The document compares and contrasts the response-to-intervention (RTI) model and the severe discrepancy model for identifying learning disabilities. The RTI model emphasizes quality classroom instruction and uses early intervention and curriculum-based assessments to identify disabilities before students fall behind. However, it lacks formal evaluation processes. The severe discrepancy model objectively diagnoses disabilities once they are severe, but students often receive no intervention until that point. The author argues the RTI model is preferable as it aims to address problems early through intervention rather than waiting until issues become severe.

1. RTI vs. the Discrepancy Model
Britney Perryman
Like all educational theories, experiments, and models, both the response-to-intervention model
and the severe discrepancy model have their positive and negative sides.
The response-to-intervention model pros has researched-based components. It emphasizes
quality of instruction in general education classrooms, which, in turn, forces schools to be more
effective mainstream learning environments. The RTI model seeks to identify a child’s disability
before the child falls behind. It uses curriculum-based measurement that would not distract
teaching from teaching in order to perform outside, unnecessary testing. Another positive of the
RTI model is that it would reduce the amount of incorrect referrals. However, this model does
not have any formal means of processing evaluation and could be greatly influenced by outside
individuals who wish to have the child labeled or identified.
Severe discrepancy seems limited in its pros for me. I will say it is an objective, easy to
understand, statistically based evaluation used to predict a learning disability’s population and
allows students to only be assessed once. When using this model, severe learning disabilities are
accurately diagnosed. But that’s about where it’s attributes end. Unfortunately, the identification
of their disability is identified much too late. Instead, students continuously fall behind with no
intervention until the meet the severe discrepancy limit is met. In addition, imprecise screening is
attached to the severe discrepancy model as no true score is revealed through its assessment.
Lastly, this model has a greater likelihood of having unidentified students (gifted students’
disabilities being overlooked because of their giftedness) and over identification of students (as
some argue the IQ test is still culturally biased.)
My school would definitely use the response-to-intervention model based off the simple fact that
I want to stop a problem before it starts. Teachers need to pay close attention to each student’s
progress. As soon as it is noticed that a child has a problem some type of intervention needs to
undergone. We should not just sit back and watch a child fall lower and lower in a hole then
once they reach 50 feet decide to help dig them out. My school would require that we provide a
quality education to our students and the response-to-intervention model seeks to do just that.
Three main elements are shared by all three tiers: high-quality instruction, frequent progress
monitoring, and data-based decision making. The RTI process limits the number of special
education referral by identifying students with LD early on in their educational career. This
Intervention provides opportunities for addition instruction for those struggling to academically
excel.
Most models follow a 3-tier model: Tier 1(class or school-wide interventions), Tier 2 (targeted
interventions), and Tier 3(special education). Some use a 4-tier model which includes replaces
special education at Tier to intensive individual intervention and places special education at Tier
4. This model provides more individualized intervention opportunities. Though most student
respond to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions, a small selection progress to Tier 3. The
interventions at this tier are provided by skilled special education teachers .In addition to the
elements shared by all tiers, Tier 3 intervention includes increased intensity , increased
explicitness, and a low student-teacher ration.

2. Students referred to Tier 3 intervention often lack phonological awareness, alphabetic principle,
vrbal knowledge, and motivation to read. Students should then receive research-validated
reading interventions as systematic instruction, explicit instruction, immediate corrective
feedback, frequent review, and multiple opportunities for practice. Scaffolding is also very
important. Goal setting for progress monitoring is very essential.
Schools and districts should be aware of their communication with the parents of the children
being referred and the students’ cultural differences that may lead to misidentification. When
delivering Tier 3 intervention is essential that teachers communicate with parents or guardians.
Open-lines of communications should directly explain the RTI process, share information of the
child’s progress, discuss instructional decisions, and inform parents of their rights under IDEA.
To lessen the issue f misidentification, schools should understand and respond to cultural
differences, measure the student’s language proficiency, determine the cause of the student’s
reading problem, and administer nonbiased assessments.