Feds Say IQ-Discrepancy Models "Harmful to Students," Want States to Adopt Response to Intervention Models Do you have a child with a specific learning disability? Do you teach children with specific learning disabilities? Do you evaluate children for specific learning disabilities? If the answer is yes, you need to know about major changes in the proposed IDEA regulations that will affect how these children are identified and educated. Here are a few of these changes. * States are encouraged to prohibit school districts from using a "severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability" to determine if a child has a specific learning disability (SLD). * States may not require school districts to use a discrepancy model to determine if a child has a SLD. * States are required to permit schools to use a process that determines if a child "responds to scientific, research- based intervention as part of the evaluation process. (Response to Intervention) The Department of Education If you are a parent, you need to know about requirements that schools in the proposed IDEA regulations who are not aware of new requirements about School districts that are not aware of new requirements School districts On June 10, the U. S. Department of Education issued the Proposed issued proposed IDEA regulations. (read Dept of Ed Issues Draft of Proposed Regulations) ADD LINK The proposed regulations were 652 pages long (double-spaced, Courier, 12 points). To make the regulations more accessible, we reformatted this long document into two documents. IDEA 2004 Regulations: Proposed - 97 pages in pdf URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/law/idea.regs.propose.pdf IDEA 2004 Regulations: Explanations and Commentary - 65 pages in pdf http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/law/idea.regs.explain.pdf Recent consensus reports and empirical syntheses concur in suggesting major changes in the approach to the identification of an SLD. These reports recommend abandoning the IQ-discrepancy model and recommend the use of response to intervention (RTI) models (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Lyon et al., 2001; President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; Stuebing et al., 2002). These reports find that SLD is a group of heterogeneous disorders, but recommend changes in the seven domains identified in current §300.541(a)(2) because of areas of difficulty for students with SLD that have not been identified under current regulations (e.g., reading fluency). There are many reasons why use of the IQ-discrepancy criterion should be abandoned. The IQ-discrepancy criterion is potentially harmful to students as it results in delaying intervention until the student’s achievement is sufficiently low so that the discrepancy is achieved. For most students, identification as having an SLD occurs at an age when the academic problems are difficult to remediate with the most intense remedial efforts (Torgesen et al., 2001). Not surprisingly, the “wait to fail” model that exemplifies most current identification practices for students with SLD does not result in significant closing of the achievement gap for most students placed in special education. Many students placed in special education as SLD show minimal gains in achievement and few actually leave special education (Donovon & Cross, 2002). The use of the IQ-discrepancy drives assessment practices for most special education services (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Nationwide, virtually every student considered for special education eligibility receives IQ tests. This practice consumes significant resources, with the average cost of an eligibility evaluation running several thousand dollars (MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002; President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Yet these assessments have little instructional relevance and often result in long delays in determining eligibility and therefore services. Alternative models are possible. The type of model most consistently recommended uses a process based on systematic assessment of the student’s response to high quality, research-based general education instruction. The Department strongly recommends that States consider including this model in its criteria. Other models focus on the assessment of achievement skills identifying SLD by examining the strengths and weaknesses in achievement, or simply rely on an absolute level of low achievement. These models are directly linked to instruction. (Fletcher, et al., 2003). Other models use alternative approaches to determining aptitude-achievement discrepancies that do not involve IQ, including multiple assessments of cognitive skills. However, these models do not identify a unique group of low achievers and maintain a focus on assessment as opposed to intervention. In considering alternative models for identification, we believe that the focus should be on assessments that are related to instruction, and that identification should promote intervention. For these reasons, models that incorporate response to a research-based intervention should be given priority in any effort to identify students with SLD. Identification models that incorporate response to intervention represent a shift in special education toward the goals of better achievement and behavioral outcomes for students identified with SLD because the students who are identified under such models are most likely to require special education and related services. Proposed §300.308, regarding eligibility group members, would revise §300.540 of the current regulations. Under this proposed regulation, the group making the determination of whether a child has an SLD would include a special education teacher. Further, this proposed regulation would require that the group be collectively qualified to conduct individual diagnostic assessments relevant to SLD, interpret and apply critical analysis to assessment data, develop appropriate educational and transitional recommendations, and deliver specifically designed instruction and services to meet the needs of students with SLD. It is intended that the group described in proposed §300.308 would serve as the required group under proposed §300.306(a)(1). The current requirements in §300.541 permit the group to determine that an SLD is present if the child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels and if the group finds a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability. Proposed §300.309 would address the elements required for determining the existence of an SLD and would revise §300.541 of the current regulations in light of the statutory provision in section 614(b)(6)(A) of the Act, which protects LEAs from being required to use a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement. Under the proposed regulations, the first element of a determination that a child has an SLD is a finding that the child does not achieve commensurate with the child’s age in one or more of the eight specified areas when provided with learning experiences appropriate to the child’s age. The second element for a determination that a child has an SLD is a finding that the child failed to make sufficient progress in meeting State-approved results when using a response to scientific, research-based intervention process, or the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that the team determines is relevant to the identification of an SLD. The pattern of strengths and weaknesses may be in performance, achievement, or both or may be in performance, achievement, or both relative to intellectual development. Proposed §300.309(a)(3) would incorporate the exclusions from section 602(30)(C) of the Act and would prohibit the eligibility group from finding an SLD if the SLD is primarily the result of other visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. These exclusions are in addition to the special rule for eligibility determination in section 614(b)(5) of the Act and proposed §300.306(b). Proposed §300.309(b) would require the group to consider evidence that the child was provided appropriate instruction prior to, or as a part of, the referral process. These requirements would emphasize the importance of using high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings consistent with relevant sections of the ESEA, including that the instruction was delivered by qualified personnel. Also important is evidence that data-based documentation reflecting formal assessment of progress during instruction through repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals is provided to the parents and documentation that the timelines described in proposed §§300.301 and 300.303 are adhered to, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and a group of qualified professionals as described in §300.308. These requirements would be included in §300.309(c) and (d), respectively, of the proposed regulations. Proposed §300.310 would revise §300.542 of the current regulations regarding observation. Proposed §300.310(a) would require that at least one member of the group described in proposed §300.308, other than the child’s teacher, who observes the child be trained in observation. This should ensure that the group member or members conducting the observation know what to look for when they observe the child. Proposed §300.310(a) also would provide additional parameters for conducting the observation, and would specify that the observation document academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty. Proposed §300.310(b) would be substantively unchanged from §300.542(b) of the current regulations. Proposed §300.311, regarding a written report, would revise §300.543 of the current regulations and incorporate much of the content of that section. The proposed regulation would remove the reference in §300.543(a)(6) of the current regulation as to whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services and the reference in current §300.543(a)(7) regarding the effects of environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantage. This language is included in proposed §300.306. Proposed §300.311(a)(5) would require that the report address only whether the child does not achieve commensurate with the child’s age rather than the discrepancy model referred to in current §300.531(a)(2). The proposed regulation also would require that the written report address two additional factors: whether there are strengths and weaknesses in performance or achievement, or both, or relative to intellectual development that require special education and related services; and the instructional strategies used and the response to student data collected if the response to the scientific, research-based process was implemented. These additional provisions should ensure that the report is a more useful document for educators in determining the existence of an SLD. It is intended that the written report in this section would serve as the required evaluation report and documentation of the determination of eligibility as required by proposed §300.306(a)(2).