SLD Diagnosis
By eliminating IQ testing as part of the special education process, RTI introduces what may be termed an "Outcomes-Based" model. Students are initially selected because of below average reading achievement and are provided with an empirically validated intervention. If reading ability improves, then the "special" intervention is no longer necessary, and the student would return to the standard reading curriculum. If the student does not respond, then more intensive intervention would be in order. If there is a failure to respond to the more intensive intervention, then a diagnosis of SLD would follow and even more intensive remedial services would be required. The nature of these services remains a moot point but, if the student continues to struggle, then perhaps the SLD diagnosis might be transformed into mild MR with a different set of special education services then provided. The entire scenario may take a significant amount of time, but there remains the possibility that the student will eventually get the services they need (Beitchman, Cantwell, Forness, Kavale, & Kauffman, 1998).
To see the inefficiency of such a system, consider the example of a student who demonstrates an inability to remain seated during classroom instruction and continually interrupts others. Such a student would soon come to the attention of the classroom teacher and be referred for evaluation with a high probability of receiving some form of behavioral intervention. If the student remains unresponsive, then a more intensive behavioral intervention may be implemented but may still not significantly reduce the target behavior. The failure to respond to this more intensive intervention may then lead to a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and pharmacological intervention. Even then, medication may initially have limited positive effects and may be changed several times with no significant effects forthcoming. Since there is again a failure to respond, a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) may now be considered and interventions consistent with ODD behaviors are now implemented. It is important to note that throughout this scenario the student continues to demonstrate reading difficulties. Yet, the reading problems take a secondary position until the confounding caused by the co-morbidity among behavioral disorders is unraveled. The co-occurrence difficulties suggest that reading problems may not be primary but simply part of a larger syndrome. To avoid such a confounded scenario, appropriate assessments to establish the existence and parameters of particular problems should be done in the first place (Lopez, Forness, MacMillan, Bocian, & Gresham, 1998).
Vaughn and Fuchs (2003) suggested that current SLD identification is flawed because it is predicated on a "wait to fail" model. This criticism is based on the misperception that the RTI model is, in reality, different from present practice. First, the number of school district programs that engage in early screening and identification efforts is probably underestimated. Early identification has been a major focus for a number of years and suggests that schools do not wait for failure but rather attempt to find "at-risk" students as early as possible (Jenkins & O'Connor, 2002). The real question is "at-risk" for what? Usually the efforts have been directed at reading failure rather than SLD per se.
The "wait to fail" notion also assumes reading failure is, at least, partially the result of poor instruction. If poor instruction were a primary variable associated with difficulties in learning to read, then the possibility exists that whole classrooms, or many students in a single classroom, might be referred simultaneously. In most cases, classroom teachers are aware of students experiencing difficulties and those students are provided with accommodations and supports. This is essentially the prereferral process that attempts to provide appropriate modifications before formal special education is initiated (Fuchs, Fuchs, Bahr, Fernstrom, & Stecker, 1990). The RTI model appears to be prereferral writ large with greater specification about the types of reading interventions that should occur as well as the measures that should be used to assess reading performance. This is a significant positive step because the resources used for preventative interventions will ultimately benefit all students. Nevertheless, there remains a number of unanswered questions. First and foremost, should the student who moves through the RTI model, which clearly establishes increasingly severe RD, now be designated SLD? This change in status does not appear justified, primarily because RD should not be equated with SLD. On what basis is an SLD classification warranted? At this point, the conceptual leap from RD to SLD is too great. The RTI model appears better suited for prevention rather than classification.
Besides the disconnect from the SLD construct in terms of classification, the RTI model also presents pragmatic difficulties about what to do next. How do we determine what a student needs now? It seems clear that students who fail to respond during the RTI process possess unique needs that can only be determined with comprehensive evaluations of intellectual/cognitive, academic, and psychosocial functioning. Hale and Fiorello (2001) suggested that it is necessary to intervene to assess so reducing the number of referrals with the RTI will permit attention to be directed toward providing comprehensive interventions for those students who truly need it. Without a comprehensive evaluation, it becomes difficult to design interventions tailored to unique needs (Braden & Kratochwill, 1997).
Previous Page | Next Page
(Unexpected School Failure) | (Validated Interventions)
