District leaders often need to balance two goals: aligning instruction to district priorities while giving schools and teachers support that reflects their specific needs.

M2’s rubric structure makes this easy by allowing you to layer criteria at three levels:

• Team: District strategic priorities
• Site: School-specific priorities
• Group Type (coming soon): Targeted initiatives or teacher groups

The key is knowing what belongs where, so everyone gets the feedback and scoring they need.

Team: Start with district strategy

When you add rubric criteria at the Team level, everyone in your organization will get feedback and scoring in these areas when they use M2. This means that the Team level is for the priorities you want reflected across the district. 

Start with your district strategic plan and identify the goals that translate into observable classroom practices. For example, if your strategic plan prioritizes:

• Student engagement
• Literacy
• Critical thinking
• Instructional rigor
• Student-centered learning

Build criteria around what those priorities look like in practice.

You can also align M2 to your teacher evaluation framework and use an Evaluation group type to give teachers opportunities to practice and reflect on the same criteria used during formal observations.

Site: Add school-specific priorities

Use the Site level to build on the district foundation with priorities specific to a school.

Examples:

• An elementary school focusing on transitions and classroom routines
• A middle school emphasizing content-area literacy
• A high school working on formative assessment
• A school implementing PBIS or a new instructional model

Site-level criteria layer onto the Team baseline, so schools can address their own goals without losing district alignment.

Group Type: Target specific teachers or initiatives

Use a custom Group Type when the priority applies to a defined group rather than an entire school. 

Common uses include:

New teacher cohorts: Focus on classroom management, lesson structure, routines, engagement, or other induction goals.

Curriculum implementation: Create criteria specific to the instructional practices associated with a new curriculum or program.

Professional learning initiatives: Give a cohort of teachers a shared rubric tied to the skills they’re developing.

Time-bound initiatives: Keep temporary priorities targeted to the teachers participating in them rather than adding them to everyone’s rubric.

PLC collaborative planning: Create a group for teachers participating in a PLC and use criteria focused on effective collaborative planning, such as using student data, aligning instruction to standards, developing common assessments, or planning differentiated instruction.

Keep rubrics focused

Once your rubrics are built, look at the full teacher experience. Remember that each rubric will generate feedback and scores for teachers after an M2 teaching activity.

Avoid duplicating criteria at multiple levels or adding every district initiative to the Team rubric. Teachers should be able to quickly understand what they’re being asked to focus on and why.

A simple way to organize your rubrics:

Support teachers without overwhelm

A strong M2 rubric structure connects district strategy to school priorities to targeted teacher support.

Start with the priorities that matter across the district. Add school-specific needs at the Site level, and use Group Types when a smaller group needs more targeted feedback.

This gives leaders a scalable way to personalize support while keeping everyone moving in the same direction.

The post How to scale personalized support across your district: Best practices for M2 Rubrics appeared first on Swivl.

We built M2 with a feedback focus on engagement, questioning, and pacing. Why? Because insights in these three areas make a difference for every teacher we know. 

Many districts have also adopted their own high-quality instructional frameworks and initiatives. Turning those priorities into consistent, scalable classroom support, though, is challenging.

This is where M2 can help.

Introducing Rubric Builder

Rubric Builder is a new tool that lets administrators customize the criteria used in M2’s feedback during activities and in teacher reports afterward. With it, schools can add their own scoring criteria to sit alongside M2’s built-in Engagement, Pacing, and Questioning rubrics. 

Unlike traditional rubrics that live in documents or observation tools, these criteria shape what M2 looks for, responds to, and reports on during and after instruction every single day. This means the feedback teachers receive through M2 can now be fully aligned to district priorities, instructional frameworks, or coaching goals. Teachers get more meaningful insights, and administrators get consistency across classrooms.

Because initiatives shift and frameworks get updated, Rubric Builder supports the need for flexible instructional leadership. Admins can toggle custom criteria on or off at any time, and changes apply only to future activities, ensuring that all past feedback is preserved.

What does this all look like in practice? Here are three ways Rubric Builder can support your organization.

