Based on the latest U.S. Department of Education data, this article presents the enrollment figures for students identified with specific learning disabilities (SLD) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the school years from 1995–1996 to 2011–2012. The figures for each year are (a) the number of students with SLD ages 6 to 21, (b) the percentage in relation to students classified under all of the IDEA classifications, and (c) the percentage in relation to total K–12 school enrollments. The discussion examines these trends and explores the possible reasons for them.
Brown-ChidseyR.SteegeM. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
2.
BuckG. H.PollowayE. A.Smith-ThomasA.CookK. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349–360.
3.
BurnsM. K. (2007). RTI will fail, unless. . . . Communiqué, 35(5), 38–40.
4.
CastilloJ. M.BatscheG. M. (2012). Scaling up response to intervention: The influence of policy and research and the role of program evaluation. Communiqué, 40(8), 14–16.
5.
CortiellaC. (2009). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
DonovanM S.CrossC. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
EtscheidtS. (2012). Truly disabled? An analysis of LD eligibility issued under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1044207312453323
9.
FogtJ.MillerD.ZirkelP. (2003). Defining autism: Professional best practices and published case law. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 201–216. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00045-1
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
11.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2006). Response-to-intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Communiqué, 34(6), 1, 4.
12.
GammS. (2010). Disproportionality in special education. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
13.
GelzheiserL. M. (1987). Reducing the number of students identified as learning disabled. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 145–150.
14.
GerberM. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516–524. doi:10.1177/00222194050380060701
GreshamF.ReschlyD.ShinnM. R. (2010). RTI as a driving force in educational improvement: Research, legal, and practice perspectives. In ShinnM. R.WalkerH. M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model (pp. 47–77). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
17.
HallahanD. P.KellerC. E.MartinezE. A.ByrdS. E.GelmanJ. A.FanX. (2007). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of learning disabilities and other special education categories? A longitudinal comparison. Exceptional Children, 73, 136–146.
18.
HarlacherJ. E.SilerC. E. (2011). Factors relating to successful RTI implementation. Communiqué, 39(6), 20–22.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2011).
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 et seq. (2012).
21.
KavaleK. (1995). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 145–152.
22.
LyonG. R.FletcherJ.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.TorgesenJ. K.WoodF. B.OlsonR. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC. E.AndrewA. J.HokansonC. R. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–288). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
23.
MartinS.ZirkelP. A. (2011). Identification disputes for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: An analysis of the case law. School Psychology Review, 40, 405–422.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to instruction and learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/11498/
26.
ParrishT. B. (2001). Who’s paying the rising cost of special education?Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14(1), 4–12.
27.
SamuelsC. A. (2010, September15). Boom in learning-disabled enrollments ends. Education Week, pp. 1, 15.
28.
SparksS. (2011, March2). RTI: More popular than proven. Education Week, p. S16.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on the identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 225–256. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004
31.
ZirkelP. A. (2006). The legal meaning of specific learning disabilities for special education services eligibility. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
32.
ZirkelP. A. (2011a). The law and RTI. West’s Education Law Reporter, 268, 1–16.
33.
ZirkelP. (2011b). Which disability classifications are not particularly litigious under the IDEA?Communiqué, 40(2), 4–5.
34.
ZirkelP. A. (2012). The legal dimension of RTI: Confusion confirmed. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 72–75.
35.
ZirkelP. A. (2013). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for IDEA eligibility: The latest case law. Communiqué, 41(5), 10–14.
36.
ZirkelP. A.ThomasL. B. (2010a). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 56–63.
37.
ZirkelP. A.ThomasL. B. (2010b). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60–73.
