It sounds like it ought to work.  It makes sense.  It works in medicine.  So it should work in education as well.  But it doesn’t, according to a large body of research conducted over the past 30 years.  Prescribing effective interventions based on measured student characteristics, that is.  Many students have received less-than-effective instruction based on these practices, and we need to stop perpetuating them if things are going to improve.

Let me explain.  For years we have spent much time and energy assessing things about students with the assumption that knowing about these “things” will inform what and how to instruct. The “things” I am referring to here fall into a number of different categories, but all reflect characteristics innate to our kids.  So, for example, something we might assess is preferred learning style.  Is my daughter a visual learner (learns best through information taken in through their eyes)?  Perhaps my niece is a kinesthetic learner (learns best via tactile input).  Or perhaps my grandson is an auditory learner (best processes information taken in through the ears).  The assumption here is that after assessing the student’s modality we will then be able to match appropriate intervention strategies to their preferred modalities. 

Another “thing” we might assess is a student’s processing style.  So for example, is the student a simultaneous or sequential processor of information?  Specific tests of these characteristics have been devised and again, specific interventions have been prescribed based on the findings.  The list of internal student characteristics that we can measure approaches infinity. Even the mild disability categories in the IDEA law have been used over the year to prescribe specific types of interventions.  We used to hear things like “students with learning disabilities need a multisensory approach to instruction” or “students with mild mental retardation learn things very slowly, so we must limit the amount we select for each lesson and teach them slower” and the list goes on. 

Why is it that kids with intensive instructional needs seem to be left out of most of the RTI fervor that is sweeping the nation?  Sure, research has shown that up to two thirds of kids who struggle in reading can benefit from standard treatment protocol interventions, perhaps preventing the need of expensive, time-intensive interventions.  But what about the students who do not respond to these research-based interventions?  The modal answer one gets from many RTI researchers and practitioners is "do a comprehensive evaluation on them – then maybe place them in special education."  If I had a buzzer, I’d hit it and say "Thank you for playing anyway!"   WRONG ANSWER!  Especially given the old technologies that are most often used to conduct comprehensive assessments and the modal intervention strategies used in many special education programs.

The right answer is to continue problem solving at a more intense level.  Let’s be honest, WISCing, WRATing and Bendering kids really never told us much about what and how to teach.  Yes, they got kids in, and made them eligible.  But eligible for what? Access to special education services means little if these services don’t make a difference.  As the parent of a child with a reading disability, I say we must do better.  And we can do better. There was nothing wrong with the strategies we used in the past to assess and instruct, they were the best we had given what we then knew.  But they were insufficient.  It would be wrong to keep using them in the face of current knowledge.  Bluntly, we know a boatload more now than we did in 1975 about effective assessment and instruction.  What is needed is a significant shift in the way that we identify mild disabilities in this country, along with more powerful instructional practices being made available to students with intensive learning needs.  RTI is the vehicle to do that.  But we must embrace RTI practices at tier 3, not just before it.

Yes!  Some think that because there is little or no ‘research’ at the Middle or High school level that RTI is not valid.  Not true.  The elements of RTI are the same at all levels.  That is, RTI is about providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently, and using data to make educational decisions.

The challenge becomes what multiple measures you will use to decide what skills need more intense instruction or intervention.  Although curriculum-based measures are typically developed for K-5, others are currently in development or further underway for grades 6-8.  It is not unreasonable to develop them for grades 9-12, if necessary.  Other multiple measures typically include scores on state assessments, grades (although subjective), literacy screens, and pre-assessments in core curriculum materials being used in English Language Arts, for example.

In today’s world of education we are faced with more diversity than ever before.  For the most part we hear about special ed and we hear about general ed – but it is really about every ed!  Too often the many worlds of education work in isolation for our second language learners, our gifted students, our special needs students and our general education students.  With the scarce resources available, both financial and human capital – we need align our educational system to meet the learning needs of Every Ed!

The authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 have brought the issues of student learning and accountability for that learning front and center.  Education systems must necessarily account for the learning of Every Ed.  However, nationally and locally data continues to show achievement gaps for lots of students, especially those of color, second language learners and with learning disabilities.  We know more about what works in instruction than ever before, yet we still have gaps in student learning.