Introducing Steady Minds: An Original MTSS Overlay for Pre-K
It is a Tuesday morning in late November. The lead teacher in Room 4 has called in sick. A substitute who has never met the children opens the SEL binder, looks at the lesson scheduled for 10:15, and faces the same question every Pre-K substitute eventually faces: What do I actually do when the room dysregulates?
That question is one of several that gave rise to Steady Minds — an original Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) behavioral overlay for children aged 3 to 5, currently being developed and piloted by Ranya Omran, an educational curriculum developer at Rayan Academy in Coralville, Iowa, and a Master of Science candidate in Curriculum and Instruction at Western Governors University [1].
Steady Minds is not yet validated, not yet a finished program, and not yet evaluated for outcomes. What it is — and what this article describes — is a deliberate response to four structural gaps that the published Pre-K SEL literature has documented but not yet solved [1].
In brief: Steady Minds is a forthcoming, originally designed MTSS behavioral overlay for Pre-Kindergarten classrooms serving children aged 3 to 5. It is being built to combine tiered intervention architecture, an educator-operable rubric, somatic self-regulation instruction, and substitute-teacher-ready protocols — features that the existing literature treats separately rather than as a single integrated framework [1].
The Problem That Made a New Framework Necessary
A 2026 scoping review of behavioral modification and social-emotional learning frameworks for Pre-K children aged 3–5 — conducted by Omran under PRISMA-ScR guidelines [2] — set out to map what the published literature contains and, more importantly, what it lacks [1]. The review’s central finding can be stated in one sentence: no existing Pre-Kindergarten behavioral or SEL framework integrates all four of the structural features that real classrooms require [1].
Those four features form the design brief Steady Minds is being built to meet:
- Tiered (MTSS) architecture embedded inside a Pre-K SEL curriculum rather than bolted on from a separate school-wide system [1].
- An educator-operable, quantifiable rubric — scorable in under sixty seconds during the normal flow of instruction [1].
- Somatic self-regulation instruction calibrated for the developmental nervous system of 3–5 year olds [1].
- Substitute-teacher-ready scripted protocols that any educator can execute on first encounter without prior training [1].
Each gap is treated in depth elsewhere in this content series, A20 — The Four Missing Pieces (Hub). The point worth foregrounding here is simpler: the gaps are not theoretical. These are the conditions under which Steady Minds is being designed.
What Steady Minds Is — and What It Isn’t
Steady Minds is described in the source preprint as an original MTSS behavioral overlay for children aged 3 to 5 that is currently being developed and piloted [1]. Three terms in that description deserve unpacking for educators, administrators, and funders.
MTSS refers to a multi-tiered system of supports — a framework descended from the integration of response-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports, originally formalized at the elementary level and above [3].
In an MTSS structure, all children receive universal (Tier 1) instruction, a smaller group receives targeted (Tier 2) support, and a still smaller group receives intensive (Tier 3) intervention. The structural logic is sound. The Pre-K application has historically been incomplete because tiered behavioral systems and Pre-K SEL curricula have lived in separate ecosystems [1].
Behavioral overlay signals what the framework is positionally. Steady Minds is not being designed to replace existing Pre-K SEL curricula or licensed early childhood programs. It is being designed to sit alongside them, adding the tiered architecture, measurement infrastructure, somatic instruction, and substitute-ready protocols that those programs typically do not provide [1].
Currently being developed and piloted is the most important phrase in the sentence. Steady Minds has no published efficacy data. It has not been independently evaluated. It has not been compared against existing frameworks in any peer-reviewed study. Anyone reading about it today should treat it as a framework-in-formation, with empirical evaluation still ahead [1].
The Four Design Constraints Steady Minds Are Built Around
The most useful way to think about Steady Minds at this stage is by the four operational constraints organizing its design. These mirrors deliberately show the four gaps the scoping review identified [1].
1. Tiering Embedded Inside the Curriculum
PBIS gives schools a tiered behavioral response system, but it is not an SEL curriculum, and its protocols are not developmentally calibrated for three- and four-year-olds [1]. Universal Pre-K SEL programs such as Second Step, PATHS, and the Kindness Curriculum teach social and emotional skills but do not differentiate intervention intensity based on where individual children sit behaviorally on any given day [1]. Steady Minds is being designed so that tiering lives inside the SEL curriculum rather than as a separate school-wide overlay, A21 — Tiered Support Inside the Curriculum (Gap 1).
