MTSS progress monitoring software that documents Tier 2 intervention sessions
Tier 2 asks you to prove a student is responding to the intervention. This writes that proof from the intervention session itself, with the student's own reasoning quoted.
Student work is never used to train models. No card required to run the demo.
Mastery Check
of 3 runs left
Subject
Grade band
Nothing here is stored
Use the sample or your own practice text. Never paste a real student's name.
Tutor mode
Session evidence card
Press Run mastery check to read this work and produce the evidence card: the named misconception, the next tutoring move, per-skill mastery and a five-minute reteach.
Diagnosis
Skill mastery read
Teacher note
Reteach in 5 minutes
This is what a teacher opens after every session. That was your third run. Nothing you typed was stored.
The short answer
What this actually produces
Coeducate is progress monitoring software for MTSS that turns each Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention session into a dated, per-skill mastery record. A student works a problem, the tutor coaches with hints rather than answers, and the session ends with a card naming the specific misconception, the mastery state of each skill involved, and the line of the student's own writing that the judgment rests on. Nobody administers a probe and nobody types a score.
It sits beside your screener and your tiering system rather than replacing them. What it removes is the part of the cycle that fails in practice: the documentation.
At a glance
- Unit of data
- One dated card per session, per skill
- Who enters it
- Nobody, it is a by-product of the session
- Evidence attached
- The student's own sentence, quoted
- Export
- CSV on every tier, scheduled on School and above
- Cadence
- Every session, not every assessment window
- Training on student work
- Never
Last updated September 2026
01 Why the folder is empty in March
The intervention happened. The documentation did not.
Almost every school we talk to runs its Tier 2 groups honestly and still walks into the eight-week decision meeting with a half-filled form. The interventionist pulled the group four times a week. What is missing is the record of what changed inside those sessions.
The reason is structural. Progress monitoring, as it is usually built, is a second activity bolted onto the first: stop the intervention, administer a probe, score it, enter it. It competes with instruction for the same finite minutes, so it degrades to whatever gets entered the night before the meeting.
And a curriculum-based measure score is thin evidence on its own. It tells you the number moved. It does not tell you which misconception broke, which is the only thing that changes what the interventionist does on Monday.
Probe and form
- Takes instructional minutes away from the group
- Happens on a schedule, weekly at best
- Produces a score and, if you are lucky, a comment
- Says the number moved, not what changed
- Falls behind the moment a week gets busy
Documented from the session
- Costs nothing, the session already happened
- Happens every time a student works, not on a calendar
- Produces a named misconception and a per-skill state
- Quotes the sentence the judgment came from
- Cannot fall behind, because nobody is entering it
The same mechanism drives our general student progress tracking software. This page is the tiered-intervention case: same record, framed for the people who have to defend a tier decision.
02 What lands in the file
One skill, one Tier 2 cycle, eight sessions
This is what an eight-week Tier 2 cycle looks like when the evidence comes from the sessions instead of from a probe. Every row is dated, tied to the work it came from, and carries the student's own wording.
In a decision meeting this is the difference between "she seems to be getting it" and a line somebody can read out loud. When the team votes to continue, intensify or exit, the reason is already in the file.
Choosing the base of a percentage
Says the 20s cancel out.
Applies the second percentage to the original number.
Asks which number the percentage is of, then guesses.
Writes the base under each step but slips on the reverse case.
States the base before calculating, unprompted.
03 Fitting an eight-week cycle
How it runs inside a Tier 2 cycle you already have
Nothing here asks you to change your framework, your entry criteria or your meeting calendar. The steps below sit inside the cycle you run now.
01
Group is formed as usual
Your screener and your team decide who is in the group and what the goal is. Coeducate has no opinion about entry criteria and does not try to tier students for you.
02
Students work in the block
During the intervention block a student works practice with the tutor. Socratic mode is the default, so the tutor asks the next question rather than supplying the step.
03
Each session writes a record
The session ends with a dated card: named misconception, per-skill mastery state, the quoted evidence line, and a five-minute reteach for the next session.
04
The meeting reads the series
At the decision point the team opens the skill, not 24 separate sessions, and sees the trajectory with the evidence behind every point. Export to CSV for the file.
The full mechanism, screen by screen, is on how the AI tutoring platform works.
04 Read this before you scope it
What this is not
A full MTSS platform does universal screening, tiering rules, caseload management, referral workflow, behavior data and attendance. Coeducate does none of that, and a page that implied otherwise would waste a procurement cycle for both of us.
If your problem is "we have no system for deciding who is in Tier 2", buy an MTSS platform. If your problem is "our Tier 2 groups run but the evidence in the file is thin", that is this.
Not a universal screener
There is no benchmark assessment and no national norm sample. Coeducate reads work a student produced in your material. It will not tell you a percentile, and it should not be used to place a student into a tier on its own.
Not a validated CBM
If your state or district requires a specific probe from an approved list, keep it. This is evidence about reasoning, running alongside that score, not a replacement for a measure your compliance framework names by title.
