An Alternative to RTI in Identification of Learning Disabilities

Over the years, numerous alternatives have been proposed to present identification procedures, including Bayesian procedures, "double deficit" criteria, phonological process core differences, neuropsychological measures, and measures of cognitive processing (see Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002, for a review). Although all contain some areas of strength, none to date have gained general acceptance. Considering together the concerns about RTI in identification of learning disabilities, and at the same time remaining mindful of problems commonly voiced about current procedures (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2003), an alternative to both RTI and present procedures can be proposed:

1. Create change in general education so that "RTI-type" first- and second-tier reading programs are implemented in general education. That is, all students are assured of evidence-based instruction (although variability in response to student and teacher characteristics is accepted). Further, supplemental procedures are in place for students who fail to demonstrate adequate progress, for any reason. Students who are referred to special education, then, have already been assured very high quality general education treatments. Such procedures should guard against overidentification in two ways: first, "teaching disabilities" as a cause of LD will be eliminated, since all students will have received high-quality instruction. Second, school personnel will be less likely to refer students to special education because other services simply are not available (MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998; MacMillan, Gresham, Siperstein, & Bocian, 1996). Such requirements can help enforce strict criteria for LD identification. Since the first and second tier services are entirely within the domain of general education and appropriate to the scope of general education, services should come from general education budgets.
2. All students identified as having learning disabilities will demonstrate very low achievement in one or more significant areas of school functioning, and this level of functioning will be documented from more than one record, possibly including teacher reports, evidence of student classroom performance, and standardized test scores.
3. All students identified as having learning disabilities will meet exclusionary criteria with respect to sensory and motor functioning; social-emotional functioning; or economic, environmental, or cultural disadvantage.
4. All students will demonstrate a discrepancy (e.g., 1, 1.5, or 2 standard deviations) between IQ and achievement. Schools, state and federal education authorities can determine the best criteria, or whether these must be standard across states.
5. Early identification will be encouraged so that appropriate remedial services can be maximized. With appropriate general education services in effect, it will become obvious at very early ages that general remedial services alone will not be sufficient to insure adequate school functioning. Therefore, there will be little to be gained from adopting a "wait to fail" approach.
6. The final decision is made by a team but must be supported by evidence. To the extent that all measures are vulnerable and all students unique, it is important that teams of professionals agree on the best decision for individual students. However, such decisions must be supported to the greatest extent possible by reliable evidence.

There are several advantages to such a procedure. First, it maintains the concept of disability, that is, as within-student, long-term or lifelong, unexpected underachievement. As a disability consideration, special education remains a viable and appropriate placement. As general low achievement, the disability consideration is lost, or at least weakened, and the appropriateness of special education is unknown. The presently proposed alternative to RTI provides an operationalized procedure that can reduce overidentification and variability from subjectivity in decision making. The "RTI-type" services maintain emphasis on high-quality, evidence-based practice and provide an alternative to special education. This alternative is greatly needed in order to provide appropriate services to the many students caught in the middle -- those not "disabled" by any reasonable portrayal of the concept, and yet struggling to keep up in school. When such students are appropriately provided for, identification problems will dissipate, and special education services will be reserved for those students for whom they were created -- students with disabilities, most in need of special attention.

Previous Page | Next Page
(Alternatives) | (References)