Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) is a legal and educational mandate that ensures students with disabilities receive individualized, evidence-based interventions to enhance their academic and behavioral outcomes. However, SDI is inconsistently implemented due to varying state policies, limited educator guidance, and disparities in defining research or evidence-based practices (EBPs). This study examined how state laws define and regulate SDI as well as incorporate EBPs to ensure instructional fidelity. We systematically analyzed state laws and policies to identify similarities, gaps, and inconsistencies within definitions of SDI, EBPs, and recommended instructional strategies. Findings indicate the need for a standardized definition of SDI, more precise policy guidance as to the planning and delivery of EBPs, and enhanced educator training to improve student outcomes.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Publications.
2.
CoddingR. S.BurnsM. K.LukitoG. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 5826.2010.00323.x
3.
CookB. G.CollinsL. W.CookS. C.CookL. (2020). Evidence-based reviews: How evidence-based practices are systematically identified. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12213
4.
CookB. G.CookL. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911420877
5.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
6.
DennisM. S.SharpE.ChovanesJ.ThomasA.BurnsR. M.CusterB.ParkJ. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31(3), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12107
7.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. (2017). RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).
8.
FriendM. (2015). Welcome to co-teaching 2.0. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 16–22.
9.
FriendM.BarronT. (2024). Collaboration in special education: A 15-year checkup. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 35(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2024.2408719
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaloneA. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918758166
11.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.SterbaS. K.CraddockC.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.GearyD. C.ChangasP. (2021). Closing the word-problem achievement gap in first grade: Schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language comprehension instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000467
12.
FullanM. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9289-1
13.
GeeK.RyndakD. L.FisherM.WalkerV. L. (2024). Access to the general education curriculum for students with extensive support needs: Experts’ perspectives. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 49(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969231219027
14.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
15.
GhesquièreP.MaesB.VandenbergheR. (2004). The usefulness of qualitative case studies in research on special needs education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120410001687382
16.
HornerR. H.SugaiG.FixsenD. (2017). Implementing effective educational practices at scales of social importance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 20, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-017-0224-7
17.
HudsonM. E.WoodL.RootJ.McConomyA. (2021). Access to the general education curriculum. In Handbook of effective inclusive elementary schools (pp. 269–285). Routledge.
18.
HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R.TherrienW. J.BensonS. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142
19.
HyettN.KennyA.Dickson-SwiftV. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606
20.
JitendraA. K.LeinA. E.ImS. H.AlghamdiA. A.HefteS. B.MouanoutouaJ. (2018). Mathematical interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional children, 84(2), 177–196.
21.
KouoJ. L.Harking-BrownA. R.PhungV. H. (2024). Reported policies, guidance, and related resources for the determination of special education and related services. The Journal of Special Education, 58(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669231218451
22.
KozleskiE. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence-based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916683710
23.
LekoM. M. (2014). The value of qualitative methods in social validity research. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514524002
24.
MagginD. M.BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2014). A comparison of rubrics for identifying empirically supported practices with single-case research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9187-z
McLeskeyJ.MaheadyL.BillingsleyB.BrownellM. T.LewisT. J. (eds) (2019). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. Routledge.
27.
MyersJ. A.ArsenaultT. L.PowellS. R.WitzelB. S.TannerE.PigottT. D. (2025). Considerations for intensifying word-problem interventions for students with MD: A qualitative umbrella review of relevant meta-analyses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(2), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241281293
28.
MyersJ. A.BrownellM. T.GriffinC. C.HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.GageN. A.PeytonD.AcostaK.WangJ. (2021a). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with mathematics difficulties (MD): A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12244
29.
MyersJ. A.GilbertK.SindelarP. (2020). Does alternative route preparation meet the requirements of IDEA assurance 14? A policy analysis. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(4), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420912374
30.
MyersJ. A.WitzelB. S.BouckE.MathisJ. N. (2021b). Middle school math teachers’ perceptions of their classroom practices among students with disabilities before and during the pandemic: A pilot study. Journal of Online Learning Research, 7(3), 209–231. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/219619/
31.
