Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
Response to Intervention:
Implications for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
The identification of students with learning disabilities has been an area of considerable
controversy and uncertainty since federal law PL 94-142 (1975) mandated that all students with
disabilities receive free and appropriate education. Augmenting the ambiguity regarding the
processes for identifying students with learning disabilities is the fact that identification is a key
component of providing students with an appropriate education, as specified in federal law PL
94-142 (1975). Federal law has provided educators and administrators with guidelines for
identifying students as having specific learning disabilities. Originally these guidelines centered
on an aptitude-achievement discrepancy model, but more recently, the reauthorization of IDEIA
(2004) has shifted focus to the response to intervention (RTI) model. Although RTI may resolve
some issues found in the aptitude-achievement discrepancy model, there remains areas of
concern of which educators and administrators must consider when implementing the RTI
model.
In order to examine the possible implications of the RTI model, it is important to first
examine the discrepancy model, which had previously been the only established method of
identification. A common criticism of the discrepancy model has been that it often takes time for
students to begin to demonstrate the degree of discrepancy between achievement and aptitude
required to be identified having a specific learning disability, for this reason it is often referred to
as the “wait-to-fail” method (Richards, Pavri, Golez, Canges, & Murphy, 2007, p. 56).
Therefore, in itself, the discrepancy model does not provide any preventive measures. It also
delays the identification of a learning disability and, as a result, students with learning disabilities
may not receive special education services until they are far behind their nondisabled peers. In
1
Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
their article, Richards, et al. (2007) explain that another issue common with the discrepancy
model, which is that there has been a tendency for the over-identification of students from
minority cultural and language backgrounds (p. 56). The inequalities found in the identification
may be contributed to the subjectivity often contributed to the discrepancy method. Evidence of
this is seen in research of Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, Algozzine, and Deno, in which
they found that although schools gathered ample data to determine eligibility, they often “failed
to use eligibility criteria in a consistent and predictable way” ( as cited in Shinn, 2007, p. 602).
Shinn (2007) also contributes these findings to the difficulty with the identification process in
discriminating between students with learning disabilities and students with low achievement.
Overall, much of the criticism toward the discrepancy model has stemmed from the “wait-tofail” approach and the inconsistencies in analyzing aptitude-achievement discrepancies.
The need for a more proactive and consistent approach has led to the acceptance of the
RTI method as an alternative means for identifying students with learning disabilities. Using a
tiered approach, RTI consists of implementing evidence based instruction universally then using
more intensive instruction and ongoing progress monitoring to identify students with learning
disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs; Gresham; Kame’enui; National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities, as cited in Richards et al., 2007, p. 56). In their article, Richards et al. (2007)
explain that “unlike the discrepancy approach in an RTI model students who are not performing
at grade level receive interventions early before they qualify for special education” (p. 58).
Therefore, students do not have to endure years of failure before receiving more intensive
instruction that may improve their achievement.
Also, by implementing evidence based
instruction for all students, the RTI method significantly reduces the likelihood that low
achievement is due to quality of instruction. Studies by Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, as well
2
Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
as O’Connor, have also found that “when RTI is implemented effectively there is a reduction in
the number of students who are referred and who qualify for special education” (as cited in
Richards et al., 2007, p. 58). This outcome of RTI may be attributed to the premise that those
students falsely identified as having a learning disability when using the discrepancy model, will
respond to the evidence based interventions, whereas students with learning disabilities will not.
Therefore these students with low achievement may receive the quality of education required
without being mislabeled. Another possible benefit of having less students incorrectly identified
as learning disabled include more special education resources for those students who truly have
learning disabilities. Furthermore, by using ongoing progress monitoring educators may detect
students who are unresponsive to intervention earlier than the discrepancy model. The progress
monitoring used in RTI has also been cited as have further advantages in writing IEP goals and
monitoring special education intervention effects (Fuchs & Shinn; Shinn & Shinn as cited in
Shinn, 2007, p. 609).
Although, in theory, the RTI model appears to address many of the issues associated with
the discrepancy model, there are still possible obstacles to identifying students with learning
disabilities. Mastropieri and Scruggs (2005) stipulate that many components of RTI still need to
be fully operationalized in order to provide consistent identification and implementation (p. 526).
Their article specifically addresses the roles of educators and administrators in RTI. Although
models for the implementation of RTI have been provided by scholars, there has not always been
a definitive answer as to whether general educators or special educators should provide
instruction at each tier (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005, p. 525). Although this may not appear to
directly influence the effectiveness of RTI, the background knowledge and skills of general
education teachers providing evidence based instruction is significant to its success (Mastropieri
3
Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
& Scruggs, 2005, p. 525). If teachers are delivering evidence-based intensive instruction, which
they are not qualified to teach, it will ultimately impede the effectiveness of the instruction.
