RTIs, Dyslexia, and more

As you read the variety of articles for next time, focus on making connections between the Mesmer and Mesmer article on RTI and at least one of the other assigned readings. What conceptual similarities or differences do you see?

Mesmer and Mesmer outline the Response to Intervention process, its theory, and present an example of its implementation. The Hudson article discusses dyslexia, the brain, and how to help individuals with the condition. The most obvious conceptual similarity is both articles seem to suggest a ‘holistic’ approach for determining whether intervention is necessary. Mesmer and Mesmer discuss the many problems of the antiquated discrepancy model, while Hudson addresses misconceptions about dyslexia. Both articles are in favor of the IDEA and want children to get help they may need. Another similarity comes within the type of help. Both favor interventions with assessments. Specifically, the interventions serve a purpose and should be carefully designed to support the child. Hudson dispels a misconception that a person with dyslexia can never learn to read. He says systematic, intense instruction helps children with dyslexia. Similarly, the goal of the RTI model is to provide scientifically valid intervention, and individualized interventions for students who continue to struggle (Mesmer and Mesmer, p. 283).

A conceptual difference exists between the articles when Hudson relies strongly on using neurobiology to explain the consequences of dyslexia. It can be said that Hudson straddles the line between arguing that dyslexia interventions may be largely ineffective because of the biological structure of the child’s brain. However, he transitions into providing examples of interventions which, he argues, are effective because they directly target the brain’s biology. This is in contrast to Mesmer and Mesmer who focus more on how the child responds to an intervention and rely on continuing assessments to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. Some resolution to this difference is brought at the end of the Hudson article, when he mentions that relying on fMRI scans, and other medical assessments, are not feasible for most interventions.

I liked both of these articles, and I feel I have a better understanding of RTIs. I know that when I respond to a student, I need to examine the student deeply, and rely on systematic, targeted interventions. It would be easy to just say, “I think the child would benefit from this type of intervention,” but, as these articles make clear, you should have solid reasoning for why the interventions are being used. Or as IDEA outlines, and Mesmer and Mesmer explain, there is scientific validity to the intervention you employ. Additionally, as Hudson reminds me, for children not responding to intervention, attempt individualized interventions.