NaeemM.OzuemW.HowellK.RanfagniS. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
32.
NelsonG.ParkS.BraffordT.HellerN. A.CrawfordA. R.DrakeK. R. (2021). Reporting quality in math meta-analyses for students with or at risk of disabilities. Exceptional Children, 88(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211050851
33.
NowellL. S.NorrisJ. M.WhiteD. E.MoulesN. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
34.
NyaabaM.MinS.ApamM. A.AcheampongK. O.DwamenaE.ZhaiX. (2025). Optimizing generative AI's accuracy and transparency in inductive thematic analysis: A human–AI comparison.SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5174910
35.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201
36.
PowellS. R.BarnesM. A.RootJ.HughesE. M.Ketterlin-GellerL.NelsonG.RojoM.AllsoppD. H.WitzelB.MyersJ. A.FloresM. M.LembkeE.BurnsM. K.NamkungJ.PoncyB.EnnisR. P.MorinL. L.ArsenaultT. L.DoablerC. T.PeltierC. (2025). The NCTM/CEC position statement on teaching mathematics to students with disabilities: What’s in it and What’s not. Research in Special Education. https://riseopenjournal.org/article/id/2796/
37.
PowellS. R.BenzS. A.MasonE. N.LembkeE. S. (2022a). How to structure and intensify mathematics intervention. Beyond Behavior, 31(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10742956211072267
38.
PowellS. R.BerryK. A.AcuntoA. N.FallA.-M.RobertsG. (2022b). Applying an individual word-problem intervention to a small-group setting: A pilot study's evidence of improved word-problem performance for students experiencing mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(5), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211047635
39.
QamarM. T.SohailS. S.AnsariG.SaxenaC. (2025). The language of nuance: Exploring the limits of large language models in handling ambiguity. In SachdevaS.WatanobeY.BhallaS. (Eds.), Big data analytics in astronomy, science, and engineering: BDA 2024 (lecture notes in computer science) (Vol. 15546, pp. 180–192). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86193-2_12
40.
RiccominiP. J.MoranoS.HughesC. A. (2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially designed instruction, high-leverage practices, explicit instruction, and intensive instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917724412
41.
RodgersW. J.WeissM. P.Aal IsmailH. (2021). Defining specially designed instruction: A systematic literature review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12247
42.
SayeskiK. L.RenoE. A.ThoeleJ. M. (2022). Specially designed instruction: Operationalizing the delivery of special education service. Exceptionality, 31(3), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2022.2158087
43.
SilgeJ.RobinsonD. (2016). Tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 1(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00037
44.
SindelarP. T.FisherT. L.MyersJ. A. (2019). The landscape of special education licensure, 2016. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418761533
45.
SnodgrassM. R.CookB. G.CookL. (2023). Considering social validity in special education research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 38(4), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12326
46.
TurobovA.CoyleD.HardingV. (2024). Using ChatGPT for thematic analysis. arXiv. 2405.08828. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08828.
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Non-regulatory guidance: Using evidence to strengthen education investments (ESSA Evidence Guidance). Institute of Education Sciences.
48.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2014, May 21). Implementation of Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) [Dear fellow chief state school officer letter]. U.S. Department of Education.
49.
WeissM.Faggella-LubyM.GoranL.BatemanD. F. (2025). Specially designed instruction: The definitive guide. Bloomsbury Academic.
50.
WexlerJ.KearnsD. M.LemonsC. J.MitchellM.ClancyE.DavidsonK. A.SinclairA. C.WeiY. (2018). Reading comprehension and co-teaching practices in middle school English language arts classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84(4), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918771543
WitzelB. S.MyersJ.RootJ.Freeman-GreenS.RiccominiP.MimsP. (2024). Research should focus on mathematics proficiency for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 57(4), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669231168373
53.
ZhangH.WuC.XieJ.LyuY.CaiJ.CarrollJ. M. (2023). Redefining qualitative analysis in the AI era: Utilizing ChatGPT for efficient thematic analysis. arXiv.https://arXiv.org/abs/2309.10777
