Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail.

Abstract

Response to Intervention (RTI) models of diagnosis and intervention are being implemented rapidly throughout the schools. The purposes of invoking an RTI model for disabilities in the schools clearly are laudable, yet close examination reveals an unappreciated paucity of empirical support for RTI and an overly optimistic view of its practical, problematic issues. Models are being put into practice without adequate research and logistical support and neglect the potential negative long-term impact on students with disabilities. Many implementation problems exist: (a) the vagaries of critical details of the model in practice; (b) the lack of consideration of bright struggling readers; (c) the relativeness, contextual, situation dependent nature of who is identified; (d) the worrisome shortcomings of the RTI process as a means of diagnosis or determination of a disability; and (e) the apparent lack of student-based data to guide effective choice of approaches and components of intervention. Practiced as a model of prevention, the authors agree with the concept of RTI. As the authors witness its application to disability determination sans the benefit of a reliable and valid empirical basis, the potential benefits to some children with disabilities remain an unproven hypothesis while the potential detriment to some children with disabilities remains a very real possibility. Keywords learning disabilities; intelligence; prevention; intervention; diagnosis RTI as a Prevention Strategy: What is the State of the Evidence? Current EvidenceFuchs, Mock, Morgan, and Young (2003), Gresham, Restori, and Cook (2008), Fletcher and Vaughn (2009), Reschly (2005, and many others have described the 2004 changes to the federal laws governing special education eligibility for specific learning disabilities (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act; IDEIA) focusing on what is commonly know as Response to Intervention (RTI). In doing so, they typically also review evidence in support of the shift to an RTI model of service delivery, most clearly explicated in the recent revisions to rules for implementation of the IDEIA (U.S.

Caracterização do Perfil Cognitivo-Linguístico de Escolares com Dificuldades de Leitura e Escrita

“…Todos concordam que a identifi cação e prevenção precoces de escolares de risco para transtornos de aprendizagem é um procedimento pré-diagnóstico fundamental, pois permite aproveitar uma fase de alta plasticidade dos sistemas neurocognitivos envolvidos na aquisição da linguagem escrita ao mesmo tempo em que se evita o desenvolvimento de uma lacuna escolar demasiada Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 2001;Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).…”

“…No entanto, toda a abordagem clínica atual é baseada na noção do "inesperado", que é central ao conceito de transtornos de aprendizagem (Fletcher & Lyon, 2008;Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009) e da qual originou-se a abordagem diagnóstica baseada na discrepância QI-rendimento. Esta abordagem requer que o rendimento em um dado domínio acadêmico (com base em testes referenciados em normas) esteja a um ou dois desvios-padrão abaixo da média do QI geral para que o escolar seja diagnosticado e encaminhado para programas de intervenção (Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008).…”

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

“…We propose that the response to intervention be monitored by education staff for education-led interventions (at Tiers 1 and 2) and by the SLT for SLT-led interventions, where the SLT has a duty of care (at Tiers 3A and 3B). However, it is important to specify what is meant by a good or poor response to an intervention (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009) particularly for children with complex developmental disorders such as autism (Lord et al, 2005). In our view, if after Tier 2 intervention, a child has not reached expected language levels, they should be referred for an SLT assessment and potentially intervention.…”

How educators perceive the process and implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) : a case study

“…Despite teachers' vital role in the RTI/MTSS process, their perceptions and understanding have been largely neglected (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009;Werts et al, 2009). …”

“…The researcher has used this information to develop a tool to measure the fidelity of implementation of an RTI/MTSS model of instruction for this case study (Reschly, 2014;Jenkins, Additionally, this researcher has investigated the literature that focused on educator perceptions of practices that facilitate or hinder the implementation of RTI/MTSS. This understanding will provide the district with the knowledge necessary to identify strengths or challenges of RTI/MTSS implementation and refine the model to improve student learning and outcomes accordingly (Catro-Villarreal, Rodrequez& Moore, 2014;Regan, Berkley, Hughes & Brady, 2015;Castillo, Basche, Curtis, Stockslager, March & Minch, 2010;Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009. To help frame this investigation, the researcher has applied the MKO, ZPD and DA tenets outlined in Vygotsky's (1934Vygotsky's ( /1978 socio-cultural theory to examine the literature and guide this research project.…”