Misconceptions of RTI

The role of Response to Intervention should be to provide an intense intervention in a specific gap in the students learning.  I had  an email exchange about this today and it got me thinking.  Shouldn't RTI be about finding that specific breakdown, and providing an intensive intervention to narrow that gap?  Often times schools say they have an intervention program, but they tend to focus on the whole problem.  I think it is important to find the breakdown and fix it with laser-like focus.

This of course means that we need to be very specific in establishing what students should know and be able to do in each course (PLC's).  Why not base RTI off of our agreed upon Powerstandards?

Here is an example from our second grade ELA powerstandards: I can compare and contrast within and between two texts.

Why not develop our own assessment that screens for the mastery of the above mentioned powerstandard?  Develop a proficiency scale to separate students that have mastered compare and contrast.  Provide intense interventions in a timely manner, and once the child has mastered it then they move on.  Many schools including ours depend on programs like Aimsweb as the universal screening device.  These are great but they are limited and are not tailored to our special goals.

Lets not allow students to continue to move on because it may take them longer to learn.  

"It's better to assume students do not know something when they do than to assume that they do know something when they don't." Dylan Wiliam