Summary and Conclusions
Current conceptualizations of RtI are beginning to emerge as alternative procedures for identifying learning disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education has supported models for testing RtI for several years now, and RtI models have been presented here at this National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Symposium. Papers provided by Reschly and Gerber provide the field with introspective positions on RtI as an alternative for identifying learning disabilities. For example, Reschly provides a four-tier model for identifying students with learning disabilities, but also recommends abandoning the category of learning disabilities for a low achievement classification. Gerber, conversely, cautions the field and provides some interesting questions that should be tested empirically and answered prior to any wide scale adoption of RtI. As the field discusses issues of identification of learning disabilities, it would be wise to consider questions regarding the efficacy, reliability, validity and utility of RtI prior to wide scale adoption. The field should not want to risk misidentifying students as having learning disabilities, including over identifying students from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds or over identifying children from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds. Finally, without careful consideration, the field may lose the conceptualization of learning disabilities and ultimately fail individuals with disabilities who lack a voice in this process of generating alternative procedures for identifying learning disabilities.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Guiding Questions) | (References)
