Guiding Questions
In order to fully respond to the thoughtful papers by Reschly and Gerber, the guiding questions posed by the National Research Center for Learning Disabilities and organizers of this symposium are now addressed. This section presents those questions and responses.
How Will the Roles of Teachers and Diagnosticians Change Given the Significant Demands of RTI?
The question of how the roles of teachers and diagnosticians will change given the significant demands for implementing RtI is a critically important question and the answer remains very unclear at present. Present conceptualizations of RtI are ambiguous at best with respect to the roles of teachers and diagnosticians. Reschly (2003) presented a four-tier model of RtI and acknowledged that the roles of teachers and diagnosticians would have to change but neglected to provide sufficient details on exactly what personnel would have responsibilities for the various components of instruction. General educators appear to have primary responsibility for all aspects of instruction, monitoring of instruction and moving students among Tiers I, II and III, while special educators appear to assume primary responsibility for students in Tier IV (or Tier III "depending on how general and special education are defined", ms. p. 14). The precise roles of diagnosticians or school psychologists are even less clear, and although Reschly refers to a problem-solving model of RtI that has been implemented in Hartland, Iowa as a potential model (Grimes, 2002), he provides little guidance on the specific nature of the roles. The Hartland model contains three tiers and is based on a problem-solving model (Grimes, 2002). To date, however, the Hartland model has undergone little rigorous evaluation of its effectiveness (Fuchs, 2002).
Gerber (2003) refers to the standard treatment protocol aspect of some RtI models during which the implication is that standardized instruction will occur in general education classes. This assumes that general educators will not only use scientifically based methods and materials of instruction, but also be able to standardize their presentations to the degree that instruction will be constant across classes. The implication is standard protocol treatment of RtI will be implemented systematically across kindergarten through grade twelve and all curriculum areas across the nation.
Even with this assumption being met, it is unclear exactly what the roles and responsibilities will be for all general and special educators and diagnosticians or school psychologists will have. It may be safe to assume that general educators will be responsible for delivering the scientifically based instruction in Tier I. However, presently general educators do not possess the background knowledge or the skills to implement an RtI model even in beginning reading. Given these assumptions, it is imperative to find answers to the following questions:
- Will we have a standard protocol for instruction across all curriculum areas and grade levels for Tiers I
and II in the model and a problem solving model for Tiers III and IV?
- Will there be a problem-solving model across all Tiers?
- Will there be a standard treatment protocol across all Tiers?
- Who prepares all general education teachers to deliver instruction using this scientifically based approach?
- Does this happen in university teacher preparation programs? Will school districts provide extensive in-service education to all current teachers?
- Where are the multiple exemplars of this type of instruction from Tier I to Tier II to Tier III and to Tier IV
happening in kindergarten through grade 12 across all curriculum areas?
- What does Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, and Tier IV science instruction at the seventh grade look like? What does Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, and Tier IV ninth grade algebra instruction look like? What does Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, and Tier IV fifth grade social studies instruction look like? What does Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, and Tier IV eleventh grade English look like?
- What are the teachers doing?
- What are the students doing?
- How many teachers are in the room with how many students?
- Does the general educator provide Tier I, Tier II, Tier III instruction simultaneously within a single classroom?
- What are the curriculum materials and instructional methods at each of the four tiers that have scientific evidence supporting their efficacy?
- Who monitors whether general educators teach this way?
- How long will students remain in a tier?
- What are the "tests" teachers will use to determine whether or not a student remains in a tier?
- How is the "nonresponsiveness" to intervention determination made?
- For example, will all teachers use a standard cut-off score on classroom tests?
- What is the record keeping system teachers use?
- Who has the ultimate decision making power to move students up and down the tier system?
- What exactly are special educators doing and when?
- What exactly are diagnosticians and school psychologists doing and when?
- When are parents involved in this process?
- What do teachers do about the child that learns but requires a very slow pace of instruction with additional practice activities and multiple exemplars before moving to the next new concept?
RtI presents challenges for the changing roles of general and special education teachers as well as diagnosticians and school psychologists. Before these challenges can be met, the field needs to fully operationalize what is meant by the RtI model and provide answers to questions like the ones above.
