Research Roundup (LD News: July 2005)

By Dr. Sheldon H. Horowitz
Director of Professional Services, NCLD

Response to Intervention: A Primer

The Facts about LD Classification

Fact:

There are more students classified as having specific learning disabilities (LD) than any other type of educational handicapping condition.

Fact:

Almost 48% of all students receiving special education services are served under the LD category.

Yet the identification of students with LD has frequently been cited as the single-most problematic issue facing the field of special education during the past 30 years. And with good reason. When Public Law 94-142 was passed in 1975, no specific approach or formula was presented to guide states and local school districts in how best to implement the process of identifying and selecting students for services under the LD category.

What emerged over time was a smorgasbord of practices, the majority of which hinged on the notion that students with LD would demonstrate a significant discrepancy between their potential and actual performance when evaluated using a battery of tests including measures of intelligence, academic achievement, and social-emotional adjustment. This determination would result in a classification ('label') as LD, and students would be entitled to whatever menu of services and supports was in place for students in that school community. So what's the problem? It's simple: There is little if any evidence that an IQ-achievement discrepancy is an accurate predictor of LD!

This discrepancy approach also falls short because it:

• often results in over-referral for special education evaluation
• places limited emphasis on early recognition of students at risk for learning failure
• delays the onset of specialized instructional and intervention services
• contributes to the separation (and even alienation) of general and special education professionals
• makes inefficient use of school personnel and resources

The Challenge
In 1982, a National Research Council publication proposed that the following three conditions be met before a student could be classified as having LD:

• high quality general education instruction has been provided
• special education services and supports would be available to help if/when classification takes place
• the assessment process used to justify classification as LD was accurate and meaningful

While these recommendations seem straight-forward and logical, the vast majority of school-based practices are unfortunately far from meeting these criteria. Virtually every state has created its own established guidelines and procedures for testing and classification, and it is not unusual for students to literally lose their classification as LD when they move from one state (or school district) to another.

A "New" Approach to Recognizing and Responding to Students with LD
Response to intervention (RTI) is not a new idea. In fact, features of this approach have been around for more than 20 years under names like teacher Assistance Team Model, Pre-Referral Intervention Model, Mainstream Assistance Team Model, School-Based Consultation Team Model, and Problem-Solving Model. RTI is an approach to serving students who struggle with learning that can contribute meaningfully to the identification and classification process because (I know you were waiting for this) it is based on evidence that informs the decision-making process. In other words, RTI is a service delivery approach that guides educators to anticipate, recognize and document student learning, and to provide timely, well-targeted and effective instruction. How students respond to this instruction (in combination with more formal assessment as needed) determines a students' eligibility for classification as LD.

The potential benefits of this approach:

• attention is paid to students in a phased approach, with increasing intensity over time and with specific data about progress collected and shared among general educators, special education and other resource personnel, and parents
• data are collected to document how well students respond to targeted instruction; this in turn guides decisions about how to adjust classroom instruction and whether a formal referral for special education assessment is warranted
• student progress is monitored with clear timelines to avoid having students 'fall between the cracks and not receive timely attention
• the RTI approach can work hand in hand with existing special education services delivery models; it demands, however, a greater sharing of professional talent, a commitment to earlier recognition of students who struggle, and a willingness to deliver relevant, high-quality instruction and support before referring students for special education testing

Some Core Features of RTI
While there is no single recommended approach to implementing an RTI model, there are a number of basic features that aproaches have in common:

• students first receive high quality instruction in general education settings
• to the greatest extent possible, all instruction is research-based
• general education professionals and other teaching staff share active roles in student instruction and in collecting data on student performance
• student progress is monitored across the curriculum, not just on specific isolated skills
• student progress monitoring is ongoing (not just a snapshot of scores at a particular point in time)
• the RTI approach is well document and is seamlessly intergrated into school-wide practice

RTI: Questions, Concerns and Opportunities

A number of successful projects provided promising evidence that RTI approaches to identifying and serving students with LD are viable alternatives to current systems of services and supports. In 2002, The National Center for Learning Disabilities convened The Learning Disabilities Roundtable to find common ground on this topic among ten leading organizations. A series of follow-up meetings resulted in the formulation of policy recommendations about RTI and how to improve services and supports to students with LD.

Some additional resources about RTI include:

The National Center for Research on Learning Disabilities
http://www.nrcld.org
http://www.nrcld.org/publications/papers/mellard.shtml

From Intelligence & Achievement Testing to Response-to-Intervention
http://www.studentprogress.org/library/presentations.asp

President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report:
A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families

The National Association for School Psychologists
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq334rti_aasp.html

Keep Kids Learning:
A New Model to Identify Students with Learning Disabilities Before They Fail
http://www.ld.org/Advocacy/kids_learning.cfm

LD Online

A Promising Alternative for Identifying Students with Learning Disabilities
http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/feat/48

Responsiveness-to-Intervention " New Way to Identify LD
http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.asp?r=840

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 3. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1540-5826.00072/abs/

Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (eds.). (1982). Placing Children in Special Education: A strategy for Equity. Washington DC.. National Academy Press

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 155-168.

Did you enjoy this article? Would you like to help support NCLD programs? Click here to become a FRIEND of NCLD today.