Learning Disability - Essay Example

Introduction

A learning disability happens when a student has serious problems learning and progressing in school. These problems are usually attributed to difficulties in understanding some kinds of information. Hence a student is classified as 'learning disabled' because they are underachievers who cannot process complex information. Consequently, their underachievement is not because of bad teaching (external factors) but rather, how the student's brain processes information (internal factor).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Response To Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tier analytical tool used to help educators identify students with special learning needs (Björn et al., 2016). As a student assessment model, RTI is a student-centered method that pinpoints why students have learning problems and fix them (Fuchs, & Fuchs,2006). For instance, RTI may be used by schools to set standards by reorganizing teaching methods and curriculum. Students are then continuously assessed to ensure that the interventions facilitated by RTI are having a positive impact on academic performance (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). These interventions may be given by teachers with specialized skills or general educators.

Historical Development of RTI

According to the Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004(IDEA), the state government is responsible for determining a struggling student's criteria to be eligible for special education (Tomasello, & Brand, 2018). However, most school districts across the nation do not have to subject struggling students to formal evaluations before special education programs are placed. Instead, school districts tend to use the Response to Intervention (RTI) process to identify students struggling students who are not suited for regular classes.

In the past, schools used the discrepancy model to identify if a struggling student had a learning disorder (Hale et al., 2006). As an approach, it uses a combination of cognitive and academic performance testing. When there is a wide gap between intellect and academic achievement, this discrepancy is attributed to a learning disorder. The student is then placed in special education classes. However, the discrepancy model has weaknesses.

First, it's extremely difficult for assessors to accurately quantify what amounts to a 'severe discrepancy,' especially in struggling learners in the first or second grade. Academic performance for these youngsters is predicated on their cognitive development speed rather than their actual intellectual capacities. It takes several years for the discrepancy caused cognitive development differences to get 'even out.' Hence, the discrepancy model's academic and cognitive assessment instruments are not accurate or reliable enough to identify special needs learners at early ages.

Second, the discrepancy model is arbitrary when strict adherence to the severe discrepancy test classifies some students as having learning disorders while failing to diagnose students with a learning disorder. The RTI model emerged to address the discrepancy model(Preston et al.,2016 ).

In the RTI approach, differences between cognitive abilities and academic achievement are not proof of the scholar possessing learning disorders. Instead, a struggling student is put through three stages of appropriate interventions by teaching staff over a long time before they are declared "Learning Disorder Students" (LDS). It's vital to notice that the classroom interventions are 'mainstream' interventions and aren't intended to simulate education services. It's also important to notice that even with RTI, the student's underachievement should be associated with an underlying cognitive processing issue.

While RTI provides a way of identification that 'bypasses' the normal discrepancy model's common problems, it still has its weaknesses. First, there aren't any clear guidelines or objective means to determine what amounts to adequate intervention levels. Second, since it is subjective, some teachers instinctively provide appropriate interventions for struggling students to succeed. Other teachers simply do not have the skill set to generate appropriate interventions.

Moreover, students with lower cognitive abilities will struggle to keep up with their classmates despite these interventions. As such, some students with learning disorders may not be identified using RTI. Also, there is the danger of academic underachievers getting placed in special education programs even though they do not have a learning disorder. However, compared with the discrepancy model, RTI is better at identifying scholars who need special education because they are LDS.

Conceptualizing RTI

Most of the existing literature has a focus on describing an effective RTI program (Adelman & Taylor, 2011; Hill et al., 2012; Barrett and Van der Heyden, 2020; Swanson et al., 2012; Gardenhours, 2016; Denton et al., 2006; Powers and Mandal, 2011; Jenkins et al., 2013; Sanger et al., 2012; McKenzie, 2009; Hughes & Dexter, 2011; Björn et al., 2016; Fuchs, & Fuchs,2006).

Adelman and Taylor (2011) explain that RTI is a three-tier method that relies on research-based interventions. They explain that because it has three tiers, educators can identify struggling students who have learning disabilities. The writers maintain that in all three stages, classroom instruction must be both rigorous and research-based. As the instruction intensity goes up, the number of students in each of the tiers decreases.

According to Hill et al. (2012), standardized teaching is given to all the students in the classroom during the intervention's tier I phase. They explain that tier I last for about eight weeks, and it tends to meet the academic needs of most children struggling academically (Hill et al., 2012). In the process, students are periodically screened to create a behavioral and academic performance baseline. Struggling students are then provided with supplemental instruction. In the eight weeks tier, one of RTI is happening; the scholar's academic progress is monitored closely using a good screening system. Marked improvement in academic performance earns a struggling student to return to regular classes. For struggling students with no academic improvement, they are progressed into tier II of RTI.

About five to ten percent of students proceed to tier II (Hill et al., 2012; Turse and Albrecht, 2015). At this stage, they get more intense classroom instruction crafted to match their needs. Usually, Tier II classes are small remedial groups of academically underperforming students at the hands of educators with specialized skills to deal with struggling students who fail tier I. As a general rule, tier II interventions are in math and reading for children in kindergarten or those not past the third grade. The students who fail tier II are transitioned into tier III.

Tier III or tertiary intervention for students is extremely intensive (Hill et al., 2012). Approximately three to five percent of students need tier III interventions. It is centered on the comprehensive evaluation of each struggling student. Afterward, each one of them gets individual plans to remedy their lack of academic skills. A lack of academic performance improvement during tier III leads to a struggling student getting streamed into special education programs. Schools use different approaches in implementing RTI programs (Hill et al., 2012; Barrett and Van der Heyden, 2020). However, in all cases, RTI can be used throughout the school to allocate resources and improve students' outcomes efficiently.

According to Gardenhours (2016), an effective RTI model needs motivated teachers and standardized testing to identify students. In the opinion of Swanson et al. (2012), high-quality classroom instruction and standardized testing allow educators to insert into the curriculum learning interventions tailored to meet the individual needs of each student (Swanson et al., 2012; Gardenhours, 2016; Denton et al., 2006). The three tiers of RTI are presented as important to ensure high-quality classroom instruction.

According to Powers and Mandal (2011), without universal screening coupled with continuous assessment procedures, student growth cannot be quantified. Thus, the success of RTI hinges on its procedures (Powers and Mandal, 2011; Jenkins et al., 2013). To have educator teams decide which students are to be placed in the different tiers based on the collected data (Sanger et al., 2012). The literature concludes that effective RTI programs have research-based classroom instruction in the first tier and intensive student interventions in the second tier (McKenzie, 2009; Hughes & Dexter, 2011). The reasoning is that, first, academic programs become intensive and systematic for students in tier II. Second, RTI programs need individual student differentiation to be successful. Finally, to make learning outcomes positive in all three tiers, there must be continuous modeling and training.

Using RTI to Improve Learning in Mathematics

American teenagers are ranked thirty-first out of seventy-nine in math literacy (Richards,2020). Furthermore, the United States has a small fraction of the world's top-performing math students. Alarmingly, these trends in math scores have remained stagnant for the past two decades. The methods used to teach mathematics are widely blamed for why American students performed poorly compared to other nations with less education funding. American schools are criticized for focusing on teaching students' mathematical formulas and procedures (Richards,2020). For example, Professor Boaler criticizes the "geometry sandwich" American students are subjected to from the ninth to the 11th grade. In this approach, students are ignored.

There is a body of literature on the potential value of RTI in improving the mathematical performance of American children (Barrett and Van der Heyden, 2020; Bouck et al., 2019; Clarke et al., 2016; Codding et al.,2020; Dennis, 2015; Doabler et al., 2016; Fuchs and Fuchs,2006; Fuchs and Fuchs, 2017; Gersten, 2016; Hawkins et al.,2017; Van Der Heyden et al.,2015; Strand-Cary et al.,2017; Solomon et al., 2020).

According to Barret and Van der Heyden (2020), American students persistently score poorly in mathematics across all grades. They assert that these math scores can be improved using class-wide interventions. In their opinion, class-wide interventions develop math skills by helping children acquire foundational math skills at an early age. As children progress through the formal education system, they will have the skill set to tackle complex math problems. Moreover, they concluded that when class-wide interventions are part of the RTI process, it improves mathematic performances in schools with a high percentage of students who are not proficient in math (p.11).

Conclusion

Thus, according to Codding et al. (2020), the RTI process can improve elementary-aged children's math scores. They report that RTI programs can improve the math scores for elementary school children. Similarly, Dennis (2015) conducted studies on whether RTI interventions can help students with problems learning mathematics. They found that Tier 2 mathematical intervention improved scores for most students. The researcher also found intensified Tier 3 mathematical interventions worked best when they involved oneonone instruction for students with persistent difficulties learning mathematics.