The purpose of this study is to examine decisions rendered by the courts with regard to compliance or noncompliance to the statutes and regulations related to Response to Intervention (RtI). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 encourage state and local educational agencies to develop and provide a high-quality, scientifically research-based intervention system to determine the eligibility of a child for special education services. Most states have adopted a multi-tiered intervention system in an effort to collect data and address the RtI requirements of IDEIA. Whereas it is the duty of Congress to write legislation, the courts’ interpretation provides the guidance needed to ensure that appropriate measures are taken in identifying students with potential learning disabilities.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective?Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39, 414-431.
2.
A.P. by Powers v. Woodstock Bd. of Education, U.S. District Court, Connecticut, 572 F. Supp. 2d 221. (2008).
3.
A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools, 486 F. 3rd 791 (3rd Cir. 2007).
4.
Ashli and Gordon C. ex rel. Sidney C. v. State of Hawaii, Department of Education, U.S. District Court, Hawaii, 47 IDELR 65. (2007).
5.
Baltimore City Public School System, Maryland State Education Agency, 108 Law Review Press 2530. (2007).
6.
Barth, A.E., Stuebing, K.K., Anthony, J.L., Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.G., Fletcher, J.M., & Francisa, D.J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 296-307.
7.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
8.
Burns, M.K., & Senesac, B.V. ( 2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.
9.
Case, L.P., Speece, D.L., & Molloy, D.E. ( 2003). The validity of a response-to-intervention paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.
10.
El Paso Independent School District v. RICHARD R, 567 F. Supp. 2d 918 U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas. (2008).
11.
Fletcher, J.M., & Denton, C. ( 2003, December). Validity of alternative approaches to the identification of L.D.: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
13.
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D.D. ( 2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 129-136.
14.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. ( 2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly , 27(4), 216-227
15.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (Winter, 2002). Treatment Validity as a Unifying Construct for Identifying Learning Disabilities Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1 pp. 33-45
17.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Wallin, J. ( 2003). Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evaluate a school’s core curriculum and system of additional intervention in kindergarten (pp 221-266). In S. R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
19.
J.S. et al. v. Attica Central Schools, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 47 IDELR 43. (2007).
20.
Komatsu, C. ( 2008). Assessing the effectiveness of the response to instruction model for English language learners by utilizing a non-language-based intervention . Retrieved from http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-09152008-112337/unrestricted/Komatsu_diss.pdf.pdf
21.
Linan-Thompson, L., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P.T. ( 2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at-risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39, 390-398.
22.
Marshall Joint School District No. 2 v. C.D. by Brian and Traci D., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 51 IDELR 242. (2009).
23.
Marston, D.B. ( 1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 17-78). New York: Guilford .
24.
McMaster, K.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. ( 2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children , 71, 445-463.
25.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. ( 2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities . Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 249-260.
26.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
27.
Shapiro, E.S. ( 2007, July 16). Progress monitoring as part of the RTI system and the preparation of teachers to be successful users of progress monitoring . Paper presented at the 2007 OSEP Project Director’s Meeting, Washington, DC.
28.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.E. ( 2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
29.
Torgesen, J.K. ( 2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7-26.
30.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. ( 2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33-58.
31.
Vaughn, S. ( 2003, December). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes?Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
32.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M.B. ( 1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-co-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
33.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 21(4), 437-480.
