Alternatives to RTI

1
Alternatives to RTI

• Tom Scruggs
• George Mason University

Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of
Education. When citing materials presented
during the symposium, please use the following
Scruggs, T. (2003, December). Alternatives to
RTI. Paper presented at the National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas
City, MO.
2
Strengths of RTI

• Emphasizes an important deficit area of LD
  (reading) potential for other areas
• Emphasizes early identification, intervention
• Expectation of evidence-based, high-quality
  instruction as a baseline, to eliminate teaching
  disabilities

3
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• Does RTI preserve contemporary conceptualizations
  of LD?
• Unexpected low achievement relative to aptitude
  or ability
• Intra-individual differences
• Presumed processing deficit
• Average or above intelligence
• Multifaceted in nature
• Patterns of relative strengths and weaknesses

4
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• Does RTI effectively discriminate between, e.g.,
  LD, MR, E/BD, ADHD, generic low achievement?
• Students in each of these areas may not respond
  to intervention, but for different reasons
• If RTI can not discriminate, how can it classify?
• Important to maintain categories to maintain
  advocacy, research, funding, legislation.

5
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• Can RTI be used effectively to address the
  multifaceted nature of LD?
• Math concepts/computation, reading
  decoding/comprehension, writing, spelling or
  memory, attention, study/organizational skills
• Or, if reading inadequacy is presumed to be the
  fundamental characteristic of LD, does this
  suggest it is the only characteristic? (i.e.,
  success in phonemic awareness success in
  school?)

6
Is it true?

• LD severe reading problems
• Severe reading problems can be identified and
  corrected in primary grades
• Correcting reading problems in primary grades can
  eliminate LD

7
OR,

• LD is a disorder in one or more of the basic
  psychological processes, of which reading
  problems are the most apparent manifestation.
• Intensive instruction can improve reading skills,
  but this does not cure the learning disability,
  which may have a number of other manifestations
  (e.g., sustained attention, semantic memory,
  organizational skills, social interactions)

8
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• Can RTI be used across the age spectrum to
  identify LD?
• Preschool
• Primary grades
• Elementary grades
• Middle school
• High school

9
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• Can RTI be implemented with technical adequacy?
• Standardized implementation of evidence-based
  instruction?
• Standardized CBM?
• Standardized remedial procedures?
• Justifiable cut-points in level and slope for
  each content area at each grade level?

10
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• Will RTI improve present identification
  procedures?
• Reduce variability?
• Reduce overidentification?
• Improve early identification?
• Improve or maintain level of representation by
  ethnic or racial groups

11
Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

• At present, insufficient research evidence
• to establish cut-points for levels of
  intervention or identification, applications
  beyond early reading.
• to determine impact of wide implementation of RTI
  for LD identification.
• To determine response of general education to
  RTI.

12
What are alternatives?

• RTI describes appropriate procedures for
  addressing reading problems in general ed.
• Is RTI better suited for identification of LD, or
  as an early reading program for general ed?

13
Let us assume

• RTI-type (evidence-based) intervention is
  implemented, but as an early reading intervention
  in general ed classrooms (unstandardized-may
  differ)
• All students receive high-quality reading
  instruction
• Students with early reading problems receive more
  intensive instruction in small groups
• If this program is successful, referrals will
  decrease, and only truly LD will be identified.
• General ed. (not special ed) pays for these
  services.

14
How then is LD identified?

• Definition 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.
• NOT (exclusion) result of visual, hearing or
  motor handicaps, MR, ED, or environmental,
  cultural, or economic disadvantage.

15
LD then is achievement deficits not explained by

• Low vision
• Hearing impairments
• Physical disabilities
• Mental retardation
• Environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage
• Insufficient opportunity to learn

16
Appropriate services
17
Do we operationalize discrepancies?

• For vision, hearing, physical, environmental,
  opportunity, typically viewed as a dichotomy
  (e.g., adequate/inadequate)
• For intelligence, a dichotomy or continuum?

18
How to apply exclusionary criteria for IQ?

• Intelligence adequate/inadequate, e.g., gt or
  80.
• Discrepancy (e.g., 1, 1.5, 2 SD) between IQ and
  achievement.

19
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Hickman, 2003

• Students with LD could be identified on the
  basis of low achievement, application of the
  exclusionary criteria, and then response to
  intervention.
• With RTI services implemented in general ed as a
  supplemental service, all students would have had
  this.

20
Problem with cut-off

• Might misidentify students who are generally low
  achievers.
• Might increase overidentification
• Might not conform to conceptualization of
  unexpected underachievement (e.g., IQ 80,
  reading 85)
• Might remove from consideration students with low
  IQ who nevertheless are performing below
  expectations.

21
Something to avoid

• 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).

22
Alternative to RTI in LD identification

• Implement RTI-type reading interventions in
  general education
• To assure high-quality instruction
• To provide alternatives to special education
  placement
• Enforce strict requirements and criteria for LD
  identification
• Very low achievement
• Discrepancy with IQ, sensory/physical
  functioning, opportunities to learn
• Encourage early identification
• Team decision but supported by evidence

23
Advantages

• Maintains concept of disability, i.e., within
  student, long-term or lifelong, unexpected
  underachievement
• Operationalized to reduce overidentification and
  variability from subjectivity
• RTI services maintain emphasis on high-quality,
  evidence-based practice provides an alternative
  to special education.