 3 (intensive intervention based on student need).
In August 2025, Ohio launched Integrated MTSS, a framework designed to help districts develop local MTSS. According to TNTP, this framework is praiseworthy because it “anchors all three tiers of support to the same instructional foundation rather than treating intervention as a separate system with its own standards for quality.” State officials also connected Integrated MTSS to Ohio’s planning and funding infrastructure through ED STEPS, which consolidates needs assessment, planning, and funding allocation on a single platform.
The most promising aspect of Ohio’s framework, however, is its requirement for schools to evaluate the implementation of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) and evidence-based practices before they conclude a student needs intervention. TNTP notes that this safeguard “prevents districts from moving students to more intensive tiers when the underlying issue may be implementation fidelity.” Asking schools to check whether teachers and staff are faithfully implementing HQIM and evidence-based instructional practices should increase the likelihood of rigorous implementation and help ensure that intensive intervention is reserved for students who most need it.
Ohio’s Integrated MTSS is a step toward coherence and deserves kudos. But TNTP’s report also offers some additional ideas for how Ohio can further strengthen system coherence.
First, lawmakers should direct the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to help districts ensure alignment between core and supplemental materials.
As part of its early literacy initiative, Ohio developed lists of state-approved core curriculum and evidence-based reading intervention programs. Thanks to SB 19, Ohio will soon have lists for math, too.[1] But as TNTP points out, a district’s chosen curriculum and intervention programs could “both be fully aligned to state standards and still follow different scopes and sequences, use different terminology, build different knowledge, and teach skills in a different order.” When core and supplemental materials are misaligned, intervention efforts won’t reinforce what students are learning in class. DEW could help prevent this by creating rubrics and tools districts can use to evaluate whether supplemental and intervention materials are aligned to the core programs they’ve adopted.
Second, policymakers should improve coherence for teachers by providing access to professional learning grounded in the specific curriculum and materials they use in their classrooms.
In a recent piece, I argued that curriculum-based professional learning (CBPL) is the next frontier for Ohio’s early literacy push. With SB 19 on the books, the same can be said for math. CBPL pairs high-quality curriculum and materials with regular training and consistent coaching that gives teachers individualized feedback on how they’re using the materials they interact with on a daily basis. To bring CBPL to Ohio, DEW could send out a request for proposals to CBPL providers that specialize in the reading and math materials on the state’s lists. DEW could vet applicants and establish a list of approved providers—just like Rhode Island does—and then incentivize districts to offer CBPL by covering all or part of the cost if they work with an approved provider.
Over the last few years, Ohio lawmakers have established a policy environment that could boost student achievement. The bulk of implementation work will happen in classrooms, so it’s crucial for lawmakers and DEW to support educators and schools. The ideas outlined above would be a great place to start.
[1] All districts must use state-approved materials in reading, but only those with low achievement scores must use math materials from the state list.