Align to teacher evaluation frameworks

Whether your district uses Danielson, Marzano, CLASS, or a local district models, M2 can now take on the same perspective as your organization’s coaches or administrators. After customizing your rubric, M2 will spot and comment on the detailed look-fors related to rigor, differentiation, classroom environment, or academic discourse that are part of your preferred approach to evaluating instruction.

For example, if your framework emphasizes academic language development, you can add a criterion like “Use of Academic Vocabulary.” When a teacher starts an activity, M2 scores and provides feedback using that criterion, and even appropriately mirrors the language used in your rubric.

Teachers get more frequent, more targeted insights, while administrators gain more consistent data. This moves the evaluation from a one-off event to a year-long support plan. 

Support instructional coaching programs

With large teacher rosters and staffing constraints, coaches can only visit a fraction of their teachers each month. Coaches can extend their impact when teachers use M2 weekly or even daily.

By bringing coaching criteria into Rubric Builder, districts can:

• Reinforce the same language coaches use
  
• Give teachers immediate feedback tied to the strategies they’re working on
  
• Support new teachers or teachers in new roles with higher-frequency feedback

Imagine a team focusing on improving questioning techniques. A coach can add a criterion like “Use of Higher-Order Questions” to the organization’s rubric. Each time a teacher uses M2, they receive a score and written feedback tied to that goal without waiting for the next coaching visit. This helps coaching criteria show up consistently in practice, not just during scheduled observations.

It’s a simple way to extend a coach’s impact across classrooms.

Advance district initiatives with consistent feedback

M2 is now your partner in championing district initiatives, ensuring that momentum stays high by massively increasing feedback teachers see on practical implementation of your organizations’ areas of focus. 

Because M2 provides feedback in real time, teachers receive many more touch points to reinforce the initiative each day instead of just on PD days.

Imagine rolling out an initiative knowing that teachers have not only heard about your organization’s new priority from leadership but will get daily reminders, feedback, and coaching about what that priority looks like in practice with every lesson they teach. That vision is now a reality.

This is especially valuable for new teachers or those adapting to new district priorities. M2 helps them know exactly what to look for and how to improve.

A more aligned future for instructional feedback

When teachers receive feedback aligned to their team’s goals, growth accelerates. Coaching conversations become clearer and are grounded in shared context. Expectations stay consistent even when you don’t have the chance to meet. Important initiatives have a greater chance of taking root for the long term.

By embedding rubric criteria directly into live observation and post-class feedback, M2 helps existing frameworks influence daily teaching at a scale that was never possible until now.

Rubric Builder brings alignment between organizational priorities and the daily rhythm of teaching. It’s another step toward a future where every classroom gets the support it deserves, and every teacher has a clearer path forward.

The post Turning district priorities into consistent classroom feedback: M2’s Rubric Builder appeared first on Swivl.

What is MTSS?  Why do districts struggle with it?

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is designed to be elegant in theory: a three-tier pyramid where Tier 1 provides strong universal instruction for all students, Tier 2 offers targeted interventions for students who need extra support, and Tier 3 delivers intensive, specialized services for those with the greatest needs.

But elegant theory doesn’t always translate to classroom reality.

Districts across the country have invested in MTSS frameworks. They’ve trained their staff, bought intervention materials, and hired interventionists. Yet many report the same frustration: inconsistent implementation across schools, staff stretched too thin to provide quality support, and data scattered across multiple systems—making it hard to know if the system is actually working.

The problem isn’t the framework itself. The problem is the logistics of making it work at scale.

Now, with M2, that’s changing.

The three barriers to MTSS success and the M2 solution

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is designed to be elegant in theory: a three-tier pyramid where Tier 1 provides strong universal instruction for all students, Tier 2 offers targeted interventions for students who need extra support, and Tier 3 delivers intensive, specialized services for those with the greatest needs.

Barrier 1: Fidelity – The consistency challenge

You can’t improve what you can’t measure, and you can’t measure what isn’t consistent. A major implementation concern for many districts is the lack of uniformity in how MTSS is actually practiced.

What “Tier 1 instruction” looks like at Elementary School A might be completely different from Elementary School B. One teacher is checking for understanding every five minutes; another assumes all students are keeping up. One school has clear classroom routines; another is constantly managing behavior. This drift in practice means that students don’t experience consistent support—and your MTSS framework becomes more of an idea than a system.