2. A Rubric the Person in the Room Can Use
Across the included literature, the dominant measurement approach is specialist-administered standardized assessment instruments such as the Social Skills Rating System, the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-3), the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA), and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [1]. These are rigorous tools, but they require trained administration, structured time, and specialist availability that most Pre-K classrooms do not have [1].
The scoping review identifies no framework that provides a validated rubric a classroom educator could complete in under a minute as part of normal daily instruction — and notes that this absence is structural rather than incidental [1]. Steady Minds is being built so that the teacher in the room can generate the data, not wait for it. A22 — A 60-Second Rubric (Gap 2).
3. Somatic Regulation, Then Language
Self-regulation research from Shanker [4] and traumatology work from Van der Kolk [5] converge on a developmental claim that is foundational to the third design constraint. Children aged 3–5 are in a critical window for somatic awareness — the capacity to recognize the physical signals of emotional states — and a child in a stress state cannot reliably access language-based regulation strategies because their nervous system is not there yet [1].
Most existing Pre-K SEL programs are built primarily around language. Steady Minds is being designed to start with the body — breath, muscle tension, heartbeat — before it moves into vocabulary, because that sequence matches how a three-year-old’s nervous system actually develops [1] A23 — Start in the Body (Gap 3).
4. Written for the Person Who Just Walked In
The fourth constraint carries the most direct equity implication. Substitute coverage is not randomly distributed; it concentrates in low-income communities where teacher turnover is highest, and specialist support is thinnest [1].
A framework that requires trained implementation to function is, by definition, a framework that works in well-resourced settings and fails in under-resourced ones [1]. Steady Minds is being written so explicitly that a substitute who has never seen it can pick it up on a Monday morning and execute it without calling anyone for help [1] A24 — When the Substitute Walks In (Gap 4 / Equity).
The Action-Research Thesis Behind Steady Minds
Steady Minds is not being built in isolation from the field’s own evidence base. The scoping review summarized above was conducted by Omran as part of an ongoing research program and in preparation for an action-research thesis examining the efficacy of the Steady Minds Curriculum [1]. In other words, the review is the groundwork. It maps the literature so that the framework being designed can be positioned with conceptual clarity against what already exists.
Action research, in this context, refers to a methodology in which the researcher both designs and studies the intervention in real classroom conditions, iterating based on observed outcomes. The thesis is being prepared through Omran’s Master of Science in Curriculum and Instruction program at Western Governors University, with the Steady Minds pilot taking place at Rayan Academy [1].
Outcomes are not yet available. The action-research design is intentionally suited to a framework whose value depends on its ability to function under everyday classroom conditions, rather than under the specialist-supervised research settings the scoping review identifies as one of the field’s persistent measurement problems [1].
What Steady Minds Means for Different Stakeholders
For Educators
For Pre-K classroom teachers, the practical promise of Steady Minds is operational: a tiered structure that does not require an outside specialist to administer, a rubric that can be completed without leaving the classroom, somatic regulation language that meets children where their nervous systems actually are, and protocols written so that a substitute can run them on a first read [1]. None of this is proven yet. But it is the explicit design intent, and it is built directly from what the literature says is missing [1].
For Administrators
For school and district administrators, the relevant feature is sustainability under staffing reality. The scoping review notes that early childhood settings carry a disproportionate share of educator turnover cost [6] and that frameworks requiring deep professional development — such as Conscious Discipline [7] — become functionally inaccessible in schools with high turnover [1]. A framework whose value does not collapse when staff change is, structurally, the kind of investment administrators have reason to track [1].
For Funders
For funders, the most important feature is one that the review names directly: a framework without a built-in, educator-operable measurement tool cannot build its own evidence base [1].
This is a quiet but serious point. The dominant evidence in Pre-K SEL has been generated by researchers and specialists administering standardized instruments — not by classroom teachers using tools that fit the operational reality of their day [1].
Steady Minds is being designed so that data collection is embedded in the curriculum rather than dependent on it. Whether that design choice succeeds will determine, in part, whether the framework can be evaluated, scaled, and funded.
