Alternatives to RTI
RTI as presently characterized describes appropriate procedures for addressing reading problems in general education. It suggests that all students receive evidence-based instruction in reading; that students failing to make adequate progress are given more intensive instruction, and that only after repeated attempts to provide high-quality, intensive instruction are students referred to special education. These are general education treatments, likely to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education. However, the question remains, is RTI best suited for identification of LD or as an early reading program for general education? As an example, let us assume that evidence-based intervention is widely implemented in elementary schools, but as an early reading intervention in general education classrooms (it may not be necessary -- or even possible -- that all reading instruction is standardized across all classrooms). All students then receive high-quality reading instruction. Students with early reading problems receive more intensive instruction in small groups. If this program is successful, referrals will most likely decrease, and only those who "truly" have learning disabilities will be identified. In such a scenario, all interventions are within general education, so it seems logical that general education (not special education) funds pay for these services. Special education funds are then reserved for students with disabilities, including learning disabilities, and the possibility of false positives is greatly reduced.
In such a scenario, how then, should learning disabilities be identified? We can return to the federal definition of learning disabilities, which states in part:
"...a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations (Federal Register, 1977, p. 65083).
The federal definition also states that learning disabilities is not the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. The condition of learning disabilities, then, is achievement deficits not explained by low vision; hearing impairments; physical disabilities; mental retardation; environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage; or insufficient opportunity to learn. The addition of evidence-based practices and "RTI-type" interventions also guarantee that students will have received appropriate, high-quality services.
The problem remains, however, how do we operationalize discrepancies? For vision, hearing, physical, environmental, opportunity, discrepant performance is typically viewed as a dichotomy (that is, students are considered to be either adequate or inadequate with respect to these considerations). However, for intelligence, a different picture may emerge. Should the difference between achievement and intellectual ability best be viewed as a dichotomy or continuum?
On the one hand, intellectual ability could also be viewed as a dichotomy. That is, students are considered to be either adequate or inadequate with respect to intelligence. That is, a cut-off could be established (e.g., > 80, see Breier et al., 2001). If a student is considered to be adequate in intelligence, then further consideration of IQ would be unnecessary, and the identification procedures could focus on the nature and degree of underachievement. On the other hand, a specific discrepancy (e.g., 1, 1.5, or 2 standard deviations) could be calculated between IQ and achievement.
Either version might meet in spirit the recommendation of Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman (2003): "Students with LD could be identified on the basis of low achievement, application of the exclusionary criteria, and then response to intervention" (p. 392). While not called for by Vaughn et al., response to intervention could simply reflect levels of evidence-based instruction implemented by general education as assurance that students had indeed received high-quality instruction. With "RTI-type" services implemented in general ed as a supplemental service, all students would have received such instruction.
Use of an arbitrary IQ cut-off, however, could also create some problems. The procedure might misidentify students who are generally low achievers, or whose underachievement is not "unexpected." It might increase overidentification of students with learning disabilities, beyond those levels already considered by many to be excessively high. Students identified with an IQ cutoff might not conform to the conceptualization of "unexpected underachievement." That is, a student with an IQ of 80 and a reading standard score of 85 might be identified as having a learning disability, and yet might not meet conceptual criteria. Further, an IQ cutoff might remove from consideration students with low IQs, who nevertheless are performing below expectations, for example, a student with an IQ of 80, but a reading standard score of 55.
However identification criteria are established, it should not be forgotten how strongly IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria are bonded to the category of learning disabilities itself. In an article entirely critical of discrepancy, Aaron (1997) revealed that hostility to discrepancy, at least for him, was really manifest as hostility to the entire category of learning disabilities:
When the discrepancy formula disappears from the educational scene, so will the concept of LD.... we are beginning to get a glimpse of the promised land (Aaron, 1997, p. 489).
Aaron is not alone in this perspective. A number of years ago, similar concerns were voiced:
It is time to quit viewing eligibility decision making as a technical problem. It means putting an end to efforts to try to find better ways of defining concepts and conditions that cannot be defined and may not exist (Algozzine & Korinek, 1985, pp. 392-393).
If elimination of the category of learning disabilities is sought, then this specifically should be the topic of discussion. If it is not, then discussion is needed that demonstrates how RTI identification procedures will preserve the category of learning disabilities while improving identification of students with learning disabilities.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Problems) | (An Alternative)
