Learn Your Special Education Laws, Special Education Rights, and Share IEP Goal Ideas

Aug 27
Avatar of Doug Goldberg

by Doug Goldberg

In the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) the process for determining which children have a specific learning disability (SLD) was altered to include response to intervention (RTI).  This change stemmed from criticism of how children were tested for an SLD, which was primarily looking at the discrepancy between a child’s intellect (IQ) and ability.  If a severe discrepancy was evident the child was determined to have an SLD.  Since an SLD may manifest itself in the imper­fect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations using only the discrepancy model can’t accurately identify all children with an SLD.  This is where RTI can be used to fill in the gap where the discrepancy model isn’t working.

There is no one definition of RTI but it’s most commonly used as, 1) an early predictor of at-risk students, 2) in­tervention for general education students with academic or behavioral difficulties, and 3) as a component of SLD determi­nation.   Usually, RTI incorporates a tiered system of support that increases the amount and intensity of intervention as you move to a higher tier.  Most children in RTI will stay in the lowest tier and after a period of intervention will be back on track.  For those children that need more intensive and longer support they will be moved to higher tiers.  If a child isn’t showing any progress in RTI, this can be used as evidence that the child has an SLD.  Thus, a child whose testing didn’t show a severe discrepancy between intellect and ability can still be determined to be a child with an SLD.

RTI can be a very useful tool in the SLD determination process but it should not be used as a stall tactic by the school district to delay assessments for special education.  Some School Districts, after receiving written requests from parents to assess their child for special education, have used RTI as an excuse to stop the process.  While IDEA does require general education interventions to be tried prior to special education there is nothing in the law that allows the school to stop assessment timelines after a parent requests an assessment.  When a parent requests a special education assessment for their child make sure:

1)      It’s in writing,

2)      The request includes assessing in all areas of suspected disability, and

3)      The request specifically requires any general education interventions, such as RTI, to be started during the assessment period and that the intervention doesn’t affect the legally required assessment timelines required by IDEA.

The general rule of thumb is there will be approximately 90 days between a parent’s request for assessment and the first IEP meeting.  These 90 days include 15 days for the School to put together an assessment plan, at least 15 days for the parents to approve the assessment plan, and 60 days for the assessments.  This is plenty of time for the School to try RTI and see how the results are working prior to the first IEP meeting.

If used properly, RTI is a powerful general education intervention tool and SLD determination method.  It is a positive step forward in fixing the current education system and I look forward to seeing it implemented, in the proper manner, by all School Districts.

January 21, 2011 Update:  The United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services issued a memo reminding School Districts that Response to Intervention cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.   You can download the memo here: OSERS Memo on RTI

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.5/5 (2 votes cast)
Response to Intervention (RTI) in determining a Specific Learning Disability (SLD), 3.5 out of 5 based on 2 ratings
Be Sociable, Share!
Create Your FREE Profile

5 Responses to “Response to Intervention (RTI) in determining a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)”

  1. It seems my school is only using RTI as a stall tactic as they only focus on the interventions for general education students. And when I asked about how they will determine when a child may require further assessment they had no clue or plan. I also asked what assessments they do to determine any LD, they had no idea. And this was all during the school site council meeting.

    So what do you do to help school districts use it properly?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. You can’t force the SD to use RTI correctly but you can force them to assess for Special Ed. I would show them a copy of the OSEP memo and request in writing a special ed assessment.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • I took the memo to SSC yesterday and finally got an answer that the unwritten policy would be to suspect a disability after a child was not progressing at tier 3, although the tiers are not clearly delineated at this point. I will also be bringing the memo to the next school board meeting asking for a written policy.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Hi David,

        Remember the SD should be using multiple methods to determine an SLD not just RTI or the discrepancy model. There are even specific processing tests that can be administered such as the test of auditory processing (TAPS) or the test of visual processing (TVPS).

        Good luck with the School Board.

        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  3. RtI has been used as an excuse to delay the special education process. I am so glad that you posted this clarification. The Rtl process does force the classroom teachers to recognize that students have learning differences and classroom teachers need to respond to those differences. For some students, it is obvious that they need intense multisensory instruction and the comprehensive evaluation should not be delayed. The key is good teaching in the general ed. classroom plus a dedicated, analytical team who is well educated in intense interventions, working together with the classroom teacher to see that these needs are met.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply