Problems of RTI in Identification of LD

In spite of the apparent advantages of RTI, several questions remain unanswered at present. Several of these concerns include the following (see also Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002):

The concept of LD. First, does RTI preserve the contemporary conceptualizations of LD? Previous thinking in the field of learning disabilities has generally characterized learning disabilities as including several of the following conceptualizations (see, e.g., Keogh, 1994; Wong, 1996):

• Unexpected low achievement relative to aptitude or ability. This unexpected underachievement is at the heart of many conceptualizations of learning disabilities. That is, students fail to make acceptable progress in school, but the reason for this failure is not readily apparent.
• Intra-individual differences, that is, that the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weakness, presumably which contribute to the "unexpected underachievement."
• Presumed processing deficit. The implication of the "unexpected underachievement" consideration is that the problem is not primarily due to external factors, but resides within the child, and has to do with cognitive processing efficiency.
• Average or above intelligence. Students with LD are thought to be at least of adequate intelligence for accomplishing the academic tasks being presented. Deficits in intelligence are not thought to be a cause of learning disabilities.
• Multifaceted in nature. Learning disabilities are thought to manifest themselves in a number of areas relevant to school functioning. This may refer to problems in memory, organization, social skills, or a number of smaller areas that are affected by the learning disabilities.
• Patterns of relative strengths and weaknesses. Students with learning disabilities are thought to exhibit areas of relative strength. This consideration contributes to the "unexpected underachievement" criterion and also is thought to be useful in planning interventions.

Discrimination. Does RTI effectively discriminate between students who have learning disabilities and students whose learning problems are due to other factors? That is, students with mental retardation, emotional/behavioral disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or generic low achievement also exhibit low responsiveness to interventions, yet are not considered to have learning disabilities. Students in each of these areas may not respond to intervention, but for different reasons. Such a problem poses the question, if RTI cannot discriminate, how can it classify? It could be considered that specific categories are of less interest with an RTI model, but this has not been articulated clearly to date. Further, an argument can be easily advanced that it is important to maintain categories for purposes of advocacy, further research, federal and state funding, and legislation.

Multifaceted nature of LD. Another question which could be raised is whether RTI can be used effectively to address the multifaceted nature of LD (Beitchman, Cantwell, Forness, Kavale, & Kauffman, 1998). That is, if learning disabilities can manifest themselves in problems in math concepts/computation, reading comprehension, composition, handwriting, spelling, or memory, attention, or study/organizational skills, how can a response-to-treatment on basic reading skills be used as criteria? Even if reading inadequacy is presumed to be the fundamental characteristic of LD, does this suggest it is the only characteristic? That is, are to assume that success in phonemic awareness will necessarily lead to success in school? Such a model only seems accurate if reading subskills comprise the single deficit area in learning disabilities. If this is true, then, learning disabilities is the same as severe reading problems. If severe reading problems can be identified and corrected in primary grades, then correcting reading problems in primary grades can eliminate learning disabilities in schools. However, there is little evidence that this is the case. Rather, it seems more likely that LD is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes, of which reading problems are the most apparent manifestation. In such a case, intensive instruction can improve reading skills, but this does not "cure" the learning disability, which may have a number of other manifestations. That is, deficits in sustained attention, semantic memory, organizational skills, perceptual motor skills, or social interactions could lead to problems in a number of other school tasks, such as handwriting, memory of academic content for tests, test-taking skills, planning for homework and class projects, appropriate collaborative interactions with others. Although improved reading skills can be viewed as a positive good, it would not necessarily lead to inproved functioning in all areas.

Age levels. Another important concern is whether RTI be used across the age spectrum to identify LD, including preschool, primary grades, elementary grades, middle school, and high school. Presently, the model addresses primarily reading in primary grades and tells us little about how learning disabilities might be evaluated at higher grade levels, and when the problems emerge primarily as failures in content area learning.

Technical adequacy. A final concern is whether RTI be implemented with technical adequacy. That is, can standardized implementation of evidence-based instruction be assured? Will curriculum based measurement be implemented in a standardized fashion across all classrooms. Will remedial procedures be standardized across classrooms? Can justifiable cut-points in level and slope for each content area at each grade level be developed? And if they are, can they be administered in a standardized, consistent, unbiased manner across classrooms where achievement clearly varies widely?

Finally, some questions emerge which were initially presented with respect to discrepancy models. Will RTI improve present identification procedures? Can it be used to reduce overidentification and inappropriate variability? Will it in fact improve early identification, and can it improve or maintain appropriate levels of representation by ethnic or racial groups? At present there is little research evidence to provide answers to such questions.

In fact, at present, there is insufficient research evidence for many important considerations. It is not known how to establish cut-points for levels of intervention or identification, applications beyond early reading, although some progress has recently been made (see, e.g., Fuchs, 2003). The consequences of wide implementation of RTI for LD identification are not known. And perhaps most importantly, the response of general education to RTI is not known, and in fact whether general education is even aware of the RTI debate is unknown. This is not a trivial consideration, for it is general education that will be required to standardize all instructional and assessment procedures, presumably for all subjects and all grade levels, in order for RTI to work. It seems very likely that many teachers will be reluctant to abandon practices they have employed for years in order to standardize instruction so that LD can be evaluated. Nevertheless, it is important for general education teachers and other school personnel to be consulted with on this significant issue.

Previous Page | Next Page
(Advantages) | (Alternatives)