The RTI initiative was originally, I believe, aimed precisely at adopting a 
 different approach than the deficit one. The idea was originally, 
according to  articles by people like Jack Fletcher, specifically to enable the 
whole  environment to be considered and for us to move away from the assumption 
that  'failure' must mean deficit; that we must always seek to find a fault 
in the  student, even his neurology. Recent literature seems to show that 
RTI has  been subverted and is now being deployed as a measure which is used 
to  'identify, a 'deficit' in exactly the way the discredited discrepancy 
criterion  was in the bad old days. For discrepancy read RTI, in other words, 
which had not  been the point originally, as I understood it.
 
Hugo


at: _http://www.hugokerr.info_ (http://www.hugokerr.info/) 

"We're here to help each other get  through this thing - whatever it might 
be." (Kurt Vonnegut) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20091103/75c5474b/attachment.html