Reference no: EM131547376

DIRECTIONS: READ THE FOLLOWING STUDENT POST AND RESPOND. CITE REFERENCES USING APA FORMAT PLEASE

Discussion 

Regardless of an individual IQ level, SES, or their history, it is imperative that every person has an opportunity to get a great education. Presently, in the United States, the educational system has a model called the response to intervention model.

The response to intervention model (RtI) is a three level prevention structure that identifies students that are at risk at reaching their potential. RtI is an evidence-based intervention which adjusts teaching "on the basis of student responsiveness" (Cohen., Swerdlik, &Sturman, 2013 p. 358).

On the first tier of RtI teachers teach evidence-based techniques to a classroom. The second level, if a student is identified as needing intervention, then they are put in a small group to get special teaching. The third level is one on one instruction for students who have failed to make progress in the first two levels. RtI goal is to support the learning process for all students.

A concerns with RtI when identifying students suspected of having a learning disability is that RtI is left to states and individual school districts for implementation. This can cause an unequal balance for students from a high funding school versus students in a lower funding school districts.

Students in overcrowded school and low funding schools may not get the services they need. A second concern is that there is no real guideline when students should move on from one level to the next and what test determine the access for student intervention. Lastly, who determines the role of what school personals play in helping, detecting, and providing intervention using the RtI model is not clear when identifying students suspected as having a learning disability (Cohen et al., 2013).

Diagnostic test "is a tool used to identify areas of deficit to be targeted for intervention" (Cohen et al., 2013, p.381). However, there are certain limitations that result from using diagnostic tests. "Diagnostic tests do not necessarily provide information that will answer questions concerning why a learning difficulty exists" (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 382).

This can be an issue for some individuals, especially if their learning disability stem from neurological reasons. Usually, diagnostic test are administered to students who have already shown a "problem with a particular subject area through poor performance either in the classroom or on some achievement test" (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 382).

Another issue can be that the individual has never been expose to the information that was on the diagnostic test. Therefore, diagnostic test "contain simpler items than achievement tests designed for use with members of the same grade" (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 382). A check and balance to this dilemma could be the Curriculum-based measurement (CBM). CBM is a "standardized measurement procedures to derive local norms to be used in the evaluation of student performance on curriculum-based tasks" (p. 368)

However, there are strengths in using tests for progress monitoring. For instance, "diagnostic information can be used for evaluative purposes, and information form evaluative tests can provide diagnostic information" (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 382) For example, a math placement test can help teachers know what level each student should be place in.

A second strength is that numerous tests and subtest can help pinpoint where each student excels in or need more support. A third strength in using tests for progress monitoring is it takes into account for test fairness and biases. Many tests and assessments can be given to individuals that have disabilities, language barriers, and other variables.

These tests and assessment are comparable to the standardized test and assessments (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014). Another strengths is that many test and assessment are available in different formats such as computers, audio, voice input or other technology devices. These devices may be user friendly with many individuals that need accommodations.

It is in my opinion that is great that there is a three level prevention structure that identifies students that are at risk at reaching their potential. One recommendation that I have for the use of RtI model that it should be standardized across all educational system. This can help prevent unfairness to students that need services.

Especially, when evaluating someone for a learning disability schools should use a "variety of assessment tools and strategies" (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 359). Using an assortment of tools and approaches in addition to a team of individuals that have input before a student is labeled with a learning disability will help with biases and unfairness. Additionally, it will give students an opportunity to a great education.

Reference

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., &Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.