One of the defining shifts that is currently taking place within school

psychology and, indeed, within the field of education as a whole,

relates to the transition away from implementing new behavioral or
academic interventions and strategies based on the good faith that
they were, morally, the right thing to do, and towards a requirement
that we be able to continuously monitor and evaluate the progress of
any and all techniques being utilized. Along with Response to
Intervention (RTI), comes the idea that once a student is identified as
having a significant gap in their academic progress, as compared to
their peers, an intervention must be created, implemented with
fidelity, progress-monitored regularly, and then rapidly replaced if it
fails to demonstrate efficacy. Because a student who is struggling has
only a minute amount of time to begin making progress if they are to
be expected to ever catch up to their peers, I believe we have an
ethical obligation to only engage in practices that have proven efficacy
or that we, through our clinical judgment, have sound reason to believe
will be genuinely helpful to the student.