Not an eligibility determination
Records can be attached to a referral packet as work-sample evidence, and teams do use them that way. The determination itself is a legal process run by people, and no software output substitutes for it.
Not certified against a standard
There is no completed SOC 2 report and no signed state data protection agreement today. The student privacy page lists exactly what exists and what does not, so procurement finds out here rather than in week six.
05 Comparison
Probe-based monitoring against session-based evidence
Category-level differences, not vendor claims. Most schools end up running both, which is why the last row matters more than the rest.
| Question | CBM probes and a form | Full MTSS platform | Coeducate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who creates the data point | A staff member administering and scoring | A staff member entering it | The session itself, automatically |
| How often it can realistically happen | Weekly to twice monthly | As often as staff enter data | Every session a student works |
| What a data point contains | A score on a measure | Whatever the form asks for | Per-skill state, misconception, quoted evidence |
| Tells you what to do next session | No, you infer it | No, it stores your plan | Yes, a five-minute reteach tied to the misconception |
| Decides who belongs in Tier 2 | Screener does, not the probe | Yes, that is the core job | No, deliberately |
| Handles behavior and attendance | No | Yes | No, academics only |
| Normed and validated for placement | Yes, if the measure is approved | Depends on the assessments plugged in | No, and we say so plainly |
| Runs alongside the other two | Yes | Yes | Yes, that is the intended fit |
06 Who this is bought by
Three people with the same missing paragraph
MTSS or intervention coordinator
You run the decision meetings and you are the person who notices the evidence is thin. What you need is a record that arrives without asking twelve staff to fill in a form, and that holds up when a parent asks how the decision was made.
Interventionist or reading specialist
You already know what the student is doing wrong. You do not have time to write it down forty times a week. The card writes what you would have written, and you correct it when it is wrong rather than authoring it from scratch.
Curriculum or academic director
You have to show the board that the intervention money moved something. Growth per skill across a cohort, exportable, with the underlying work still attached, is a defensible line item rather than an anecdote.
Subject-specific detail lives on the AI math tutor and AI reading tutor pages, and the classroom-level view is under AI tools for teachers, by use case.
07 FAQ
Questions MTSS teams ask before a pilot
Still stuck on something? Email app@coeducate.ai and a person answers, usually within one business day.
How often should Tier 2 interventions be progress monitored?
Most guidance lands between weekly and twice monthly for Tier 2, across a cycle of roughly six to eight weeks before a decision meeting. Coeducate does not impose a cadence, because it does not use a monitoring window: a record is written every time a student works with the tutor, so the frequency is whatever your intervention schedule already is.
How long should Tier 2 interventions last?
Typical Tier 2 cycles run six to eight weeks before the team decides to continue, intensify or exit. The practical problem is that the decision arrives faster than the evidence does. Because the record accumulates session by session rather than being assembled before the meeting, the file is complete on the day the cycle ends.
What counts as progress monitoring data for MTSS?
Anything repeated, dated, tied to the intervention goal and sensitive enough to show change inside the cycle. A validated curriculum-based measure is the usual answer. Coeducate adds a second, different kind: a per-skill mastery state with the student's own reasoning quoted underneath, which explains movement rather than only recording it.
Does this replace our universal screener or our CBM probes?
No, and you should be wary of anything that claims it does. Coeducate is not normed, not validated for placement and not on any state approved-measures list. Keep the screener that decides tiers and keep any probe your framework names. This runs alongside them and covers what a score cannot say.
Can this documentation be used in a special education referral?
Teams do attach it as work-sample evidence, because every mastery state links back to the dated work and the sentence it came from, which is exactly the kind of documentation a referral packet asks for. It is evidence, not a determination. Eligibility remains a legal process decided by people, on your district's criteria.
What is the difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 progress monitoring here?
Nothing in the mechanism, only in the reading. Tier 3 usually means more frequent sessions and a narrower set of skills, so the same records simply arrive denser and more focused. There is no separate Tier 3 module to license and no per-tier pricing.
How much teacher time does this add per student?
None by design. Nobody administers anything, nobody scores anything and nobody transcribes anything, because the card is produced from the work the student already did. The time cost that remains is reading it, and the class view groups by skill so a teacher opens two or three skills rather than 24 cards.
Can we export the records into our existing MTSS system?
Yes. CSV export is on every tier, per student, per skill, per session, with the evidence line included. School tier and above adds scheduled exports to a named address, and District adds mapping to your own standards codes so the rows arrive in the shape your reporting expects.
08 Pricing
Priced per program, not per seat
Annual billing is about 17% lower. There is no free tier, and the privacy posture is identical on every plan.
Classroom
$89/mo
One teacher, up to 60 students, CSV mastery export.
School
$349/mo
Up to 10 educators and 600 students, roles, SSO, scheduled reports.
District
$1,290/mo
Up to 75 educators and 5,000 students, standards mapping, SIS export, PO billing.
More AI tools for teachers
Write the first line of the file
Paste a piece of intervention practice work into the Mastery Check and read the card. That card is one dated row in an eight-week Tier 2 record.
Student work is never used to train models. No card required to try the demo.