Screening for secondary intervention: Concept and context

The article by Speece (in this issue) underscores the disappointing accuracy results of early screening for reading difficulties and argues that development conceptualized as rate of learning matters. We respond by emphasizing three points. First, the purpose of early screen-ing could be identifying students not at risk so that instructional objectives can be established for students potentially at risk. Second, monitoring progress in mastering the alphabetic principle is reflected in item-based learning. Third, response to instruction is multilevel and contextualized. These points are illustrated with data from an early reading assessment used widely in Texas and from high-performing/high-poverty schools in Texas that serve as models of multitiered instruction. The focus on response to instruc-tion is a welcome departure fromthe IQ–achievement discrepancy approach to classifying students as learning disabled because of the lat-ter’s “wait-to-fail ” approach and sta-tistical shortcomings. The articles dis-cussed in this section on screening for secondary intervention provide cau-tions and suggestions for how to im