Who is Responsible to Ensure that the Procedures are Implemented Fully and with Fidelity - Special Education or General Education?
Who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that RtI procedures are implemented fully and with fidelity is a question of utmost importance for which answers are unclear.
Given that a Significant Number of Students Are Currently Identified at the Middle and Early High School Years, How Will RTI Procedures Apply in Those Settings?
The question of application of RtI at the middle and early high school years as a procedure to identify students with learning disabilities is very significant and remains very unclear at present. The models as presented currently provide little concrete evidence of successful implementation even at the beginning reading level. Reschly simply states his four-tier RtI model will work the same across grade levels. Other researchers have examined various RtI models. For example, Vaughn (2003) presented her model of implementation based on general education instruction followed by 10 weeks placement in secondary reading instruction for students who were not responding. Fuchs (2003) presented a model of general education instruction in early reading including the use of Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) followed by PALS Plus for those students who were responding sufficiently to the first tier of reading instruction. Both of these models are struggling with the exact configuration of general education instruction and the design of effective secondary instruction for those students who are considered "nonresponders" in the first tier. Both models are to be commended for attempting to provide some details on possible RtI models. However, neither model, nor others seen presently have even begun to address what happens in the RtI model at the middle and secondary school levels.
Given the increasing demands of school content area learning at the middle and secondary levels, it is important to consider some of the following. Textbook challenges increase with increasing grade levels. Researchers have consistently reported large discrepancies between readability levels of textbooks and reading levels of students with learning disabilities (Kinder, Bursuck, & Epstein, 1992). Textbooks at the middle and secondary levels typically cover vast amounts of content and are written in what has come to be termed as "unfriendly" nature for students (e.g., Armbuster & Anderson, 1988). Finally, textbooks introduce vast amounts of new vocabulary. Yager (1983) reported that one year of a science textbook introduced more vocabulary words than an introductory class in a foreign language. As an example, following is a passage from a chemistry textbook adopted at one of our research sites (Scruggs & Mastropieri (2003):
In most polymers, like polyethylene and cellulose, the monomers are all identical. In other cases, such as proteins, different monomers may be combined. Although the amino acid monomers that make up proteins appear to be very different, each one has an amino functional group and an organic acid functional group, so the monomers all link in the same way, forming a "backbone" of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms. A polymer with three amino acids is called a tripeptide. (Tocci & Viehland, 1996, p. 257).
The above passage represents 15% of one page of an 848 page textbook with a 15th grade level readability on which students take an annual high stakes standardized test at the end of the academic year. Such textbook challenges need to be addressed within any RtI model at the middle and secondary levels.
Mode of instruction in middle and secondary levels often varies from that used in primary and elementary grade levels. We have been studying middle and high school science and social studies classes for a number of years (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2003). We have observed little variation in instructional format across classes, and have identified the following as typical instructional components:
- Teacher lecture to the entire class, with class discussion as the major mode of instruction.
- Rapid pace of teacher presentations including vast amounts of new content on a daily basis.
- Rapid pace through the adopted textbook.
- Lab or project based activities interspersed throughout instruction, during which students frequently work with partners:
- In high school chemistry and middle school science classes, labs are scheduled very frequently.
- In middle and high school social studies classes project based activities are scheduled much less frequently than science lab acitvities.
- Minimal class review or additional practice activities.
- Independent class activities frequently consist of reading text materials and writing answers to text-based questions.
- As content level increase so do demands for more conceptually oriented and often abstract learning.
- Increased demands for student acquisition of broad, shallow, verbally-based knowledge as assessed on high stakes tests.
- Rapid pace of instruction, apparently driven solely by the end-of-year high stakes standardized achievement testing without regard to any learning needs of any students.
Any model of RtI used to identify students with learning disabilities must take into account the differences in learning needs and instructional demands placed on students in the middle and secondary schools and the increased pressures associated with high stakes testing (Frase-Blunt, 2000). Of utmost importance at the secondary level is the pace and level at which instruction proceeds in order to meet the instructional demands connected with high stakes testing. RtI conceptualizations for identifying individuals with learning disabilities need to consider these issues in addition to issues with models of beginning reading instruction.
