We investigated U.S. state and national trends in the enrollment of students ages 6 to 21 years under the specific learning disability (SLD) category across 15 consecutive school years (2005–2006 to 2019–2020). We used multi-level modeling to estimate the effects of state and time on SLD enrollment and conducted a policy analysis of three states (Rhode Island, Kansas, and New Mexico) to examine changes in SLD policy (including Response to Intervention) in conjunction with trends in enrollment. Results indicate significant differences in SLD enrollment between states in the initial year and significant decreases in SLD enrollment over time, but no significant differences in the change in SLD enrollment between states. Results from the policy analysis suggest that the state policy context (including legal requirements in the SLD evaluation process), type of RTI model, and method of SLD evaluation can affect SLD enrollment. We discuss these results within the context of increased variability in RTI models.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
2.
BerkeleyS.ScanlonD.BaileyT. R.SuttonJ. C.SaccoD. M. (2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 332–342.
3.
BocalaC.MelloD.ReedyK.Lacireno-PaquetN. (2009). Features of state response to intervention initiatives in Northeast and Islands Region states (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 083). U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2009083.pdf
4.
BradleyM. C.DaleyT.LevinM.O’ReillyR.ParsadA.RobertsonA.WernerA. (2011). IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-4027). U. S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/pdf/20114027.pdf
5.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. 20 U.S.C. §§6301-8961. (2015).
6.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
7.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157–171.
8.
Harr-RobinsJ. J.ShambaughL. S.ParrishT. (2009). The status of state-level response to intervention policies and procedures in the West Region states and five other states (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 077). U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
9.
HauerwasL. B.BrownR.ScottA. N. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 101–120.
10.
HudsonT. M.McKenzieR. G. (2016). The impact of RTI on timely identification of students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 46–58.
11.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2020). Specific learning disabilities identification: Do the identification methods and data matter?Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 63–74.
12.
MakiK. E.FloydR. G.RobersonR. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 457–469.
13.
Martinez v. State of New Mexico, U.S. App. LEXIS 35296. (2020).
14.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2007, January). Questions and answers on Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS) [Policy letter]. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/07-0021.RTI_.pdf
15.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2011). A Response to Intervention (RTI) process cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [Policy memo]. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Sage.
19.
ReschlyD. J. (2014). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 39–58. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000003
20.
RuffiniS. J.MiskellR.LindsayJ.McInerneyM.WaiteW. (2016). Measuring the implementation fidelity of the response to intervention framework in Milwaukee public schools (REL 2017-192). Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. (2013). State nonfiscal survey of public elementary/secondary education,” 1990-91 through 2011-12. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.20.asp
24.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. (2020). State nonfiscal survey of public elementary/secondary education,” 1990-91 through 2018-19. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_203.20.asp
25.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. (2021). Public elementary/secondary school universe survey,” 2019-20, provisional version 1a. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_summary_2.asp#f2
26.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137–146.
27.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2011). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education?Remedial and Special Education, 32, 167–175.
28.
YellM. L.WalkerD. W. (2010). The legal basis of response to intervention: Analysis and implications. Exceptionality, 18(3), 124–137.
