Response to Intervention and Specific Learning Disability Identification: Evidence From Tennessee

Abstract

Response to intervention (RTI) is a method for providing academic support to students and for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Using interrupted time series and hazard models, we examined if statewide RTI adoption in the U.S. state of Tennessee was associated with changes in rates of SLD and first-time SLD identification in elementary schools, and if these associations varied across student groups. Response to intervention was associated with an initial decline in the percentage of students with SLD in the state that continued over time, with larger decreases for students who were Black or economically disadvantaged. Response to intervention was associated with a 61% average decrease in the odds of first-time SLD identification by third grade (about a 0.006 change in the predicted probability), with greater declines for students who were Black or economically disadvantaged. We discuss these results in the context of disproportionality in special education and the need for research examining whether declines in SLD were due to improved academic outcomes, as opposed to delays in identification.

Keywords

specific learning disability identification response to intervention policy analysis special education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Otaiba

Petscher

(2020). Identifying and serving students with learning disabilities, including dyslexia, in the context of multitiered supports and Response to Intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 327–331. https://doi.org/gjfzxg

Al Otaiba

Wagner

R. K.

Miller

(2014). “Waiting to fail” redux: Understanding inadequate Response to Intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714525622

Balu

Zhu

Doolittle

Schiller

Jenkins

Gersten

(2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000; pp. 1–308). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Berkeley

Scanlon

Bailey

T. R.

Sutton

J. C.

Sacco

D. M.

(2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867

Cortiella

Horowitz

S. H.

(2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends, and emerging issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities. https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf

DuPaul

G. J.

Gormley

M. J.

Laracy

S. D.

(2013). Comorbidity of LD and ADHD: Implications of DSM-5 for assessment and treatment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412464351

Fish

R. E.

(2019). Standing out and sorting in: Exploring the role of racial composition in racial disparities in special education. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2573–2608. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219847966

Fletcher

J. M.

Miciak

(2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw103

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/fk4x2p

10.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580

11.

Gartland

Strosnider

(2020). The use of Response to Intervention to inform special education eligibility decisions for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720949964

12.

Hale

Alfonso

Berninger

Bracken

Christo

Clark

Cohen

Davis

Decker

Denckla

Dumont

Elliott

Feifer

Fiorello

Flanagan

Fletcher-Janzen

Geary

Gerber

Gerner

. . .Yalof

(2010). Critical issues in Response-To-Intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300310

13.

Hauerwas

L. B.

Brown

Scott

A. N.

(2013). Specific learning disability and Response to Intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/gh59r3

14.

Huang

F. L.

(2022). Alternatives to logistic regression models in experimental studies. The Journal of Experimental Education, 90(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/ggf5m8

15.

Hudson

T. M.

McKenzie

R. G.

(2016). The impact of RTI on timely identification of students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2016-V21-I2-7722

16.

Klingner

J. K.

Edwards

P. A.

(2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.6

17.

Lipsky

(2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.

18.

McNeish

Stapleton

L. M.

Silverman

R. D.

(2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000078

19.

Mellard

D. F.

Byrd

S. E.

Johnson

Tollefson

J. M.

Boesche

(2004). Foundations and research on identifying model Responsiveness-to-Intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593676

20.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillemeier

M. M.

Maczuga

(2017). Replicated evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in disability identification in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726282

21.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillemeier

M. M.

Mattinson

Maczuga

Cook

(2016). Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15591157

22.

NAEP Data Explorer. (n.d.). https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE

23.

O’Connor

R. E.

Bocian

K. M.

Beach

K. D.

Sanchez

Flynn

L. J.

(2013). Special education in a 4-year Response to Intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12013

24.

Odegard

T. N.

Farris

E. A.

Middleton

A. E.

Oslund

Rimrodt-Frierson

(2020). Characteristics of students identified with dyslexia within the context of state legislation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 366–379. https://doi.org/gjfzxc

25.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). History—twenty-five years of progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

26.

Phillips

B. A. B.

Odegard

T. N.

(2017). Evaluating the impact of dyslexia laws on identification of specific learning disability and dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-017-0148-4

27.

Pullen

P. C.

Ashworth

K. E.

Ryoo

J. H.

(2020). Prevalence rates of students identified for special education and their interstate variability: A longitudinal approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719837912

28.

Scott

A. N.

Hauerwas

L. B.

Brown

R. D.

(2014). State policy and guidance for identifying learning disabilities in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507261

29.

Senate Bill No. 2635. (2016). https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-education/dys/pc1058_dyslexia_bill.pdf

30.

Shifrer

Muller

Callahan

(2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410374236

31.

Skiba

R. J.

Poloni-Staudinger

Gallini

Simmons

A. B.

Feggins-Azziz

(2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411–424.https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200402

32.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2019). Digest of education statistics 2018 (NCES 2020-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

33.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113

34.

Stuebing

K. K.

Fletcher

J. M.

LeDoux

J. M.

Lyon

G. R.

Shaywitz

S. E.

Shaywitz

B. A.

(2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 469–518. https://doi.org/fqxvrm

35.

Sullivan

A. L.

Bal

(2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900406

36.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2015). 2015 educator survey. https://www.tn.gov/education/districts/federal-programs-and-oversight/data/educator-survey/2015-educator-survey.html

37.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2018). Dyslexia resource guide: Guidance on the “Say Dyslexia” law. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/special-education/dys/dyslexia_resource_guide.pdf

38.

Torgesen

J. K.

(2009). The Response to Intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in Reading First schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00073.x

39.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). The 29th annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2007 (Vol. 1). Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

40.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

Witt

J. C.

Gilbertson

(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(2), 225–256. https://doi.org/c8pbn9

41.

Wagner

R. K.

Francis

D. J.

Morris

R. D.

(2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00115.x

42.

Wanzek

Vaughn

(2011). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education? Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361267

43.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2018). Response to Intervention: Lore v. Law. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717745646

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB