I am very encouraged by the Response to Intervention (
RTI) article written by Mesmer and Mesmer. Over the years the increase in students diagnosed with a learning disability has been alarming; even more so the fact that once diagnosed, students seemed to never be able to shake the label. Mesmer and Mesmer explained the discrepancy model in which students were tested to determine if their achievement matched their ability. In order for help to be prescribed, it required that a "learning problem becomes . . . acute in terms of an IQ/achievement discrepancy." Critics have called this "waiting to fail," (pg. 280). In the attempt to diagnose a student with a learning disability, precious time was lost in which a helpful intervention could have been administered.
The fact that, through the
RTI model, a student can be recognized as lagging behind peers and norms, and thereby receive much needed intervention, early in the school year, seems so much more
beneficial. And to be able to help the child without labeling him/her, seems to offer real support for the child's future academic success.
I was especially encouraged by Mark's vignette that Mesmer and Mesmer described. The teacher was not on her own to help her student. There was a team of specialist in place. When the student did not respond adequately to the support he was given, the team changed their approach. Furthermore, the group brought different dynamics to the intervention. I appreciated the reading specialist who insisted that comprehension not be sacrificed for reading fluency. Chris
Tovani spoke of this in her book
I Read It But I Don't Get It. "Decoding is not comprehending," (pg. 17). In Marks' case, the reading specialist wanted to make sure that Mark didn't gain the ability to read words while losing the ability to understand them.
I am very encouraged by this growing trend for intervention in our schools.