The Role of RTI in LD Identification

Introduction

• Host: Doris McMillan
• Forum: RTI National Online Forum
• Sponsors: Cisco Foundation, Lee Pesky Learning Center, Janet Schaffran Memorial Fund

Experts

• Dr. Don Deschlerr: Gene A. Budick Professor of Special Education, University of Kansas
• Dr. Jack Fletcher: Distinguished University Professor of Psychology, University of Houston
• Dr. Rick Wagner: Alfred Binet Professor of Psychology, Florida State University, Associate Director of Florida Center for Reading Research

Discussion Points

What are Learning Disabilities (LD)?

• Definition: Traditionally identified through exclusions and unexpected underachievement.
• IQ-Achievement Discrepancy: Historical method used for identification, now considered weak.
• Lifespan Manifestation: LD can emerge at different life stages, often in middle/high school.

Problems with Traditional Identification

• Wait-to-Fail Approach: Identification often delayed until second grade.
• Referral Bias: Discrepancy in identification rates between boys and girls, true ratio closer to 1:1.

Introduction of RTI

• Focus: Shifts from labels to how a child learns and responds to instruction.
• Early Identification: Helps track progress of all children, potentially addressing wait-to-fail and referral bias issues.
• Implementation: Some districts have successfully integrated RTI, such as in Iowa and Colorado.

RTI and Over-Identification

• High-Quality Instruction: Central to RTI, reduces unnecessary referrals to special education.
• IDEA 2004: States that a child cannot be identified with LD due to inadequate instruction or limited English proficiency.
• Flexibility: Allows various identification models, including RTI, IQ-achievement discrepancy, or low achievement models.

Assessing Instruction and Quality

• Universal Screening: For all students to identify at-risk children.
• Progress Monitoring: Regular assessment to track student growth and adjust instruction as needed.
• Fidelity of Implementation: Ensuring instruction is correctly administered.

Parental Involvement

• Inform and Involve: Parents should be informed at all stages of RTI and actively involved in the process.
• Legal Rights: Parents can request evaluations at any time; schools must provide data on instruction quality and progress.
• RTI Implementation: Schools should engage parents, provide information, and create dialogue.

Challenges and Misconceptions

• Delay in Special Education: RTI should not delay necessary evaluations; implementation flexibility is crucial.
• Training and Professional Development: Essential for educators to adapt to new RTI roles and responsibilities.
• Data Management: Schools must judiciously collect and utilize data for effective decision-making.

Comprehensive Evaluation

• Not Solely RTI: RTI data is valuable but not sufficient alone for LD diagnosis; multiple measures required.
• Hybrid Model: Assess instructional response, establish low achievement, evaluate for other disabilities and contextual factors.
• School-Based Data: Central to modern identification practices.

Interventions

• Effective Practices: More time and repetition, ongoing progress monitoring, and alignment with core curriculum.
• Special Education: Interventions should be individualized and often more intensive than RTI tiers.
• Assistive Technology: Important for intractable learners, especially in higher grades.

Final Thoughts

• RTI Potential: Greatest opportunity in years to make significant gains for all students, including those with LD.
• Ongoing Research: Necessary to refine RTI practices and measure effectiveness.

Key Takeaways

• RTI: Focus on high-quality instruction and early identification, reducing unnecessary referrals to special education.
• Parental Involvement: Crucial at all stages of RTI process.
• Flexibility and Training: Essential for effective implementation and avoiding delays in special education services.
• Comprehensive Evaluation: Requires multiple measures, beyond RTI data, to diagnose LD.