Since one of the key elements of RTI is that quality of instruction be eliminated as the cause for
underachievement such issues could offset the identification of learning disabilities, a essential
purpose of RTI. Furthermore, the issue of whether instruction is given by special education
teachers may cause concerns of whether RTI is diverting limited resources from special
education services.
Progress monitoring is another critical feature of RTI that has received criticism and
potentially impedes the identification of students with learning disabilities. One issue is that the
methods by which schools determine unresponsiveness, as well as identify students as having
learning disabilities, are not universally defined (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005, p. 526).
Mellard, McKnight, and Woods (2009) examined schools that had been implementing the RTI
method and found variability in the types of assessments used as well as the cut off points for
unresponsiveness. In particular, they found that many schools in the study used a percentage of
local student population to determine whether a student was unresponsive to intervention and
required a higher tier (Mellard et al., 2009, p. 189). It is acceptable to conclude that if schools
implementing RTI use local norms to determine unresponsiveness then there will be
inconsistencies in identifying students with learning disabilities. Mellard et al. (2009) also
found that schools were often using the same assessments to screen as they were using to
monitor progress, which is problematic since each requires “sensitivity of the instrument but for
different purposes-screening is for prediction, progress monitoring for identifying changes due to
the curricular and instructional intervention” (p. 193).
Other scholars have proposed that RTI
does not discriminate the reason that a student is unresponsive to intervention, and therefore does
4
Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
not eliminate the need for cognitive measures as an important step in the identification process
(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005, p. 528). With regards to assessment and RTI, evidence suggests
that there is inconsistency in schools and that there is still a need to provide a definitive method
of determining when unresponsiveness establishes the existence of a learning disability.
A final consideration of RTI is provided in an article by Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier,
and LeFever (2008), in which they question the changing purpose of RTI. The article explains
that RTI was introduced by the reauthorization of IDEIA (2004) in order to more effectively
identify students with learning disabilities and to more systematically provide support to students
with academic difficulties (Kavale et al., 2008, p. 136). However, they explain that this attention
to identification of learning disabilities has been diverted by the dual purpose of providing
universal quality instruction (Kavale et al., 2008, p. 137). Much of the evidence Kavale et al.
(2008) use to support their theory comes from statements from educational organizations. For
example the National Association from State Directors of Special Education, which stated that
“Special education eligibility decisions can be a product of these efforts (RTI), but is not the
primary goal” (as cited in Kavale et al., 2008, p. 137). If the perception of RTI is changing this
could have a serious impact on students with learning disabilities. For one, there will continue to
be issue with how educators use the RTI method to identify students with learning disabilities.
One could argue that identifying students becomes of less importance if they are receiving
intensive evidence-based instruction and progress monitoring. However, by not being identified,
students with disabilities will not receive many of the accommodations and modifications to
instruction they require and would receive through special education.
It is certain that the components of RTI provide benefits to students. Evidence-based
instruction and ongoing progress monitoring can be instrumental in preventing students from
5
Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
encountering years of academic difficulties before receiving help. However, it is apparent that
many aspects of RTI remain to be operationalized; including who provides instruction, how
responsiveness is determined, and the method for ultimately identifying learning disabilities.
Without further guidance in these areas, administrators and educators may not be adequately
addressing the needs of students with learning disabilities. Resources provide methods in which
RTI can continue to serve its dual purpose of implementing evidence-based instruction and
identifying students with learning disabilities. Kavale et al. (2008) suggests that RTI should be
used exclusively as a prereferral intervention in the general education curriculum with ability –
achievement discrepancy and psychometric assessments still a part of the disability identification
process (p. 146). Mastropieri and Scruggs (2005) give similar recommendations, stating that the
initial tiers of RTI should be taught in the general education classroom and come from general
education resources, they also add that early identification and a team decision based on ample,
reliable evidence remain essential (p. 529). Mastropieri and Scruggs (2005) go on to caution that
“without careful consideration, the field may lose the conceptualization of LD and ultimately fail
individuals with disabilities” (p. 530). In conclusion, the utmost effort should be given that RTI
is serving both to provide universal and tiered evidence-based instruction, while continuing to
more effectively identify students with learning disabilities and provide them with the services
needed.
6
Joanna Mixson
EDEX J531
Fall 2009
References
Kavale, K.A., Kauffman, J.M., Bachmeier, R.J., & LeFever, G.B. (2008). Response-tointervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific
learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31 (3), 135-150.
Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to
intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the
identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38 (6), 525-531.
Mellard, D.F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and
progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 24 (4), 186-195.
Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., Canges, R., & Murphy, J. (2007). Response to intervention:
Building the capacity of teachers to serve students with learning difficulties. Issues in
Teacher Education, 16 (2), 55-64.
Shinn, M.R. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining
eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational need and benefit from
academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 601-617.
7