DQ4

DQ41-2.docx

DQ 4:1-2

The discrepancy model can no longer be used alone to determine whether or not a K-12th grade student qualifies for special education services. A new model, response to intervention (RTI), can be used alone or in conjunction with the discrepancy model to determine eligibility. Debate whether or not RTI is a good model to use to qualify a student under IDEA and if not, formulate other models.

REPLY TO DISCUSSION

1. Lynnel

Response to intervention (RTI) have three tiers which include evidence-based general instruction delivered to all students, general instruction and more intensive supports designed for certain students, and lastly general instruction plus high-intensity intervention (1:1) designed for a few students (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020). It is imperative to understand that these interventions are not the same as special education services. The data collected is what is most useful for special education teachers because it provides an insight into the instructional strategies and interventions that have not been successful for a struggling child. When these intensive interventions are put into place then there tends to be a trend of students being successful and making progress, so that they aren’t identified right away; they are given a chance to grow with these interventions. I really like the RTI model but often it is not done with fidelity, so I know that our school ends up having many students referred to special education; which isn’t the point of RTI. We tend to use the discrepancy model as well and I don’t agree with this because we aren’t giving any type of intervention to see growth. I believe that giving educators more support while providing RTI is crucial to their success and the success of children.

Gartland, D., & Strosnider, R. (2020). The use of response to intervention to inform special education eligibility decisions for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 195–200. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0731948720949964

2. Maren

I have had many a conversation with general education teachers and administrators on why RTI is more appropriate for qualifying for special education than a discrepancy model. Most of the time, they come to understand that RTI data is a better representation of a student’s abilities, but I also have come across educators who get frustrated with the work that RTI can sometimes require. Implementing RTI at any school is complicated and requires educators to coordinate, receive training, and have support from other members of their team (Alahmari, 2019). Even though the work might be sometimes overwhelming, especially at the beginning of the process, the information gained and the ability to meet individual needs make the process worth it.

In my district, we have started moving to a model called “Strengths and Weaknesses.” It takes our RTI data and the evaluation assessment data and combines them to see what strengths and weaknesses a student has. I’m not currently working in Special Education at the moment and haven’t seen this process recently. Has anyone else here seen or used this process? What do you think about it?

Alahmari, A. (2019). A review and synthesis of the response to intervention (RtI) literature: Teachers' implementations and perceptions. International Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 894-909.

3. Afreeka

Replies to Lynnel Campos

Due to the shift of determining eligibility for special education services states are moving away from the single point of data, viewing discrepancies, and entering into utilizing Response to Intervention also which allows them to shift the focus from just eligibility to providing the necessary supports a child needs to succeed within the General Education classroom (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020). Hendricks & Fuchs (2020) believes that while RTI data can be used as a component of the SLD eligibility determination process, it should not be used as the only basis for determining a student’s eligibility. The RTI process does not supplant the need for a comprehensive evaluation. Schneider and Kaufman (2017) argues that while research supports using an RTI process to identify and help students who fall behind academically, a comprehensive evaluation is warranted after a number of rounds of well-executed interventions have failed.

Gartland and Strosnider (2020) believes the quality of RTI depends on the effectiveness of interventions, ability of educators to deliver effective interventions with fidelity, and educators’ ability to administer and interpret screening and progress-monitoring tools to accurately track progress. In my district we do not just use the discrepancy based on evaluation information only, we use previous testing data (classroom, state and district), and RTI in determining eligibility for special education due to noticing from previous years that a single measure or assessment is not sufficient to determine the presence of a disability. While RTI data provide valuable information, in isolation they are not equivalent to a comprehensive evaluation. Data from an RTI process should be part of the analysis, synthesis, and recommendations used for evaluation, identification, eligibility, and program planning (NJCLD, 2010).

References

Gartland, D. & Strosnider, R. (2020). The use of response to intervention to inform special education eligibility decisions for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4) 195–200. AN: 146317996

Hendricks, E. L, & Fuchs, D. (2020). Are individual differences in response to intervention influenced by the methods and measures used to define response? Implications for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022219420920379.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2010). Comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities. http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/ njcld/.

