“One of the most controversial issues in the comprehensive evaluation of students with suspected learning disabilities is the evidence of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and the student’s actual achievement” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 46).
RtI
• Universal screening of all students in a comprehensive evaluation provides data indicating learning disabilities. (NCEE, 2009, p. 1)
• Screening measures/misidentifies some students as needing assistance when they don’t need it or not needing it when they do need it. (NCEE, 2009, p. 16)
• Teachers follow the discrepancy formulas that state and school districts use to identify students with learning disabilities. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 47)
• The assessments provide data that emphasizes the need for intervention materials. (NCEE, 2009, p. 20)
Discrepancy Model – Determining the existence of a learning disability
• Student’s achievement of what he/she has learned does not reflect what the student is potentially capable of learning (intellectual ability). (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 46)
• Teachers need to identify students who are at-risk (sensitivity) and not at-risk (specificity) providing interventions to students who need assistance. (NCEE, 2009, p. 17)
• A child may not be identified as having a learning disability in one state and denied services in different states. (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 47)
• These interventional materials may not be necessary for the adequate progress, nor assist the students’ proficiency. (NCEE, 2009, p. 20)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is not exactly an exhaustive overview of these models Jacquelyn although it does pretty much meet the answer to the question. Here is what would enrich the answer, although I am NOT penalizing you for this. . so don't worry. So what do you think about this? What makes sense to you? RTI or the discrepancy model? Why? Which one do you prefer? If you were queen, what would you mandate? How does your system operate? Does it use RTI? How so? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteI was trained using the discrepancy model of testing with an IQ test and then comparing the child's performance to their achievement test scores (usually at least two grades below grade level with a normal IQ and a significant difference between their verbal and performance IQ scores) means a LD exists. But to do this, the child had to have been failing in order to get a referral in order for me to do the initial assessments. That is where RTI makes some sense. The child isn't performing, so we provide intervention right away without waiting for testing to see if we should be providing intervention. Instead, we provide one level of intervention, if that doesn't work, we then provide another level of intensity of intervention. If that doesn't work, then provide more intense intervention. That just seems logical doesn't it.
In Alberta, we moved away from the whole concept of testing for disability years ago. Instead, we moved to an intensity of support model for all areas of need. . . or an RTI model across every disability with the exception of medically diagnosed disabilities like autism, orthopedic disabilities, vision, deafness, etc. Behavior and learning disabilities are largely dealt with through level of support needs. . . so a child needs a Level I, II or III intensity of support. Behavior is only diagnosed when there is a mental health issued associated and that is a medical diagnosis and the funding for the services falls under medical care. Interesting eh. . .