Literacy Journal - Response to Intervention

My original field of study was learning disabilities, and I was fortunate enough to study under some of the leading researchers of the day. Of the day... now there's the catch. I did my training in the early to mid 1980s, at a time when learning disabilities were identified by a statistically significant gap between performance/achievement and ability, in the absence of underlying factors. As a theory this definition works; it's basically saying that learning disabilities are significant disorders in learning that cannot be explained by other factors such as sensory impairment or mental retardation. The newer RTI (Response to Intervention) model for identifying learning disabilities puts the focus more squarely on learning and intervention, which is, after all, where the work must happen.

The new brain research on learning disabilities is tremendously exciting. What was once merely speculated about is now being documented. "Dyslexia and the brain: what does current research tell us?" (Hudson, High & al Otaiba) manages to convey some complicated ideas in clear, comprehensible language. I found particularly exciting the research by Shaywitz that suggests that, with targeted, intensive intervention, children with reading disabilities show increased activation of left hemisphere regions associated with fluent reading, and less compensatory activation in right hemisphere regions.

The bottom line is that individuals with reading disabilities need targeted, explicit, and systematic interventions in order to become competent readers. They are not simply on a slower developmental track. What this means to educators is that we must first "catch" reading disabilities, probably through a combination of screenings and classroom observations and assessments. This is essentially step 1 of the "RTI Processes" as laid out by Mesmer and Mesmer in "Response to intervention: what teachers of reading need to know." Steps 2-4 outline progressively more intensive levels of intervention instruction, always paired with ongoing assessment to measure the actual "response to intervention." If a student fails to make adequate progress despite research-based interventions, then the process for considering eligibility for special education services may begin, step 5 of the Mesmer and Mesmer model.

What I like most about this model is that intervention begins as soon as reading difficulties are suspected. Diagnosis is not the issue, at least initially; helping the student to learn is. Time is not lost, gathering data over a length of time, nor is intervention delayed until the discrepancy between achievement and ability becomes statistically significant. If RTI is implemented properly, any student who is struggling with reading, for example, will begin to receive additional help. Whether it is found that the reading problems stem from a lack of prior instruction, a reading disability, or some factor, an RTI approach offers immediate help, and, perhaps, hope.