Schneider, W. J., & Kaufman, A. S. (2017). Let’s not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 8–20. https://academic. oup.com/acn/article/32/1/8/2720677.

4. Derycka

replied toAfreeka Wade

Hi Afreeka,

It is so important for not only a special education educator, but also the general education educator to have an understanding on how to support and identify scholars with special needs. Response to Intervention flourishes when educators implement the right practices for the right reasons. RTI has the potential to solve numerous problems that the ability–achievement discrepancy model could not. Raben & et al. (2019) research demonstrates that scholars who received RTI services have achieved their levels of competency in the areas assessed. Through this research, the researchers shown that the method of RTI classification increased support and services for scholars who were referred and increased their eligibility. With the experience that I can have seen is that RTI also provided a more culturally and linguistically diverse representation of students (Raben & et al., 2019). It also shows that scholars received improved differentiation in instruction across tiers and improved student responsiveness to the interventions. As educators become more educated to be aware on how to identify academic difficulties. RTI can better serve a diverse group of understanding scholars who are underachieving.

Reference

Raben, K., Brogan, J., Dunham, M., & Bloomdahl, S. C. (2019). Response to Intervention (RTI) and Changes in Special Education Categorization. Exceptionality Education International, 29(2), 59–71.

Bose, M., Kohli, N., Newell, K. W., & Christ, T. J. (2019). Response to Intervention: Empirical demonstration of a dual-discrepancy population via random effects mixture models. Learning and Individual Differences, 71, 23–30.

REPLY TO DISCUSSION

5. Lynnel Campos

Special education leaders should be available to assist with IEPs and provide support to special education teachers. I know that when I was right out of college with my special education degree, I had no idea how I would write an IEP, especially with the program that my district uses. I was given a special education leader to help support me which assisted me through my very first year but that doesn’t happen anymore. Our district doesn’t provide enough professional development for special education teachers. Last year I was asked to be a special education leader and of course I said yes because I want to help anyone that has questions. I was able to do that but there needs to be more change, so I was put on the board to help rewrite the special education manual for the district; putting the right support into place is imperative. I would like to do professional development on current laws as well as how to write an IEP so that parents can understand what is written in the IEP. I find that parents have so many questions about how the IEP is written and what everything means; this document should be fluid so that everyone knows exactly what is written.

IEP development, implementation, and evaluation are crucial to the continued success of students and educators; therefore, we must ensure that special education teachers are getting the correct professional development (Al-Shammari & Hornby, 2020). Providing staff to show how to do these things is crucial and giving the support needed to educators so that they can successfully learn and keep up to date with changes happening with law or withing the district. When things change in our district, we never meet to discuss the changes and often people don’t even know things have changed until they are being reprimanded. I am currently working to show special education teachers how to write and implement IEPs so that they aren’t continually doing things the wrong way.

Al-Shammari, Z., & Hornby, G. (2020). Special education teachers’ knowledge and experience of IEPs in the education of students with special educational needs. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 67(2), 167–181. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1620182

6. Maren Miller

I happened to be part of a district conversation about professional development at the beginning of the last school year and after a lengthy discussion about past professional developments and what strengths and weaknesses they had, I believe one of the best questions that were asked was “What do the teachers need?” Gathering data on what teachers are currently able to do and what skills they need to improve will help concentrate efforts on bringing the most effective and meaningful information to the people who need it. I have seen both teachers and administrators resist the attempt of gathering data as if it were an infringement of privacy or an unfair attempt of evaluating a teacher but having data will allow for a clearer picture of current needs. Data-based professional developments may be a way to improve teacher outcomes which will have a cascading effect on student achievement (Gesel et al., 2021).

Gesel, S. A., LeJeune, L. M., Chow, J. C., Sinclair, A. C., & Lemons, C. J. (2021). A meta-analysis of the impact of professional development on teachers’ knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy in data-based decision-making. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(4), 269–283.