Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Professional confusion, as well as case law confusion, exists concerning the fidelity and integrity of response to intervention (RTI) as a defensible procedure for identifying children as having a specific learning disability (SLD) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Division is generated because of conflicting mandates specified in IDEA when compared to mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This article is submitted to address (a) concerns about the misuse of RTI in identifying students with SLD and (b) how schools face the challenges of identifying students with learning disabilities, providing appropriate services within the least restricted environment while attempting to meet the requirements found in NCLB that all children will learn on grade level and be assessed accordingly.

Keywords

response to intervention Individuals with Disabilities Education Act No Child Left Behind Act scientifically research-based intervention specific learning disability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Christ

R. J.

Burns

M. K.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. NASP Communiqué, 34(3), 1–8.

Daves

D. P.

(2008). The accidental death of social studies. National Social Science Journal, 31(1), 16–22.

El Paso Independent School District v. Richard R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 918 (W.D. Tex., 2008).

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. (1994).

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (1994).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 et seq. (2009).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).

J. S. v. Attica Central Schools, 47 IDELR 43 (W.D.N.Y., 2007).

10.

Marshall Joint School District v. C. D. by Brian and Traci D., 51 IDELR 242 (W.D. Wis., 2009).

11.

McMaster

K. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

(2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.

12.

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.

13.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).

14.

Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

15.

Walker

D. W.

Daves

(2010). Response to intervention and the courts: Litigation-based guidance. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 40–46.

16.

Zirkel

(2011). RTI: Confusion in the case law and the legal commentary. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 242–247.

17.

Zucker

(2004). Scientifically based research: NCLB and assessment (Policy report). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.