1. A Closer Look at Specific Learning Disabilities & IDEA 2004 Courtney Huff, Literacy Consultant Meaghan Gauthier, Literacy Consultant

2. Identifying SLDs Prior to IDEA 2004 Districts were required to measure academic performance using the following criteria: Is the student performing at a similar level as his/her peers in terms of age and ability? Is there a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability? If there is a severe discrepancy, is it the primary result of 1) visual, hearing, or motor impairment; 2)mental retardation; 3)emotional disturbance; or 4)environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. If the answer to the above three questions are – yes, yes, and no, respectively – then the student met the criteria for SLD eligibility.

3. Concerns Regarding pre-IDEA 2004 SLD Criteria According to the Commission on Excellence in Special Education: Over the 10 preceding years, there was a 36% increase in SLD eligibility Diagnostic criteria lacked consistency and made it possible to certify any under-achieving child as SLD. Other Concerns: The discrepancy model lacked scientific research basis and led to misidentification. It was viewed as a “wait-to-fail” model. Special education services offered to SLD eligible students were not effective at older ages.

4. IDEA 2004: New SLD Requirements IDEA 2004 did not change the definition of SLD. However, it did give states the following criteria (See Page 5 of Federal Register: §300.307) : They must not require the use of severe discrepancy to determine if a child has an SLD. They must allow an identification process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention (RTI). They could permit could permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures.

5. IDEA 2004: New SLD Requirements The USDOE changed its rule on how to determine the existence of a SLD. (See Page 5 of Federal Register, §300.309) §300.309 is the ‘Underachievement Plus’ model Underachievement plus #1: Despite appropriate instruction for age and grade level standards. #2: Pick one of the following: 1)Slow rate of progress in intervention, or 2)Pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both. #3 adverse impact to the point that the student needs special education.

6. IDEA 2004: Putting it into Practice To determine if a student has a SLD, we have to ‘rule-in’ the following factors: Achievement data (§300.309(a)) 1: Inadequate achievement for age or grade level content standards. 2: Insufficient progress towards standards based on the student’s response to intervention. 2: OR patterns of strengths and weaknesses relevant to the determination of a SLD.

7. IDEA 2004: Putting it into Practice To determine if a student has a SLD, we have to ‘rule-out’ the following factors: Inadequate achievement is not the primary result of other disabilities or factors (i.e. visual impairment or economic disadvantage, etc.). (§300.309(a)(3)) Inadequate achievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction. (§300.309(b)) This needs to be supported by two data requirements. 1: Data demonstrating that appropriate instruction took place in reading and math and was delivered by qualified personnel. 2: Data-based documentation of formative assessments. Was there repeated assessment of achievement at reasonable intervals, and was it shared with the parents?

8. IDEA 2004: Putting it into Practice Other requirements specific to a SLD evaluation: Observation (See Page 6 of Federal Register: §300.310) Observe the child’s area of difficulty in his/her learning environment. Must include the relationship of behavior to the child’s academic performance. Adverse impact to the point that the student requires special education. Educationally relevant medical findings if any.

9. IDEA 2004: Putting it into Practice Other requirements specific to a SLD evaluation continued: RTI (§300.311) Data collection includes instructional strategies and student progress monitoring. Documentation that parents were notified about the following: State policies regarding the amount and nature of data to be collected and services provided. Strategies that will be used to increase rate of learning. Parent’s right to request an evaluation.

10. References: LaPointe, S. (2009). The New SLD Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process. Presentation in Traverse City, MI: April 7, 2009 Kraft, C. N. (Ed.). (2008). What Do I Do When...The Answer Book on RTI. Arlington: LRP Publications. Federal Register/ Vol.71, No.156/Monday, August 14, 2006/Rules and Regulations Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid Response to Intervention. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.