The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004)1 changed the requirements for the identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD) in children.
New regulations were released in August 2006 and became effective in October 2006. These new regulations give states the option to discontinue the use of IQ-achievement discrepancy (which eliminates the requirement for IQ tests as part of the learning disability (LD) identification process) and allow states to use response-to-intervention (RTI) as part of the LD identification process.
IDEA 2004 permits districts to use up to 15% of their special education monies to fund early intervention activities. These changes are important because they: 1) potentially increase identification of the number and types of SLD children; 2) improve prospects for the kinds of education services provided; and 3) offer guidance on who delivers these services.2
The controversy around the IQ-achievement discrepancy method helped inspire the new SLD requirements in IDEA 2004. The law states, in part:
- IN GENERAL — Notwithstand-ing section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.
- ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY — In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3).3
The use of RTI is optional (“may use”) and the IQ-achievement discrepancy model may still be employed by school districts; the change is that school districts now have the option of choosing to refrain from using the discrepancy model.
RTI has been broadly defined as a process in which students are provided quality instruction. Those who do not respond appropriately are provided additional instruction and their progress is monitored; and those who continue to not respond appropriately are considered for special education services.4 RTI also has been described as the degree to which a student, who has been identified as at-risk for academic or behavioral problems and has been provided with intervention, has benefited from the intervention and eliminated or considerably reduced his or her at-risk status.5
In short, RTI is a new, alternative method to identify children with learning disabilities. RTI methods are grounded in behavioral and single-subject experimental psychology and require data-based decision making derived from observable and measurable outcomes instead of unseen etiologies.6 RTI helps to answer an important question: Are the child’s learning difficulties related to poor or ineffective instruction?
Initially, a subgroup of at-risk students is identified (schools use several different strategies to accomplish this), usually in the first month of the school year.7 The students’ responsiveness to general education instruction is then monitored and assessed at the end of a relatively short period (e.g., eight weeks) of classroom instruction.8
The children found to be “unresponsive” to classroom instruction are then given more intensive instruction at a second tier and are again assessed to determine their responsiveness to instruction. The information gathered during this process assists practitioners in designing early intervention and identifying children who may benefit from special education services. Teachers can also use the data to determine whether they need to change their curricula, materials or instructional procedures.9
The move from using solely an IQ-achievement discrepancy model has followed from two major criticisms: that it represents a wait-to-fail model antithetical to early intervention (in that children must fall dramatically behind their peers before being identified as SLD) and that the low achievement of children is presumed to reflect a shortcoming on their part when, more times than not, it actually reflects poor teaching.10 In principle, RTI should decrease the number of children incorrectly identified as disabled because it encourages appropriate use of evidence-based instruction.11
With the IDEA 2004 changes, response-to-intervention will become a central issue in our schools. The move toward data-based decision making for struggling students is a step in the right direction; however, it can only be successful if general education teachers receive training on how to use scientifically based methods and how to collect data on students’ progress.
The limited research appears to be promising; however, more needs to be done for RTI to become common practice. The standards for what RTI looks like and how to implement it need to be more clearly defined, as do the specifications for determining whether a student is responding appropriately or inappropriately to instruction.
The move away from IQ-achievement discrepancy models is a welcome one, but it must improve identification and treatment of students affected by it. This change will prove important as parents and advocates work with schools to identify and treat children with learning disabilities. And it is refreshing to see that educators will begin to look at the whole picture and to consider that the problem may lie with the teaching, instead of solely with the student.
n
Heather Rekhi is a partner at The Rekhi Law Firm, PLLC in Seattle. She is a former public defender and holds a master’s degree in special education from the University of Washington. Her practice focuses on criminal defense and special education law.
1 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.
2 Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L.S., Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how valid is it?, Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99 (2006).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (b)(6).
4 Fuchs, et al., Responsiveness-to-intervention: definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–71, 159 (2003).
5 Linan-Thompson, et al., The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 390–98 (2006).
6 Hale, et al., Implementation of IDEA: integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods, Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753–70, 754 (2006).
7 Fuchs & Fuchs, supra note 2, at 93.
8 Id. at 94.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 96.
11 Id.
