Student Study Team (SST) meetings: purpose, roles and agenda
By the IEP Atlas editorial teamLast updated
Short answer
A student study team (SST) meeting is a general education problem-solving meeting where a teacher, the parent and support staff look at a student's data, agree on interventions and set a date to check progress. It is not a special education meeting and does not create an IEP. The name, the members and any required steps vary by state and district.
A student study team is a small group that meets when a teacher is worried about a student's learning, behavior or attendance. The team reviews what is known, picks one or two interventions, assigns who does what and sets a follow-up date. Many SSTs end with the problem solved in general education. Some end with a referral for a special education evaluation.
Most of what follows is local practice, not federal law. IDEA does not mention SSTs. That is why the name and the rules change from one district to the next.
What an SST meeting is for
The meeting has four jobs:
- Describe the concern with data, not adjectives.
- List the student's strengths and what has already been tried.
- Agree on an intervention plan with a dose, a measure and an owner.
- Set a review date and decide, at that review, what comes next.
An SST is usually the door into an MTSS or RTI process. It can also be the place where the team notices that a disability is suspected. When that happens, the next step is an evaluation, not another round of interventions. Federal guidance says an intervention process cannot be used to delay or deny an evaluation for a student suspected of having a disability.[1]
Other names for the same meeting
Districts use many labels for roughly the same meeting: student study team, student support team, student assistance team, teacher assistance team, intervention team, problem-solving team, or an MTSS team. The labels can mislead. In New Jersey, for example, "child study team" means the special education evaluation team, not a general education problem-solving group. Ask your district what its meeting is called and what it is allowed to decide.
Who attends
| Role | What they bring |
|---|---|
| Referring teacher | The concern, work samples, screening and probe data, what has been tried |
| Parent or guardian | Home view, health and developmental history, the student's interests |
| Facilitator (often a counselor, assistant principal or MTSS coordinator) | Runs the agenda, keeps time, writes the plan |
| Interventionist or specialist teacher | Intervention options and capacity |
| School psychologist, SLP or nurse (as needed) | Screening results, health factors, advice on whether a disability is suspected |
| English language development teacher (for English learners) | Language proficiency levels and growth |
| The student (older grades) | Their view of what is hard and what helps |
Keep the group small. Five or six people around a table is enough. A meeting of twelve turns into a presentation to the parent.
A 45-minute agenda
| Minutes | Item | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 5 | Introductions, purpose, ground rules | Everyone knows why they are here |
| 5 to 10 | Strengths | Two or three specific strengths written down |
| 10 to 20 | The concern with data | One or two measurable concerns |
| 20 to 25 | What has been tried and how it went | A list with dates and results |
| 25 to 35 | Plan: intervention, dose, measure, owner | A written plan |
| 35 to 40 | Is a disability suspected? | Yes, no or not yet, with the reason |
| 40 to 45 | Follow-up date and who tells whom | Review date on the calendar |
Put the disability question on the agenda every time. When nobody asks it out loud, a team can run three cycles of interventions before anyone mentions an evaluation.
One student's SST, start to finish
Mia is a fictional fourth grader. Her teacher, Ms. R., is worried about math. Mia's fall screening on September 12 placed her well below the grade 4 benchmark. On a two-minute computation probe she scored 14 digits correct. The class median was 38.
October 2, first SST meeting. The team included Ms. R., Mia's mother, the counselor as facilitator and the math interventionist. Strengths: Mia reads at grade level, explains her thinking out loud and loves art. Concern: slow, inaccurate multiplication facts and skipped steps in two-step word problems. Already tried: a fact chart on her desk since September (an accommodation, not an intervention).
The plan set fact fluency practice with immediate correction for 10 minutes daily, plus 30 minutes of word problem instruction 3 days a week in a group of four. The measure was a weekly two-minute computation probe, with a goal of 26 digits correct by November 13. The interventionist owned the sessions; Ms. R. owned the probe. On the disability question, the team answered "not yet": no history or pattern pointed to one, and Mia had not had targeted instruction.
November 13, follow-up. Mia attended 27 of 30 sessions. Her probe scores rose from 14 to 29 digits correct. The team kept the fact practice, cut the group to twice a week and set a second review for January.
If Mia's scores had stayed flat with good attendance, the team would have discussed a referral at that meeting. A parent can also ask for an evaluation at any point, with or without an SST.[2]
Summary of the rules and where states differ
| Topic | Federal rule | Where states and districts differ |
|---|---|---|
| Is an SST required? | No federal requirement | Some states require documented general education interventions; many leave it to districts |
| Does it delay an evaluation? | An intervention process cannot delay or deny an evaluation when a disability is suspected[1] | Some districts expect a referral to pass through the SST, but a parent's written request still starts the process |
| Parent consent | Not needed for instruction or screening for instructional strategies[3] | Some districts ask parents to sign an SST plan as a courtesy |
| Learning disability decisions | Teams consider data on appropriate instruction and repeated assessments of progress[4] | States choose whether to use response to intervention, a pattern of strengths and weaknesses or both |
| Paperwork | No federal form | Forms, names and timelines are local |
| Who facilitates | Not addressed | Counselor, administrator, MTSS coordinator or school psychologist |
SST meeting vs IEP meeting
An SST plans general education support. An IEP team meets after a student has been evaluated and found eligible, and it writes a legally binding plan. The full comparison, with scenarios, is in SST vs IEP meeting.
After the SST: tools and next steps
- Use the pre-referral intervention examples to pick an intervention with a dose and a measure.
- If the team refers, the parent's written request or the school's referral leads to consent and testing. The evaluation request letter shows what a parent's request looks like.
- After consent is signed, enter the date in the IEP due date calculator to find the evaluation deadline.
- A curriculum-based measurement probe given weekly is the simplest way to show whether the plan is working.
Frequently asked questions
Is an SST meeting the same as a 504 or IEP meeting?
No. An SST is a general education problem-solving meeting. A 504 meeting decides accommodations under Section 504, and an IEP meeting writes special education services for an eligible student. An SST can lead to either one.
Can a parent request an SST meeting?
Yes, in most districts. Ask the teacher, counselor or principal in writing. If you suspect a disability, you can also request a special education evaluation directly, and you do not have to wait for an SST first.
How often does an SST meet?
Most teams meet once to set the plan and again after 6 to 8 weeks of data. Some students have several follow-ups across a school year. The schedule is set locally.
Use it in IEP Atlas
Related guides
- The IEP evaluation process: from referral to eligibility
- SST vs IEP meeting: how they differ
- Pre-referral interventions: what to try and how to document it
- How to request a special education evaluation in writing (sample letter)
- From MTSS to referral: when intervention data says it is time
- Eligibility meeting checklist
Sources
- OSEP Memo 11-07: Response to Intervention (RTI) (January 21, 2011), U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
- 34 CFR §300.301: Initial evaluations, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 34 CFR §300.302: Screening for instructional purposes is not evaluation, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- 34 CFR §300.309: Determining the existence of a specific learning disability, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
- RTI (Part 1): An Overview, IRIS Center, Vanderbilt University
Written and checked by the IEP Atlas editorial team under our editorial policy. This guide describes general practice and federal rules. It is not legal advice; your state may add requirements, and the IEP team makes the decisions for each student.