Education Law Publications
The firm publishes a monthly "Issue of the Month" on current issues or matters of interest in the education law area. If you want more information about our education law practice or a copy of any of our articles, contact David Duff at dduff@ddtwb.com SCHOOL LAW
"ISSUE OF THE MONTH"
April 2006 The Reauthorized IDEA’s: New Eligibility Model for “Learning Disability” The 2004 reauthorization of and amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which became effective July 1, 2005, have brought about many changes in the special education law. One of those changes deals with assessing and qualifying students with learning disabilities (LDs). LD eligibility has increased dramatically over the last 10 years and now comprises over half of all special education enrollments for children ages six to 21. The present controversy over the current system of identification focuses particularly on reading disabilities, which account for up to 90 percent of LD eligibility. Many experts in the field believe that the existing "severe discrepancy model" for LD eligibility--which compares students' intelligence test scores with their scores on achievement tests--lacks a scientific research basis and often leads to misidentification. Many experts say the discrepancy model is a "wait-to-fail" model under which students must achieve sufficiently low achievement scores, as compared to their IQ scores, to qualify for special education services. Further, the discrepancy model is contrary to the view that educational interventions should be provided at an early age, based on research which establishes that the developmental window of kindergarten through third grade is key to children's reading and language development. LD experts have recommended a shift to an LD eligibility model which first required that sound interventions be provided to struggling students, who thereafter are assessed to determine whether an appropriate response to the interventions has occurred. This response-to-intervention (RTI) model has now, legally, become an option to the use of severe ability-achievement discrepancy to determine LD eligibility. The 2004 amendments to IDEA, however, go no farther than permitting school districts to use the RTI model rather than the discrepancy model. Specifically, an interrelated pair of amendments to IDEA, effective July 1, 2005, first, prohibit state educational agencies from requiring districts to use the discrepancy model and, second, permit state and local educational authorities to use RTI as one of the components in the LD eligibility framework. In other words, under the amended law, while states cannot require local districts to use the discrepancy model, a district is free to design and implement an RTI eligibility model. The RTI approach is actually a general, rather than a special, education initiative. RTI is a process of finding students with learning difficulties in the early grades and utilizing a three-tiered instructional approach in the general education classroom, by which special and general educators work together to create an intervention process. Tier 1 of the RTI model is designed to meet the needs of a majority of the school population and has three critical elements: a high-quality program of instruction based on the curriculum frameworks; on-going assessment of students to determine instructional strengths and needs; and on-going professional development to provide teachers with necessary tools to ensure that every student receives quality instruction. Tier 2 supports individual students in the general education classroom who have not met benchmarks through the "whole class model" of Tier 1. Tier 3 is for those students who have been identified with marked learning difficulties and who have not responded to Tier 1 and Tier 2 efforts. Tier 3 should be based on intensive scientific research based interventions. The RTI model, while appealing in many ways, raises significant questions. If the IDEA eligibility process is revised to emphasize pre-eligibility interventions, will there be a secondary class of "pre-IDEA" students to identify; that is, those who might in the future need special education? For students targeted for interventions, will there be "due process" rights under IDEA prior to a formal eligibility determination? Can parents challenge schools' determinations regarding the effectiveness of pre-IDEA interventions? How much progress does a student have to make under pre-IDEA interventions in order to not qualify for special education--meaningful progress or catching up with non-disabled peers? The ultimate question, of course, is whether districts will move to the model in light of these and other questions and the likelihood of legal challenges. Past Issues of the Month may be accessed at www.ddtwb.com. |
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright © 2008 by Duff, White & Turner, LLC. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.
| 