Where Steady Minds Sits Relative to Existing Frameworks
A short comparison may help readers calibrate Steady Minds against the six framework categories the scoping review identified [1].
| Framework Category | What the Literature Documents | Steady Minds’ Stated Position |
|---|---|---|
| Universal SEL curricula (Second Step, PATHS, Kindness Curriculum) | Evidence-supported gains in emotional vocabulary and prosocial behavior; no tiering, no quantifiable classroom-level data [1] | Designed to complement, not replace |
| School-wide behavioral systems (PBIS) | Strong tiered logic; thinner Pre-K evidence; developmental-fit concerns for 3–5 year olds [1] | Borrows tiered logic; embeds it inside the SEL curriculum |
| Mindfulness-based programs (MindUP, CalmSpace) | Promising for executive function and attention; specialist training is typical [1] | Adapts somatic components for ages 3–5 |
| Executive function training (Tools of the Mind) | Strong effects on inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility; narrow scope [1] | Treats EF gains as one element of a wider framework |
| Teacher-mediated co-regulation | Strong in-the-moment de-escalation; lacks curriculum/data infrastructure [1] | Adopts co-regulation as a Tier 2/3 practice |
| Hybrid / multi-component frameworks | Generally stronger outcomes; none combine all four design features [1] | Designed to combine all four — pending evaluation |
The last row carries the necessary caution. The scoping review identifies no framework that combines all four structural features [1]. Steady Minds is being designed to be the framework that does, but its capacity to deliver on that design has not yet been independently evaluated [1].
The preprint that accompanies this work, including its final descriptive statistics and PRISMA-ScR flow diagram, is itself flagged as forthcoming before journal submission [1]. Honest reporting of that status is part of the project A27 — Limitations and Status.
For readers tracking what comes after the review, A25 — What Comes Next situates Steady Minds within the broader forward agenda the manuscript proposes.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is Steady Minds available for adoption now?
No. Steady Minds is described in the source preprint as currently being developed and piloted [1]. It does not yet have a published efficacy study, an independent evaluation, or a publicly distributed implementation manual. Educators and administrators interested in the framework should follow the action-research thesis underway through Western Governors University rather than treat the program as available for general adoption today [1].
2. How is Steady Minds different from PBIS, Conscious Discipline, or Second Step?
Steady Minds is being designed to combine four features that, according to the scoping review, no current framework offers in one integrated package: embedded MTSS tiering inside a Pre-K SEL curriculum, an educator-operable rubric scorable in under sixty seconds, somatic self-regulation calibrated for ages 3–5, and protocols a substitute teacher can execute on first encounter [1].
PBIS contributes a tiered structure but is not a Pre-K SEL curriculum [1]. Conscious Discipline shifts teacher mindset but requires sustained professional development that high-turnover schools struggle to deliver [1] [7]. Second Step provides scripted SEL lessons, but no tiering and no quantifiable data system [1] [8]. Steady Minds aims to occupy the integrated middle;e none of these currently fills [1].
3. What evidence supports Steady Minds today?
The honest answer is that the evidence supports the components, not yet the assembly. The scoping review documents that universal SEL programs, mindfulness interventions, executive function training, co-regulation practices, and tiered behavioral systems each have measurable effects in their respective domains [1]. What is not yet documented is the efficacy of a framework that combines them in the specific configuration Steady Minds proposes [1]. The action-research thesis underway is intended to begin generating that evidence [1].
Key Takeaways
- Steady Minds is an original MTSS behavioral overlay for Pre-Kindergarten children aged 3–5, currently in development and pilot, designed by Ranya Omran [1].
- It exists in response to four structural gaps the 2026 scoping review documents: integrated tiering, an educator-operable rubric, somatic regulation for 3–5 year olds, and substitute-ready protocols [1].
- The framework is positioned as an overlay rather than a replacement — designed to sit alongside existing Pre-K SEL curricula and contribute to the architecture they lack [1].
- A Master of Science action-research thesis at Western Governors University is in preparation; the scoping review is the groundwork for that thesis [1].
- Steady Minds has not been independently validated. It should be evaluated today as a forthcoming framework whose empirical assessment is still ahead [1].
References
[1] Omran, R. (2026). Behavioral modification and social-emotional learning frameworks in Pre-Kindergarten settings: A scoping review of the literature [Preprint, Version 1.0]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20532510
[2] Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.
[3] Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223–237.
[4] Shanker, S. (2016). Self-reg: How to help your child (and you) break the stress cycle and successfully engage with life. Penguin Press.
[5] Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
[6] Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large, and growing, and worse than we thought. Economic Policy Institute.
[7] Bailey, B. (2015). Conscious discipline: Building resilient classrooms (3rd ed.). Loving Guidance.
[8] Committee for Children. (2011). Second step: A violence prevention curriculum. Committee for Children.
