This study used data from the U.S. state of Michigan schools participating in the Reading First program to examine the stability of students’ disability status in Grades 1 to 3. Reading First aimed to improve at-risk students’ reading comprehension through research-based instruction. We analyzed how changes in students’ disability status were related to reading comprehension growth. The sample consisted of n = 10,196 students from 191 schools who took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Comprehension subtest. Data were collected from 2003 through 2008. We observed considerable changes in disability status for students with speech–language disorders or a specific learning disability (n = 1,193). These students had lower achievement levels and made less progress than students without disabilities. Overall, achievement gains did not differ between students with different stability and change patterns in their disability status. However, students changing from speech–language disorders to a specific learning disability demonstrated the smallest achievement gains.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
2.
CarlisleJ. F.CortinaK. S.ZengJ. (2010). Reading achievement in Reading First schools in Michigan. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903583236
3.
CarrollJ. M.Bowyer-CraneC.DuffF. J.HulmeC.SnowlingM. J. (2011). Developing language and literacy: Effective intervention in the early years (1st ed.). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470977460
4.
FlynnK. S. (2012). Stability of special education eligibility from kindergarten to third grade: Are there variables from fall of kindergarten that predict later classification status? [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. DigiNole Research Repository. https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu%3A182854
5.
FreyJ. R. (2019). Assessment for special education: Diagnosis and placement. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219841352
6.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150
7.
GamseB. C.BloomH. S.KempleJ. J.JacobR. T. (2008). Reading First impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008-4016). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
8.
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. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.5
9.
GilmourA. F.FuchsD.WehbyJ. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795830
10.
HendricksE. L.FuchsD. (2020). Are individual differences in Response to Intervention influenced by the methods and measures used to define response? Implications for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(6), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420920379
11.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A.OberleyK. R.OrdmanV. L.NaylorR. J.ShannonG. P. (2003). Iowa Test of Basic Skills guide to research and development. Riverside Publishing.
HulmeC.SnowlingM. J. (2011). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: Nature, causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408673
14.
KatzL. A.StoneC. A.CarlisleJ. F.CoreyD. L.ZengJ. (2008). Initial progress of children identified with disabilities in Michigan’s Reading First schools. Exceptional Children, 74(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400206
15.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A.FreemanJ.LombardiA.SimonsenB.CoyneM. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rare. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516646083
16.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education. (2013). Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) with related IDEA federal regulations.
17.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M.MattisonR.MaczugaS.LiH.CookM. (2015). 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
18.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.WuQ. (2011). Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411414010
PengP.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.KearnsD. M.GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.ChoE.PattonS. (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418809080
22.
PeuraP.AroT.RäikkönenE.ViholainenH.KoponenT.UsherE. L.AroM. (2021). Trajectories of change in reading self-efficacy: A longitudinal analysis of self-efficacy and its sources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, 101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101947
23.
PuranikC. S.PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.CattsH. W.LoniganC. J. (2008). Development of oral reading fluency in children with speech or language impairments: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408317858
24.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
25.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.005
26.
SchulteA. C.StevensJ. J. (2015). Once, sometimes, or always in special education: Mathematics growth and achievement gaps. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563695
27.
SchulteA. C.StevensJ. J.ElliottS. N.TindalG.NeseJ. F. T. (2016). Achievement gaps for students with disabilities: Stable, widening, or narrowing on a state-wide reading comprehension test?Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000107
28.
SchwartzA. E.HopkinsB. G.StiefelL. (2021). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(2), 480–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22282
29.
SiegelmanN.RuecklJ. G.van den BuntM.FrijtersJ. C.ZevinJ. D.LovettM. W.SeidenbergM. S.PughK. R.MorrisR. D. (2022). How you read affects what you gain: Individual differences in the functional organization of the reading system predict intervention gains in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(4), 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000672
30.
SnowlingM. J.MollK.HulmeC. (2021). Language difficulties are a shared risk factor for both reading disorder and mathematics disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 202, 105009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.105009
31.
TindalG.AndersonD. (2019). Changes in status and performance over time for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718806660
32.
TorgesenJ. 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
33.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2020). 41st annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2019. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/2019-annual-report-to-congress-IDEA
34.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Response to Intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442157
35.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WoodruffA. L.Linan-ThompsonS. (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In HaagerD.KlingnerJ.VaughnS. (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Paul H. Brookes.
36.
VolkmerS.GaluschkaK.Schulte-KörneG. (2019). Early identification and intervention for children with initial signs of reading deficits—A blinded randomized controlled trial. Learning and Instruction, 59, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.09.002
37.
WeiX.BlackorbyJ.SchillerE. (2011). Growth in reading achievement of students with disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107800106
38.
Weltner-BruntonS. L.SeraficaF. C.FriedtG. R. (1988). Is earlier better? Reading achievement and WISC-R stability in earlier vs. later identified students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511039
39.
YsseldykeJ.BielinskiJ. (2002). Effect of different methods of reporting and reclassification on trends in test scores for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2),189–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206800203
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.
