In a recent article, Chalkbeat reported on what it called a bold proposal: that the U.S. should create a federal guarantee of an adequate education for every student—not just those covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
It is certainly our collective responsibility—educators, parents, and policymakers alike—to help every child succeed academically and be prepared for a productive life. Whether or not there is a federal guarantee, the question that matters most is how we ensure that happens.
To do that, we need to push the conversation deeper. If every child is to receive an “adequate education,” we must ensure that it’s not just about access to classrooms, teachers, and curricula—it’s about access to learning itself. Every child learns differently, and until we address the brain-based foundations of learning, equity will remain out of reach.
The Battle to Get a Child’s Unique Learning Skills Recognized
The Chalkbeat piece rightly observes that parents often “fight for diagnoses so their child can get an adequate education.” If schools already had a legal obligation to provide an adequate education to all students, many of those labels might not be necessary. That statement captures an uncomfortable truth: our current system ties access to support to a label rather than to learning needs. It divides children into categories—special education, general education, behavior intervention—when, in reality, learning and behavior don’t happen in silos.
Too often, the goal of pursuing a diagnosis becomes a label under IDEA rather than a true understanding of how a child learns. Understanding how a child learns starts with understanding the brain. Learning is a biological process. It involves the making and strengthening of connections among neurons in the brain as a result of processes shaped by cognitive development. When a child struggles, it’s rarely because of a lack of willpower or exposure—it’s because something in the brain’s learning system needs strengthening. This biological reality is what makes every learner unique—and why education must start with cognition, not compliance.
Special Education Hasn’t Been Enough
Even as IDEA ensures vital protections, the data are sobering: despite decades of investment, the gap between students with and without IEPs has not closed. As Chalkbeat noted, “large-scale studies found positive outcomes associated with special education services, yet the gaps between special-education students and their peers have widened over time.”
That doesn’t mean special education isn’t valuable. It means it’s incomplete. Most current interventions focus on academic remediation or behavioral management, but not on the underlying cognitive architecture that enables learning in the first place.
We see this every day in the work we do with families and schools. Many students entering our programs have significant weaknesses in working memory, processing speed, attention, long-term memory, or reasoning—skills essential for comprehension, problem-solving, and self-regulation. Without addressing those skills, progress in reading or math stalls, no matter how much tutoring or extra time is provided.
We Need to Assess the Learning System, Not Just the Symptoms
The Chalkbeat article also suggests that schools could use assessment tools “to more quickly identify and act on students’ individual academic and behavioral needs.” If we truly follow the science, we know that roughly 50% of the variance in academic outcomes is predicted by cognitive skills—the mental processes the brain uses to learn, think, and manage behavior. So traditional academic and behavioral assessments will only document symptoms, not the systemic reasons for their struggles and their successes.
And here’s the key insight: behavioral challenges often stem from the same underlying cognitive weaknesses that cause academic difficulty.
A child who can’t sustain attention, who forgets instructions, or who reacts impulsively isn’t exhibiting two separate sets of problems (academic and behavioral). They’re showing symptoms of weak executive functions—working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility.
When schools understand this, the question shifts from “How do we manage this student’s behavior while we’re also providing extra reading support?” to “How do we strengthen the brain systems that this child needs to be a better learner and better at self-regulation?” The first approach requires two interventions to address symptoms. The second approach focuses on one intervention to address the root cause.
That’s what it means to view the child as a whole—not divided into silos of academics and behavior, but as a unified learner whose brain is the engine of both. When we look beneath the symptoms and strengthen the brain systems that drive learning and behavior, we stop managing problems and start transforming potential.
Comprehensive Integrated Cognitive Training
If schools actually examined students’ cognitive skills, they would see what we have seen in recent years: nearly every student has at least one weak cognitive skill. In fact, 99% of the students whose schools we supported in the 2023-24 school year demonstrated a weakness in at least one area on a scientifically valid, nationally normed cognitive assessment.
This is why we argue that most students today need Tier 2 support—not only because they’re behind academically, but because their learning infrastructure is fragile. The pandemic magnified this. Published research reveals declines in verbal and visual memory (especially verbal) and in cognitive flexibility following the pandemic. Our own data showed that classrooms are filled with students with shorter attention spans and less effective working memory. Yet schools have often responded by doubling down on curriculum rather than cognition.
The way to address a weak learning infrastructure is to build it, just as a foundation of a house might be reinforced to prevent the house from collapsing. Comprehensive Integrated Cognitive Training (CICT™) is a scientifically grounded approach that strengthens the full range of cognitive and executive functions needed for learning, from visual-spatial processing to reasoning and self-regulation. When students engage in CICT, they see dramatic improvements: gains of four years in cognitive development and two years in reading and math after just 12–16 weeks of training.
When we build the foundation for a child’s learning, we make the promise of an adequate education real—not through policy, but through neuroscience.
A Commitment to Readiness
We train soldiers to go to war, athletes before they take the field, and doctors, lawyers and teachers before they enter their professions. But where is the preparation for students? Where do they learn how to learn?
What our students need is more than a promise of access. They need a commitment to readiness—to ensuring that every child has the mental tools to benefit from instruction.
That means:
- Assessing cognitive readiness—not just academic achievement.
- Building interventions that address underlying skill development, not merely reteaching content.
- Recognizing behavior as communication, often signaling cognitive overload rather than defiance.
- Integrating neuroeducator-informed professional development so teachers understand how learning really happens in the brain.
If we shift the focus from what’s being taught to how the brain learns it, we’ll stop confusing performance gaps for motivation problems and start addressing the true barriers to learning.
An “adequate education” begins with the brain. When we build cognitive readiness, we give every child the chance to learn differently—and succeed fully.
