TPC _Journal-Vol6_Issue_3-MTSS-Full_Issue

The Professional Counselor /Volume 6, Issue 3 244 involved in schoolwide data management systems for documentation and decisions; however, the majority (64%) reported they were either not prepared or somewhat prepared (26% and 38%, re- spectively) to fulfill such a role. Likewise, although 52% of practitioners reported that they are now required to collaborate with colleagues as part of an RTI team, 49% of them indicated that they were either not prepared (16%) or somewhat prepared (33%) to engage in effective teamwork within an RTI model. In addition, results from the regression analysis indicated the importance of role clarity and educational leadership, with school counselors having a more positive view of RTI if they them- selves had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the RTI framework, and also when they considered school leaders to be positive and knowledgeable about this initiative. Discussion The integration of RTI into districts and schools has influenced professional practices, including the work of the school counselor. Study participants indicated the ways in which their roles and responsi- bilities have changed under RTI, as well as their beliefs and perceptions of preparedness to work in a multi-tiered framework. Data analysis highlights a number of needs and incongruities for the field of school counseling. We address these contradictions and highlight their represented needs in relation to pre-service and in-service preparation. Contradictions: Disability Identification The results of this study suggest noteworthy contradictions that merit further exploration. First, many school counselors believe that RTI is the best option to support struggling learners and that RTI is a vehicle for identifying students with SLD. Yet, only a quarter of participants agreed that data gar- nered through RTI is sufficient for learning disability determination. We postulate this incongruence may be the result of an ongoing debate between school professionals regarding the process of identi- fying students with SLD (McKenzie, 2009; Reschly, 2003; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002). Historically, the process of SLD identification involved standardized testing to determine if there was a signifi- cant discrepancy between a student’s intelligence (as measured by standardized IQ tests) and levels of achievement (as measured by standardized achievement tests). However, many researchers and practitioners have objected to this method, citing the rapid increase in the identification of SLD since 1975 (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and the cultural and racial biases still inherent in IQ testing, leading to the over-representation of minorities in special education classrooms (Francis, Fletcher, & Morris, 2003). In addition, this method is perceived as “wait to fail” diagnostics, since a significant discrepancy between IQ and achievement is not typically established until grade three or higher, past the crucial early intervention window (Mellard, Deshler, & Barth, 2004). This contentious discourse is reflected in varying state regulations, with some allowing for discrepancy testing (e.g., Illinois and Idaho) while others legally forbid its use (e.g., Colorado and Indiana; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). Thus, participants’ responses might be reflective of the lack of consensus in relation to best practice in identifying students with SLD. Furthermore, the majority of surveyed school counselors believed RTI can improve academic outcomes, but were less inclined to believe that RTI can improve behavioral outcomes, and were even less convinced that RTI is the best option to support students with social-emotional concerns. When RTI was originally referenced in the 2004 IDEA reauthorization (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004), it was promoted with an academic focus as an alternative or supportive means of identifying students with learning disabilities. There was no reference in the law to identifying students with emotional or behavioral disabilities, nor was there reference to a system of supports for social-emotional and behavioral needs. However, the natural alignment of the tiered frameworks of RTI with PBIS encouraged some states to mandate a multi-tiered system of supports