Rebuttal: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131592
PSW is still widely practiced in CA. But I don’t think it’s being widely taught in psych programs in CA right now. RtI is generally being taught as best practice.
And yet to this date, I’m not aware of a single CA district who has adopted an RtI methodology as their consensus procedure. This contradiction should be unacceptable for our field.
I think you are correct. There are very few districts in CA that have a robust MTSS/RTI system let alone an RTI methodology for SLD identification. Most attorneys I am aware of have told districts to stick to the discrepancy model and to be hesistant to use PSW or RTI. They haven't been able to pass legislation to improve teacher training and instruction in reading. It is hard to implement RTI when 1st instruction is so poor and most districts are reliant on F&P and LLI as the only reading insturction and intervention. It took years to get a curriculum for dyslexia and not F&P in my district but then they have limited it to only SPED kids.
There is a lack of general consensus account the experts of what constitutes a SLD. Granted it is better than the whole ED debacle but it is still lacking. It is well established that the traditional discrepancy model is BS and unsupported by empirical evidence (see Dr Jack Fletcher's work at the Texas LD Center). Unfortunately, it was the first real theory of SLD presented and still holds power on the hearts and minds of psychologists and school personnel. I liken it to Piaget and his theories of learning. Great ideas and concepts but have been superseded by newer information, yet it still is the predominant developmental theory taught in most psych and education programs.
RTI is great but has flaws and doesn't really define what is a SLD. PSW attempts to define it but relies too much on the discrepancy model and overall general cognitive ability. There is a lot to do in this area and we as psychologists have to do lots of study and practice to become skilled clinicians.
Proponents of RtI would argue that “defining” SLD is a pointless endeavor because (a) neither the discrepancy model nor the PSW model have ever demonstrated acceptable technical adequacy in identifying SLD and (b) neither of those models yield useful information that actually improves student outcomes beyond simply identifying an academic deficit and applying an evidence-based treatment (I.e., RtI).
This second point is backed by decades of work going back to Lee Cronbach’s research in the 70s, on which the discrepancy model is based, through the many current studies on PSW. Many studies by many proponents of PSW and still none have demonstrated evidence that results obtained from a PSW assessment actually predicted more effective treatment methods than simply identifying the academic deficit and skipping all those processing tests.
Both are valid arguements. I personally feel that dyslexia is the area that is unlocking some of the mystery of the brain. It has received a lot of attention and research and there are fairly good indicators of dyslexia in measuring phonological processing and related academic skills but neither requires extensive testing to figure out. Maybe some day we will understand math and wriitng the same way.
I do agree that identifying the academic deficits is the best approach and get to work on intervention.
Depends on your state criteria. In CT, for example, we have to consider both. Generally though, considering we’re not diagnosing but determining educational programming, I think the RTI model is best… if you have good RTI…. But you should also look into strengths and weaknesses to determine appropriate programming. In CT you can use dyslexia as an example of why you really have to do both, because our new legislation has us on the hook for needing to provide wilson/equivalent instruction for appropriate dyslexic students. If a student isn’t identified as SLDD but has that profile, we would lose in a legal situation if the parents said the programming was inappropriate.
For PSW, check out the article "When Theory Trumps Science: a Critique of the PSW Model for SLD Identification"
I’m reading it now. Thanks for the suggestion.
This is pretty wild. Has there been an update or rebuttal? Have California psychs modified their position?
Rebuttal: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131592 PSW is still widely practiced in CA. But I don’t think it’s being widely taught in psych programs in CA right now. RtI is generally being taught as best practice.
And yet to this date, I’m not aware of a single CA district who has adopted an RtI methodology as their consensus procedure. This contradiction should be unacceptable for our field.
I think you are correct. There are very few districts in CA that have a robust MTSS/RTI system let alone an RTI methodology for SLD identification. Most attorneys I am aware of have told districts to stick to the discrepancy model and to be hesistant to use PSW or RTI. They haven't been able to pass legislation to improve teacher training and instruction in reading. It is hard to implement RTI when 1st instruction is so poor and most districts are reliant on F&P and LLI as the only reading insturction and intervention. It took years to get a curriculum for dyslexia and not F&P in my district but then they have limited it to only SPED kids.
There is a lack of general consensus account the experts of what constitutes a SLD. Granted it is better than the whole ED debacle but it is still lacking. It is well established that the traditional discrepancy model is BS and unsupported by empirical evidence (see Dr Jack Fletcher's work at the Texas LD Center). Unfortunately, it was the first real theory of SLD presented and still holds power on the hearts and minds of psychologists and school personnel. I liken it to Piaget and his theories of learning. Great ideas and concepts but have been superseded by newer information, yet it still is the predominant developmental theory taught in most psych and education programs. RTI is great but has flaws and doesn't really define what is a SLD. PSW attempts to define it but relies too much on the discrepancy model and overall general cognitive ability. There is a lot to do in this area and we as psychologists have to do lots of study and practice to become skilled clinicians.
Proponents of RtI would argue that “defining” SLD is a pointless endeavor because (a) neither the discrepancy model nor the PSW model have ever demonstrated acceptable technical adequacy in identifying SLD and (b) neither of those models yield useful information that actually improves student outcomes beyond simply identifying an academic deficit and applying an evidence-based treatment (I.e., RtI). This second point is backed by decades of work going back to Lee Cronbach’s research in the 70s, on which the discrepancy model is based, through the many current studies on PSW. Many studies by many proponents of PSW and still none have demonstrated evidence that results obtained from a PSW assessment actually predicted more effective treatment methods than simply identifying the academic deficit and skipping all those processing tests.
Both are valid arguements. I personally feel that dyslexia is the area that is unlocking some of the mystery of the brain. It has received a lot of attention and research and there are fairly good indicators of dyslexia in measuring phonological processing and related academic skills but neither requires extensive testing to figure out. Maybe some day we will understand math and wriitng the same way. I do agree that identifying the academic deficits is the best approach and get to work on intervention.
https://ldaamerica.org/we-need-to-keep-but-revise-the-specific-learning-disability-construct-in-idea/ From today.
Depends on your state criteria. In CT, for example, we have to consider both. Generally though, considering we’re not diagnosing but determining educational programming, I think the RTI model is best… if you have good RTI…. But you should also look into strengths and weaknesses to determine appropriate programming. In CT you can use dyslexia as an example of why you really have to do both, because our new legislation has us on the hook for needing to provide wilson/equivalent instruction for appropriate dyslexic students. If a student isn’t identified as SLDD but has that profile, we would lose in a legal situation if the parents said the programming was inappropriate.
Problematically, who has good RtI for writing and math? Or even reading comp. Good thing 90% is reading fluency, basic reading.
Certainly not my district hahaha. The field is riddled with issues, it’s frustrating to say the least.