Introduction
The time has come to change the approach to identifying children as having a learning disability. There has been ample time to debate the value of an identification model based on a discrepancy approach versus one based on a response to intervention approach. From my perspective as someone who has been involved in public policy development and implementation and not research, it is time to embrace the response to intervention approach, which is based on solid and substantial research conducted by a significant number of highly respected researchers.
Among the many papers presented at the Learning Disabilities Symposium: Responsiveness to Intervention [RtI], sponsored by the National Research Center on Learning Disability, Dr. Daniel J. Reschly and Dr. Michael M. Gerber were asked to respond separately to the question, "What are the feasibility and consequences of RtI?" The National Center provided a significant service to the field of special education by bringing the research debate around this issue to a head, setting the stage for moving ahead with important and necessary changes.
The two authors present very different views of the utility of the RtI model. Reschly strongly supports the model, while Gerber identifies what he believes are serious limitations to the use of this approach. Below is a summary of key points each author makes followed by my views on those points and the question of feasibility and consequences of implementing the RtI model. I will not review the model itself, with the understanding that it is covered in depth by other papers presented as part of this Symposium.
Reschly's Points
Reschly believes that the consequences of the model depend heavily on the supports being available that are needed for successful change. He further states that change should be driven by outcome criteria and views this notion as somewhat controversial. He believes "the most vulnerable feature in modern special education for high incidence disabilities is insufficient documentation of positive benefits ... and the persistence of practices unrelated to effective intervention." He also makes the following points regarding implementation:
- The roles of teachers in the RtI model will not change dramatically, but instruction will be more influenced by readily available data on progress of students toward meeting performance goals and a greater reliance on scientifically based instruction.
- The role of school psychologists and diagnosticians will change more dramatically, with much more time being spent on assessment activities that are directly related to interventions and behavior observations that are more systematically related to positive classroom behavior and learning opportunities.
- There will not be a need for additional individuals to implement and monitor the success of the RtI strategies.
Gerber's Points
Gerber takes a different view of the feasibility and consequences of the model. He does not view its implementation as feasible based on his belief that research has identified a wide range of variability among teacher behavior that cannot be controlled by the RtI model, which relies heavily on consistency of teacher-based instructional interventions. Furthermore, he believes that the extent of changes necessary in classroom preparation, in improvements in curriculum and instruction, in the construction of assessment procedures to select students for this intervention, and in the quality controls needed to assure the use of effective intensive intervention has not been adequately explored. In addition, he raises a serious concern over the cost of implementation. Using his calculations the costs of professional development and intervention strategies needed to implement the model would exceed $2 billion nationwide. However, his calculations fail to take into account the current amount of federal ,state and local expenditures already allocated to these activities.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Table of Contents) | (Author's Views)
