I. Introduction
“Response to Intervention”, or “RTI”, is an academic technique applied to public schools in the United States that is designed to assist students with disabilities from elementary through high school level, with the purpose of enhancing their learning experience in mind. The objective is to help the child adjust and learn new ways to overcome their disadvantages and adapt to their educational surroundings in such a way that they, too, might achieve benchmark success for their grade level and age group demographic. Addressing the problem starts with the process of identifying the disability that affects the student. Disability testing is done by first determining their current level of development via an age-appropriate IQ test, and measuring the results of said test with that of their academic achievements. This method of testing accommodates the parameters concerning disabilities in schoolchildren established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (otherwise known as “IDEA”).
There are three main areas on which those conducting these tests aim to focus: to ensure the students are benefitting from the program as per satisfactory conditions, to design more effective programs for students who did not succeed under standard conditions, and to estimate the rate of progress of every student involved in the programs. A desirable response from a student in question means that he or she has improved their academic performance as a result of the testing. If the student has a fairly weak response to the tests, or performs with low average scores, then depending on the results of further, secondary tests, the student’s disability may be declared biological or neurological in nature. If the student has been determined to have a disability, but their condition does not fall under the “biological” category, they may be diagnosed with a workable learning disability, rather than a mental illness (Martella, Merchand & Benner, 2005).
II. Review of Literature
When IDEA was officially put into place, it further defined the nature in which disabilities would be defined in an academic setting. IDEA called for further care being taken in identifying the difference between the academic achievements of the students and the extent of their capabilities, measuring a student’s lack of ability to respond to testing and research, welcoming additional empirical research to fully determine the specific diagnoses of each case (Dept. of Ed., 2007).
According to A.E. Farstrup’s article, RTI: A Vital Concern for Reading Professionals (2007), proponents of RTI believe that it makes the process of identifying disabilities that much simpler, that it lessens the risk of misidentifying the wrong diagnoses all while bringing further clarity to proper and correct diagnoses. Furthermore, the proper classification of the problem holding the students in question back helps decrease the chances of students being inappropriately labeled as “disabled” and sent to a life-skills or special education class. Others, however, doubt the efficiency and accuracy of RTI testing, claiming that it is merely zeroing in on underachieving students as opposed to those facing actual disabilities. Opponents of RTI also feel as though this system delays other, more dire needs of public schools and that this program, while full of good intentions, is wasting valuable resources and focusing too much attention in the wrong areas; in attempting to prevent unnecessary diagnoses, they are delaying or missing cases in legitimate need of more immediate help (Hale, 2010). Overall, however, it would seem that the RTI approach has been embraced by the vast majority of parents and some teachers are in favor of these institutional changes, with some apparent resentment between regular and special education teachers. The reason for this tension is that some regular teachers see it as holding back the system, while special education teachers welcome the change.
III. Conclusion
Pros and cons of this approach aside, now that this system has been put in place, it is necessary to consider the impact and implications of RTI’s institution. As some of RTI’s opponents have brought to light, it is necessary to consider the risk of interventions being an over-reaching, overly ambitious, and possibly unrealistic set of parameters for managing the impact of learning disabilities. Yes, it is good to have a more empirical way of identifying such disabilities as opposed to a less detail-oriented approach (e.g. a reactive model), but consider consequences of putting this system in place if it turns out to be less accurate than previously determined; it would result in a lot of damage being done to the learning experience of countless schoolchildren who may be missing out on just as much as they would under the old system, if not more. There is no evidence that RTI is as inefficient as described above, so this is not exactly a growing concern, but rather, a call to attention to the fact that as a society, we must be sure of ourselves in this matter if we are to boldly embrace any drastic change to any system, broken or not. Fortunately, however, all evidence points to the implementation of RTI as beneficial to the system overall. As far as how it can be implemented in a school setting; why not have testing centers in place in or around the schools themselves? By creating a bridge between research and education, why not use the schools, themselves, as the research centers? Bring the experts directly to the “front lines”, so to speak, and let them solve the problems first-hand. The legal ramifications of RTI’s approach are complex enough, as demonstrated by attorney José Martin of Austin, Texas (2013), let alone the proposed idea of bringing researchers to the schools themselves, thus giving some the idea that children would be used as “guinea pigs”. However, implementation of such a measure is possible, given that the proper level of awareness is raised amongst the general population.
References:
Stewart, R.M., Martella, R.C., Marchand-Martella, N.E., Benner, G.J. (2005). Three-Tier Models of Reading and Behavior. The Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention – JEIBI 2 (3), 115- 124. Retrieved from: http://www.baojournal.com/JEIBI/jeibi-issues.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Q and A: Questions and Answers On Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS). Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved from: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,QaCorner,8,
Farstrup, A.E. (2007). RTI: A Vital Concern for Reading Professionals. Reading Today. 25.3, 17.
Hale, J. (2010). Critical Issues in Response-to-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly. 223–236. Retrieved from: http://www.iapsych.com/articles/hale2010.pdf
Martin, J.L. (2013). Legal Implications of Response to Intervention and Special Education Identification. RTI Action Network. Retrieved from: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/legal-implications-of-response-to-intervention-and-special-education-identification
