State Laws for RTI: An Updated Snapshot

By Zirkel, Perry A.; Thomas, Lisa B. | Teaching Exceptional Children, January/February 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

State Laws for RTI: An Updated Snapshot


Zirkel, Perry A., Thomas, Lisa B., Teaching Exceptional Children


Professionally, and ultimately legally, the definition of specific learning disabilities (SLD) has been "a long-standing source of controversy, conflict, and crisis" (Kavale & Forness, 2000, p. 239). Yet students with SLD continue to be more numerous by far than any other group receiving special education services (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009; Zirkel, 2007). The long-time controversy concerning the eligibility criteria for SLD reached a high point with the emergence of response to intervention (RTI) as purportedly more effective than the traditional severe discrepancy approach. The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provided that states may no longer require severe discrepancy and that school districts "may use a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, researchbased intervention as a part of" its SLD identification procedures (20 U.S.C. §1414(b)(6)). The resulting IDEA regulations (2008) required states to "adopt" SLD criteria that must not require severe discrepancy, must permit RTl, and "may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures" for determining SLD eligibility 300.307(a)). This article fills the gap in the literature with regard to the resulting state laws.

Previous Literature

The professional literature concerning approaches for determining eligibility for SLD is abundant, in recent years, special education and school psychology journals have been replete with articles concerning RTI. The experts in the field tend to fit on a currently fluid continuum ranging from those who support replacing the severe discrepancy approach with RTI (e.g., Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughan, 2004) to those who advocate reconceptualizing severe discrepancy (e.g., Kavale, 2005; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002). The assessment depends in part on the scope, including the legal dimension, of the perspective. For example, although characterizing RTI as having promising potential to improve student learning, Burns, Jacob, and Wagner (2008, p. 274) explained why- from a legal, ethical, and professional perspective-they viewed RTI as "almost indefensible" as the primary way of identifying students with SLD. On the professional side, an articulate minority (e.g., Gerber, 2005) remains opposed to the RTI movement, while the balance of more recent articles tend to either raise implementation and research questions on the supportive side (e.g., Barnett et al., 2006; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007) or- as an entire issue of Psychology in the Schools illustrated (e.g., Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda, 2006)recommend combining the two approaches.

Thus far, recognition of the legal issues has not been sufficiently accurate, as revealed by Zirkel's (2006) response to the debate between the RTI advocates (Fletcher & Reschly, 2005; Gresham et al., 2005) and their opponents (Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale, 2004; Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Hale, 2005; Schrank et al., 2005). The inaccuracy appears to stem primarily from not only the partisan positions of these SLD scholars but also from their insufficiently current and clear legal knowledge.

Although the 2004 amendments of the IDEA moved partially in the direction of RTI by requiring states to at least permit this approach and no longer require severe discrepancy, systematic study of the legal dimension has been largely lacking before and, even more clearly, after this legal milestone. Accurate information requires objective and up-to-date coverage of two separable clusters of primary authority: (a) the binding effect (within jurisdictional limits) of legislation, regulations, and case law; and (b) the marginal non-binding effect of administrative interpretations, such as U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) policy memoranda and state education agency (SEA) guidelines.

In the only comprehensive analysis of the hearing/review officer and court decisions specific to SLD eligibility prior to IDEA 2004, Zirkel (2007) found that school districts won the vast majority of these cases, with severe discrepancy being, by far, the most frequent basis for the outcome and the need for special education being a relatively distant second.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

State Laws for RTI: An Updated Snapshot
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?