RTI

Name/ Hatm Alharbi

Course/ EEC 551

DR/ Elizabeth

Date 09/21/2017

RTII vs. Discrepancy Model Position Paper Comment by MASON, ELIZABETH: This title needs to be on page 2.

Summary of Both Articles

The emphasis of the first article is on the diamond model as a unique elementary response to instruction and intervention (RTII) model that meets the needs of all learners. Essentially, the RTI model attempts to identify in a timely manner and address learning disabilities by providing students with appropriate reading instructions. The most important aspects of RTII include; multilevel instructional and behavioral system for preventing school failure, screening the learners, monitoring their progress and making decisions based on the data of learners obtained (Kovaleski, 2012). Once, the students with learning needs are identified, they are given reading instructions based on their needs. As noted in the article, there are tiers in the diamond model of the RTII. Tier 1 includes the classroom curriculum available to all students. Tier 2 includes the supplemental or targeted interventions to individual students. Tier 3 includes the individually designed intensive instruction for students for whom tier 1 and 2 have proven inadequate.

The diamond model is a stepwise model with successive tiers that show the degree or level of need of the students and the amount of intervention provided. Instructors and other school stakeholders collaborate in the planning of appropriate interventions and extensions according to individual student needs. Importantly, the RTII approach is based on a problem-solving model since it puts into consideration the environmental factors as they might apply to an individual student's academic difficulty. This means that the RTI approach allows a flexible intervention structure for the students who struggle academically or behaviorally depending on their needs (Green et al., 2013, p. 241). Generally, the articles conclusion is that the RTI approach provides a coherent system for continuous improvement on the part of students with difficulties. Comment by MASON, ELIZABETH:

On the other hand, discrepancy model is also analyzed in the second article in the determination of whether a student qualifies for special education services to warrant an individualized education program (IEP). The discrepancy model is used to determine whether a student has a learning disability depending on the discrepancy level between intellectual ability and achievement (Peg, n.d.). According to the discrepancy model, a student with significant academic delays is administered a battery of tests, including an intelligence quotient (IQ) test and academic achievement test. A certain formula is used to determine if a student has a substantial gap between a higher IQ score and lower achievement that is statistically significant and severe. If the student has a severe discrepancy gap between IQ and achievement, such a student is diagnosed with a Learning Disability (LD). Comment by MASON, ELIZABETH: The reminder of your paper needs be about another RTII article you found and your reflection and implication. Please resubmit.

The assumption in the discrepancy model is that, if there is a significant discrepancy or difference between various sets of scores of a student then it is evidential that an underlying condition is making it unusually hard for the student to learn hence the need for intervention. The discrepancy model is used by some schools to determine if students are eligible for special education services more so when they have a mismatch between their intellectual ability and their progress in school. The assumption in this model is that if a student is not so bright, then logically the student should fall behind his or her peers (Trudy, n.d.). According to the article, the student’s IQ, or some measure of innate intelligence is what is used to determine where the students reading skills should be, given his IQ.

My Position upon Reflecting On Both Articles

Based on my review of both articles on RTII and discrepancy model, I would embrace the RTII approach in determining the intervention for students requiring special education. It is imperative to note that the RTI is a promising way of changing the way schools support students with learning and behavior problems by systematically delivering a range of interventions based on demonstrated levels of need. It is imperative that the RTII are tailored to the needs of a specific group of students with a common need (Green et al., 2013, p. 244). As noted in the article on RTII, a continuous monitoring of progress is used to determine the impact of instructions or interventions hence the reason I would prefer it over the discrepancy model.

It is worth noting that there are many limitations of the discrepancy model that renders the RTII approach the best for determining students with LDs, and who need IEPs. According to Peg (n.d.), the discrepancy model for instance requires chronic school failure of the student before any special education supports are given hence leading to a prolonged failure. As opposed to the RTII which considers other factors, the discrepancy model fails to put into consideration that outside factors such as poor or inconsistent instruction may contribute to a student's learning delay. Moreover, a severe discrepancy between test scores may provide no useful information as to why student is performing dismally academically. The different formulas used to diagnose LDs in students results to a lack of uniformity in identifying students for special education support hence the reason for my preference of RTII.

Therefore, unlike the discrepancy model, the RTII is a universal, classroom-based screening that identifies students’ need for additional support (Stacy, 2014). The RTII is also more collaborative, and team-based approach that leads to the development, implementation, and evaluation of alternative interventions for students with LDs according to the tiers. Importantly, and as Green et al. (2013) notes, the RTII leads to an increasingly intense, multi-tiered application of an array of high-quality, evidence-based instruction which are matched to individual student needs. Finally, as opposed to the discrepancy model, the RTII systematically documents the performance of students as evidence of the need for additional services after making changes in classroom instruction. This means that the RTII promises to change the way schools support students with learning and behavior problems by systematically delivering a range of interventions based on demonstrated levels of student’s need.

References

Green, J., Matthews, S., Carter, E., Fabrizio, J., Hoover, J., & Schoenfeld, N. A. (2013). The Diamond Model: A Unique Elementary RTI Model That Meets the Needs of All Learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(4), 240-245.

Kovaleski, J. F. (2012). RTI and SLD Identification in Pennsylvania: The RTII Infrastructure. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/rti-blog/entry/1/197