How M2 solves it:

M2 standardizes the feedback loop by allowing you to upload your specific district frameworks—whether it’s Danielson, Marzano, or your own custom “Great Teaching” rubric—directly into the M2 Admin Dashboard. Now, every piece of feedback a teacher receives is aligned to your standards and your vision of excellent instruction.

When a teacher at School A and a teacher at School B both use M2, they’re not just getting generic coaching. They’re receiving feedback grounded in the same language, the same expectations, and the same district priorities. It’s not about robotically enforcing rules; it’s about creating a shared language of excellence. That consistency is the foundation of true MTSS fidelity.

Barrier 2: Capacity – The staffing and burnout crisis

Most districts have robust MTSS plans on paper. But executing them? That requires people—coaches, interventionists, specialists, and leaders who can observe, analyze, and support every teacher in the system.

In reality, instructional coaches are stretched impossibly thin. A coach might be responsible for 20, 30, or even 50 teachers. That means classroom observations happen once or twice a semester. Teachers get feedback weeks after a lesson. Critical gaps in professional development go unaddressed. And staff burnout skyrockets because educators feel unsupported and isolated.

This capacity crisis creates a vicious cycle: without consistent feedback, teachers don’t improve. Without teacher improvement, students don’t thrive. And Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventionists find themselves overwhelmed because Tier 1 instruction wasn’t strong enough in the first place.

How M2 solves it:

M2 acts as a force multiplier. By giving every teacher a private, AI-powered co-teacher that delivers immediate, non-evaluative feedback, you’re effectively extending your coaching team’s reach exponentially.

Consider what happened at Newnan High School in Georgia. Their instructional coaches found that M2 transformed their work. One coach said, “It’s almost like it clones me. I’m able to be in more places at once.” Instead of spending hours on observation logistics and writing notes, coaches could focus their expertise where it was most needed—on Tier 2 and Tier 3 support, knowing that Tier 1 instruction was being strengthened daily for every teacher.

Teachers also reported that M2 felt less threatening than a formal observation. It was private, focused on growth rather than evaluation, and available 24/7. This creates a culture of continuous improvement instead of occasional judgment—exactly what sustainable MTSS requires.

Barrier 3: Data – Moving from guesswork to action

MTSS is supposed to be data-driven. But for many districts, the data doesn’t actually drive anything.

Progress monitoring data is scattered across multiple platforms. Some metrics are subjective (notes from walkthroughs). Others arrive too late to matter (semester grades, end-of-year test scores). And collecting it all is incredibly labor-intensive, pulling teachers and coaches away from the work that actually moves the needle.

As a result, leaders make decisions based on incomplete information. They can’t pinpoint where professional development dollars should go. They miss the bright spots of excellence that should be celebrated and scaled. They can’t objectively measure whether their “checking for understanding” initiative is actually happening in classrooms—or if it’s slipping because teachers revert to old habits under stress.

How M2 solves it:

M2 provides objective, real-time data on what’s actually happening in classrooms. It captures engagement patterns, questioning depth, instructional pacing, and student talk time—without bias or subjectivity.

For district leaders, the dashboard offers a bird’s-eye view of these trends across all classrooms. You can see, objectively, whether the practices you’re prioritizing in professional development are taking root. You can track progress over time and identify which schools need more support. You can celebrate the teachers who are crushing it and learn from them.

This turns data monitoring from a compliance burden into a strategic asset. You know exactly where your resources should go. You have proof of what’s working. And you can adjust your MTSS approach in real time, not months later.

From framework to reality

Implementing MTSS with genuine fidelity is heavy lifting. It requires consistency, capacity, and clear data—three things that have historically been hard to achieve at scale.

But M2 changes what’s possible.

By ensuring every teacher receives feedback aligned to your district’s standards, by extending your coaching capacity without burning out your staff, and by providing objective data that informs every decision, M2 bridges the gap between the elegant MTSS framework on paper and the real, thriving support system that students and teachers actually experience.

That’s not just better MTSS. That’s MTSS that works.

The post The missing piece in your MTSS framework: How M2 closes the gap between theory and practice appeared first on Swivl.