The policies underlying the specific learning disability (SLD) regulations in the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are analyzed. The analysis focuses on the Response-to-Intervention (RTI) provision (“if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention”) as a diagnostic model, revealing that it is conceptually flawed, practically inadequate, and politically rather than scientifically motivated. It is argued that RTI is best described as a model for providing remedial reading (prereferral) services for students experiencing early reading failure. To achieve a reliable and valid diagnosis of SLD under IDEA, it is argued that a comprehensive psychometric assessment is required. With a model that combines RTI and cognitive assessments, it is possible to provide an identification process that closely aligns with the best current conceptualizations of SLD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronP. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
2.
ArdoinS. P.WittH. J. C.ConnellJ. E.KoenigJ. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.
3.
BarnettD. W.DalyE. J.JonesK. M.LentzF. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special services decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.
4.
BarnettD. W.ElliottN.GradenJ.IbloT.MacmannG.NantaisM.PrasseD. (2006). Technical adequacy for response to intervention practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 20–31.
5.
BatemanB. D. (2007). Law and the conceptual foundations of special education practice. In CrockettJ. B.GerberM. M.LandrumT. J. (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 95–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
BatscheG.ElliottJ.GradenJ.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ.PrasseD.ReschlyD.SchragJ.TillyD. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
7.
BatscheG. M.KavaleK. A.KovaleskiJ. F. (2006). Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6–19.
8.
BergmannG. (1961). Sense and nonsense in operationism. In FrankP. G. (Ed.), The validation of scientific theories (pp. 45–56). New York: Collier.
9.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In LyonG. R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 163–184). Baltimore: Brookes.
10.
BoardmanA. G.VaughnS. (2007). Response to intervention as a framework for prevention and identification of learning disabilities: Which comes first, identification or intervention? In CrockettJ. B.GerberM. M.LandrumT. J. (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 15–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.DoolittleJ. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.
12.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
BuckG. H.PollowayE. A.Smith-ThomasA.CookK. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349–360.
14.
BurnsM. K.AppletonJ. J.StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducatinoal Assessment, 23, 381–394.
15.
BurnsM. K.SenesacB. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.
16.
BurnsM. K.SymingtonT. (2002). A meta-analysis of prereferral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 437–447.
17.
BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2006). Using response to intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3–5.
18.
BurnsM. K.VanderwoodM. L.RubyS. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of pre-referral intervention teams for use in a problem solving model. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89–105.
19.
Collaborative Project. (November, 2006). New roles in response to intervention: Creating success for schools and children. Available from www.nasponline.org/advocacy/newroles.pdf
20.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992). Special education and school restructuring. Concerns, 35, 1–7.
21.
CortiellaC. (2006, August). NCLB and IDEA: What parents of students with disabilities need to know and do. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
DeanV. J.BurnsM. K.GrialovT.VarroP. J. (2006). Comparison of ecological validity of learning disabilities diagnostic models. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 157–168.
24.
DentonC. A.VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211.
25.
DeshlerD. D.MellardD. F.TollefsonJ. M.ByrdS. E. (2005). Research topics in responsiveness to intervention: Intervention to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 483–484.
26.
DombrowskiS. C.KamphausR. W.ReynoldsC. R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364–372.
27.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
FinlanT. G. (1994). Learning disability: The imaginary disease. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
29.
FinnC. E.RotherhamA. J.HokansonC. R. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
30.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C.DyndaA. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807–825.
31.
FletcherJ. M.CoulterW. A.ReschlyD. J.VaughnS. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304–331.
32.
FletcherJ. M.DentonC.FrancisD. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.
33.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.BarnesM.StuebingK. K.FrancisD. J.OlsonR. K.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185–261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
FletcherJ. M.ReschlyD. J. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of perpetuating old ideas. The School Psychologist, 59, 10–15.
35.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.LyonG. R.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
36.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 129–136.
37.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D.ReschlyD. J. (2004). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 189–195.
38.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61.
39.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92–99.
40.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
41.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.McMasterK. N.Al OtaibaS. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and dual discrepancy approach. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 431–449). New York: Guilford.
42.
FuchsD.YoungC. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.
43.
FuchsL. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172–186.
44.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
45.
GartnerA.LipskyD. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
46.
GerstenR.DiminoJ. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99–108.
47.
GrenzS. (1996). A primer on postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
48.
GreshamF. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49.
HaleJ. B.FiorelloC. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner's handbook. New York: Guilford Press.
50.
HollenbeckA. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 137–146.
51.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004), [Amending 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq.].
JohnsonE.MellardD. F.FuchsD.McKnightM. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention: How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from www.nrcld.org
54.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2001). Assessment of specific learning disabilities in the new millennium: Issues, conflicts, and controversies. In KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 433–461). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
55.
KauffmanJ. M. (2004). The President's Commission and the devaluation of special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 307–324.
56.
KauffmanJ. M. (2005). Waving to Ray Charles: Missing the meaning of disability. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 520–521, 524.
57.
KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.). (2005). The illusion of full inclusion (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
58.
KauffmanJ. M.KonoldT. R. (2007). Making sense in education: Pretense (including NCLB) and realities in rhetoric about schools and schooling. Exceptionality, 15, 75–96.
59.
KauffmanJ. M.WileyA. L. (2004). How the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE) devalues special education. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 3–6.
