Reschly's Major Points
Dan Reschly (2003) reviews the historical issues surrounding the identification and definition of learning disabilities followed by a proposal for more novel approaches for identifying learning disabilities. Reschly recommends:
- An approach to identification of learning disabilities that emphasizes effective instruction for all children with achievement problems.
- An outcome driven identification system
- A four tier model implemented within the general education classroom.
- Procedures based on scientific evidence and
- The definition of learning disabilities be changed to a noncategorical definition.
Effective Instruction for All Students within an Outcomes Based System
Reschly favors an approach to instruction in the general education classroom that provides effective instruction for all students, including those students who may have learning disabilities and those who may be low achievers. By itself, this assertion is laudable and appeals to common sense. This position appears to be widely held by policy makers, researchers, practitioners and parents alike. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would disagree with having scientifically based, high quality instruction in general education classes for all students, including those individuals with learning disabilities and those individuals who are low achievers. The controversial aspect surfaces when determining "who" decides what comprises the "scientifically based, high quality instruction" and "what" that "scientifically based, high quality instruction" might be in all general education classes, kindergarten through grade twelve, across all curriculum areas.
For example, many researchers in early reading appear to have developed more solid evidence concerning a model of effective teaching using outcome based procedures for teaching beginning reading skills (e.g., O'Connor, Jenkins, & Slocum, 1995). This model relies on teaching very specific and discrete skills including phonemic analysis. However, it is unclear whether such procedures will be adopted by all general educators across the country to teach early reading, and it is even less clear whether such procedures exist for advanced reading skills, reading skills across other curriculum domains, math skills and higher-level math skills, such as algebra instruction, and instruction across other content areas such as science and social studies.
Four Tier Model of Response to Intervention
Reschly is to be applauded for offering a "Four-Tier Model of Response to Intervention" for the field to examine. Figure 1 provides a brief overview of the model.
Figure 1. Four Tier Model Proposed by Reschly (2003)
- Tier I--All students; universal; High quality general education curriculum and instruction; School-wide behavioral supports.
- Tier II--20% of students at any time; groups of 3-5; Targeted small group academic interventions and positive classroom management.
- Tier III--5% of students at any time; <=12% found eligible for special education; Intensive problem solving; Individualized academic and behavioral interventions in general education, intensive methods.
- Tier IV--Sp Ed services for <=12%; Determine special education eligibility through RTI; IEP development; Intensive instruction treatments, measured precisely with formative evaluation.
Tier I, as described, consists of universal instruction in the general education classroom that includes high quality curriculum and instruction and school wide behavioral supports delivered to all students. Tier II consists of providing instruction to 20% of the students at any given time, in which instruction may be delivered in small groups of three to five students. Instruction at this tier would consist of academic interventions and positive classroom management. Tier II consist of providing instruction to approximately 5% of the students at any given time. Interventions at this tier would consist of intensive problem solving and individualized academic and behavioral interventions in general education. Tier IV consists of the final stage of response to intervention where special education eligibility would be determined and an Individualized Educational Plan would be developed. Students in special education services would comprise approximately 12% of the population.
Reschly's four-tier model provides a glimpse at what he envisions as the new identification process for learning disabilities. A scenario such as the following might exist: General education implements high quality curriculum and instruction for teaching all students. If students do not respond sufficiently well to the instruction, they are moved into a second tier for more intensive instructional procedures within the general education class. In this second tier, instruction occurs in small groups of three to five students. If students still do not respond sufficiently well to the instructional procedures, they are moved to a third tier, which consists of more intensive instructional procedures using a problem-solving model. Finally, if students remain unresponsive to the instructional procedures, they are moved to a fourth tier, which consists of what is today known as special education placement, where even more intensive instructional and behavioral interventions are delivered. This is presumably where an individual would be found eligible for special education services and classified as having learning disabilities.
The model as proposed is the first step in providing an alternative for identifying learning disabilities. However, several ambiguities remain in the present model, making the conceptualization far from complete. The tiers need to be operationally defined in order to obtain a more comprehensible view of the model. Will all schools and all teachers across all grade levels and curriculum levels operate similarly in identifying students with learning disabilities? In addition, it is unclear how this model represents improved procedures for identifying students with learning disabilities. When a student reaches Tier IV, how do we know that the individual meets the criteria associated with learning disabilities classification? Or, will we merely know that this individual failed to respond to the instruction in the three previous tiers in this particular grade level class in the particular subject or content area? Answers to these and other questions will provide the field with a better picture of the Four Tier Model for identification of learning disabilities proposed by Reschly.
Changing Definition of Learning Disabilities
Reschly proposes that the current definition of learning disabilities provides little to assist the education of students with learning disabilities and offers an option to change the definition to a generalized academic deficit model. Reschly's rationale includes the premise that all individuals with academic deficiencies need to be served, and adheres to a generalized academic deficit model rather than the current learning disabilities identification procedure per se. Moreover, he recommends moving toward the learning disabilities eligibility criteria proposed by the National Academy of Sciences, in which demonstration of large academic and behavioral performance differences between peers and target students along with insufficient responses to high quality instruction be used (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Although I suspect everyone in the field of special and general education agrees that all students deserve the best educational methods and materials available, many would disagree with the supposition that individuals with learning disabilities are the same on all dimensions as individuals with low achievement. If one accepts the premise that learning disabilities is simply the equivalent of low achievement, then one might fully endorse the Reschly model. However, many scholars in the field of learning disabilities accept the premise that a "disability" is present, and as such a very different set of characteristics exists from those individuals who are simply low or under achievers.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Introduction) | (Gerber's Concerns)