How Will Issues of Consistency of Decision-making Be Assured From School to School, District to District, and State to State?
The question "How will issues of consistency of decision-making be assured from school to school, district to district, and state to state?" is vitally central to any national adoption of an identification of learning disabilities process. The answer is uncertain at present, and awaits clarification prior to any large-scale implementation. The country presently experiences great difficulties with implementing No Child Left Behind using any consistent measures or standards from state to state and across the nations using standardized tests. One recent example reported in the St. Petersburg Times (July 31, 2003, p. 16A) is illustrated next:
Gov. Jeb Bush says that Gulfport Elementary School did so well academically last year it is a due for a state bonus check of roughly $40,000. President George W. Bush says Gulfport Elementary School has performed so poorly that its parents must be allowed, less than a week before school begins, to pull their children out.
Such inconsistencies in application of using cut-off scores on standardized tests illustrate the challenges that exist between state and federal applications of standards. These inconsistencies in applications of standards may provide a glimpse at issues with RtI as a method of identifying students with learning disabilities using curriculum based or teacher developed measures.
Another illustration of the difficulties states are encountering using standardized testing was recently reported in the New York Time (October 9, 2003, p. A 33). This article reported on issues the state of New York was having with setting standards for passing the Regents Math A Exam, which is required for graduation of all students in the state of New York. Last year 61% of the students passed this exam. However, this year only 37% of the students passed. Such a large decline in passing rate resulted in the state loosening its testing requirements. This clearly demonstrates that states are currently grappling with setting standards with standardized tests. Again, the issue of using nonstandardized procedures associated with RtI for identifying students with learning disabilities remains problematic until issues of standardization, use of cut-off scores and validity can be fully addressed.
How Will LD Be Differentiated From Other Disability Conditions if a Cognitive Measure is Not Used as Part of the Assessment?
The question "How will LD be differentiated from other disability conditions if a cognitive measure is not used as part of the assessment?" is vital to the conceptualization of learning disabilities, and also has not been adequately answered to date. Reschly (2003) proposed using a model for low achievement rather than the current conceptualization of learning disabilities. He did propose that some cognitive measure could be implemented to differentiate learning disabilities from mental retardation if necessary. Conversely, Gerber (2003) suggested that the current conceptualization of RtI will be unable to diagnose learning disabilities. Gerber provided evidence of neurological bases of learning disabilities and suggested RtI lacks the ability to provide clear identification of learning disabilities. Several unresolved issues remain regarding the use of RtI to identify children with learning disabilities and to differentiate them from individuals with other disabilities.
Most RtI models presented to date provide little empirical information even at the beginning reading level regarding how any multi-tiered model of RtI will ultimately identify an individual with learning disabilities. The RtI models available appear to be based on improving beginning reading instruction in the general education classroom with the presumption that any child who does not learn to read in this type of RtI model will be identified as having learning disabilities. Although many individuals with learning disabilities have reading difficulties, it seems unclear why an entire model for identification of disabilities would be based solely on RtI in reading.
Individuals with mental retardation or emotional disturbance also often have difficulties learning to read and yet those same children would not be classified as having learning disabilities using the present conceptualizations of learning disabilities. Moreover, even if students do learn to read, it is unknown whether they will no longer encounter learning difficulties or "learning disabilities" in school when they begin to read to learn.
Present conceptualizations of RtI neglect to consider the multifaceted nature of learning disabilities. For example, the beginning reading models cited earlier do not consider other aspects of learning. What if students who learn to read still encounter problems in school? Several commonly reported characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities include overall poor organization skills, slow processing of information, poor handwriting, poor writing and spelling, and math; and yet current RtI models avoid considering these and other characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities. Finally, notions of RtI neglect to consider one of the major conceptualizations of learning disabilities, that of unexpected underachievement.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Gerber's Concerns) | (Summary & Conclusions)
