Response to Intervention (RtI) is assessment all children get, starting early, in order to determine if they need special assistance to address learning disabilities. It has been plugged as “research” or “scientifically-based” programming to identify problems in young children so they can avoid special education. Those descriptors were often used, sometimes unjustifiably so, with programs involving No Child Left Behind.
In 2004, IDEA quit making states use the discrepancy model described below. Instead, funding was provided to do RtI, even though the program was controversial and sometimes not given the appropriate resources or trained staff to accomplish the assessment and interventions.
Now, the National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance is reporting that in a study looking at RtI in schools that chose to do the program, for the last 3 or more years, first graders did worse than those who did not go through RtI. The study looked at students marginally below grade level not those with more severe academic difficulties.
In a post I did awhile back for Living in Dialogue, I described the difference between RTI and the discrepancy model.
The discrepancy model compares a student’s IQ test score (e.g. the WISC-IV) with achievement scores (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test). A learning disability is thought to exist if the student’s IQ scores are at least two standard deviations (30 points) higher than scores on the achievement test. This indicates a significant discrepancy between the two tests. Consideration of the student’s work in the classroom is also given. All of this usually comes about when the teacher, and/or parent, observes a student experiencing difficulty in school and requests school psychological testing.
RTI uses what’s called a multi-tiered approach to identify students. All students are screened in a serious effort to keep students from special education classes. School districts might use different kinds of formats with RTI, and parents are supposed to be able to request a formal evaluation at any point in the program. Students remain in each tier for a specified amount of time.
Tier 1: Involves regular classroom instruction, repeated screening, and group interventions. Students who do well here go back to doing all regular classwork.
Tier 2: Students, who do not do well in Tier 1, get interventions and repeated screening with small group instruction. This is mostly in reading and math for younger children. Students still get regular class work along with the interventions.
Tier 3: Students get this instruction if they don’t do well in Tier 2. It is more individualized and if they don’t do well at this level they are referred to special education using the information gathered in Tiers 1, 2, 3.
It used to be that teachers, or parents, were in charge of initially noticing whether a student needed help. This means teachers should be prepared in college to spot learning difficulties, and a learning disability specialist should be stationed at the school working either in a resource class, or indirectly/directly, with student/s needing assistance in the regular classroom.
If parents of a young child in kindergarten or the teacher notice a child faltering developmentally they should then ask for an school psychological evaluation. I think for very young children learning disabilities especially show up with motor coordination and/or speech and language issues.
RtI has been criticized because all children are put through much assessment assuming learning disabilities are out there and need to be found. It assumes the worst in what a student knows and understands. Many students are unnecessarily tested.
Diagnosing learning disabilities early is controversial because children learn at different rates. Young children might be diagnosed as having learning disabilities when they are developing a little slower–but still normally. It is important to find learning problems early so they can be addressed, but it’s tricky business when children are young.
Smaller class sizes and well-prepared teachers would seem to be better to identify problems contrary to so much testing. Good teachers can spot problems through observation.
Also, with RtI there is concern that older children, who actually have learning disabilities, might be overlooked later.
What about returning to the discrepancy model? Most of us are well aware that RtI has been one of the reasons why we see a disintegration of special education programming. For some parents, that is a good thing, but other parents want services! Why can’t both parents be appeased through the Individual Educational Plan?
With these new questions being raised about whether the RtI interventions work, it seems time to pause and reevaluate the discrepancy model. There is also a need for better, more complete special education services in schools, and more intense College of Education preparation for both regular and special education future teachers.
There’s also the pattern of strengths and weaknesses model, which I prefer to both the discrepancy model and RTI. As an identification tool I think it gives a practitioner a better perspective on how a child thinks and learns than either discrepancy or RTI.
Is this a commercial program you can share, Joyce, or something you created? I have always liked that idea too. What age level also? Thanks.
I’ve described it in a blog I wrote a few years ago for Special Education Advisor–http://www.specialeducationadvisor.com/learning-disability-identification-discrepancy-model-patterns-strength-weaknesses/ but I think the best description is in this book by Dawn Flanagan and Vincent Alfonso–http://www.powells.com/book/essentials-of-specific-learning-disability-identification-9780470587607/62-1
Short version, you take seven factors from the WJ III Cognitive (now WJ IV, I’m sure)–Comprehension Knowledge, Long-term Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Learning, Fluid Reasoning, Phonemic Awareness, Short-term Memory, and one other I now forget (it’s been two years). The student has to have three scores of 90 or above and at least one below 70 in the cognitive area. Then you match the results of the WJ Tests of Achievement with identified areas in each cognitive area–so if a student has a score below 70 in Reading Comprehension AND in Comprehension Knowledge, for example, then they qualify. It’s a dual discrepancy method. I’d have to dig through papers (half of which are 350 miles away since I’m in the midst of a move) but it’s based pretty heavily on Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive theories. I’m sure it’s doable with the Weschler batteries but my district primarily focused on the Woodcock Johnson batteries. What I liked was being able to look at the seven cognitive features and match up performance profiles. Not sure how it works at the elementary level but it definitely matches student performance from about fifth grade on. Sad thing though is when you get certain pairings, such as a Long-term Retrieval problem coupled with Math Calculation issues. OTOH, I much prefer working with the WJ Cog rather than the WISC as I feel it gives a better picture to a teacher of a student’s abilities and needs.
When I left my past position in 2014, this methodology was well-used by the county I was working in, and the largest district in the state was looking at adopting it.
Thanks, Joyce. It is worth checking out. I appreciate your sharing.
Requiring both below a SS of SS and above a SS of 90 is a repackaged discrepancy model but this latest version is willfully not identifying many kids on need of an IEP and evidence based instruction.
Thanks, Marcie. I think info. collecting pertaining to students, to better address needs, is important. We used to use a variety of assessments, some better than others, but it has been turned into either high-stakes and/or, like you point out, an excuse to deny services. Oh. And all of this should be private private private for parents and educators and other significant professionals ONLY.
I am not familiar with Strengths and Weakness model. I have used the Discrepancy model for many years. I cannot stand the RTI process. It isn’t working. It delays services when the quicker a child can be identified and services can be started, the quicker the child will progress. I agree, these days, teachers are coming out of college without the training to identify these problems. Workshops can and should be implemented in schools to help the new teachers. I am seeing the younger teachers not addressing MAJOR problems early on. This causes greater problems by the time a child goes into 2nd or 3rd grade. Sad but true.
Gayle, that’s an excellent point. To get certified to teach students with LD you had to go through some important coursework involving various testing and methods. I’m not sure programs focus on this anymore. Discrepancy is not perfect, but adding to it well-prepared teachers with an assortment of observations and assessments seems called for.
Thanks for this and the discussion, Nancy. New Jersey is looking to formally adopt the RtI model statewide. I’m actually testifying about it tomorrow morning. I do not support it. As a state, NJ has not been doing special ed well. And while will argue that “quality” is an issue that is difficult to address, it is made much worse when districts have get a “pass” on having to properly identify students in a timely manner. We already have that going on. Why put a gold sticker on lousy practice that leaves us with students finally being classified in high school?
To the point about having properly trained teachers in the classroom who actually know how to identify what’s in front of them. Yes! I’m in districts all over the state and consistently, the younger teachers have little to no experience with identifying or knowing how to intercede on behalf of their students.
The paranoid parent advocate in me thinks this is purposefully done. The end goal is to get rid of special ed entirely.
Thank you, Julie. I am happy you will be testifying and wish you luck. Lots of concerns here. I hope we see some positive changes soon.