60.
KavaleK. A. (1995). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 145–152.
61.
KavaleK. A. (2002). Discrepancy models in identification of learning disability. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369–426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62.
KavaleK. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553–562.
63.
KavaleK. A.FlanaganD. P. (2007). Ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention, and assessment of cognitive abilities/processes in specific learning disability identification: Toward a contemporary operational definition. In JimersonS.BurnsM.VanDerHeydenA. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 130–147). New York: Springer Science.
64.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245–273.
66.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239–256.
67.
KavaleK. A.FuchsD.ScruggsT. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policy making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 70–77.
68.
KavaleK. A.KaufmanA. S.NaglieriJ. A.HaleJ. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 59, 15–25.
69.
KavaleK. A.MostertM. P. (2003). River of ideology, islands of evidence. Exceptionality, 11, 191–208.
70.
KeoghB. K. (1987). Learning disabilities: In defense of a construct. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 4–9.
71.
KeoghB. K. (2005). Revisiting classification and identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 100–102.
LD Talk. (2007). Response-to-intervention: A question-and-answer session with Dr. Judy Elliot. Retrieved from July 23, 2007, www.ncld.org/index2.php
74.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2005). Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (PL 108–446). Retrieved January, 18, 2007, from www.ncld.org/advocacy/2004LDRoundtableRecs.pdf
75.
LloydJ. W. (2002). There's more to identifying learning disability than discrepancy. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 427–435). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
76.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability: A response to Kavale. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 449–455). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.
78.
MatherN.GreggN. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 99–106.
79.
MatherN.KaufmanN. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: It's about the what, the how well, and the why. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 747–752.
80.
McKnightP. T. (1982). The learning disability myth in American education. Journal of Education, 164, 351–359.
81.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 45–463.
MellardD. F.ByrdS. E.JohnsonE.TollefsonJ. M.BoesheL. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-to-intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243–256.
84.
MellardD. F.DeshlerD. D.BarthA. (2004). LD identification: It's not simply a matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 229–242.
85.
NaglieriJ. A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention for children with learning disabilities. In ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, Vol. 16: Identification and assessment (pp. 163–190). New York: JAI.
86.
NaglieriJ. A.BornsteinB. T. (2003). Intelligence and achievement: Just how correlated are they?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 244–260.
87.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992, October). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Washington, DC: Author.
88.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE).Myths about response to intervention (R+I) implementation. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from www.nasdse.org/projects.cfm
89.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE). (2006). Response to intervention: A joint paper. Retrieved January, 18, 2007, from www.nasdse.org/projects.cfm
90.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from www.lkonline.org/njcld
NoellG. H.GansleK. A. (2006). Assuring the form has substance: Treatment plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 32–39.
93.
OfieshN. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 883–888.
94.
OlinghouseN. G.LambertW.ComptonD. L. (2006). Monitoring children with reading disabilities response to phonics intervention: Are there differences between intervention aligned and general skills progress monitoring assessments?Exceptional Children, 73, 90–106.
95.
PasternakR. H. (2002, March). The demise of IQ testing for children with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago.
96.
PetersonK.M.H.ShinnM. R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities?School Psychology Review, 31, 459–476.
97.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE). (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
98.
ReschlyD. J. (1988). Obstacles, starting points, and doldrums notwithstanding: Reform/revolution from outcomes criteria. School Psychology Review, 17, 495–501.
99.
ReschlyD. J. (2004). Commentary: Paradigm shift, outcomes criteria, and behavioral interventions: Foundations for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 408–416.
100.
ReschlyD. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.
101.
RossR. P. (1995). Best practices in implementing intervention assessment teams. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 227–237). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155–168.
104.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2006). Response to “Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 62–64.
105.
SowellT. (1995). The vision of the anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy. New York: Basic Books.
106.
SowellT. (2002). A conflict of visions: Ideological origins of political struggles. New York: Basic Books.
107.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P.MolloyD. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 147–156.
108.
SpeeceD. L.ShekitkaL. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 118–123.
109.
StanovichK. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience?Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 103–106.
110.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2002). Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It's time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65–85.
111.
TorgesenJ. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–613). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
112.
TruscottS. D.CohenC. E.SamD. P.SanbornK. J.FrankA. J. (2005). The current state(s) of prereferral intervention teams: A report from two national surveys. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 130–140.
113.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.BarnettD. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339–361.
114.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittH.J.C.GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
115.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.
116.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2006). A response to “Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention”: Why response to intervention is necessary but not sufficient for identifying students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 58–61.
117.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
118.
West, Ed. R&D Alert. (2004). A promising alternative for identifying students with learning disabilities. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from www.wested.org/cs/we/view/feat/48
119.
WillisJ. O.DumontR. (2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled?Psychology in the Schools, 43, 901–908.
120.
WodrichD. L.SpencerM.L.S.DaleyK. B. (2006). Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 797–806.
121.
WrightP.WrightP. (2007). What you need to know about IDEA 2004 specific learning disabilities: Discrepancy & response to intervention models. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from www.wrightslaw.com/idealart/ld.rti.discrep.htm
122.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM. R.McGueM. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
123.
ZachL. J. (2005). Déjà vu all over again: The current controversy over the identification of learning disability. The School Psychologist, 59, 151–155.
