The Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in South Carolina
The Applied Cognitive Neuropsychology Lab and the South Carolina Department of Special Education have launched a new project, working towards transforming SLD policy in South Carolina school districts and unifying policies at a state level. The current project is investigating the current eligibility models for SLD identification within each school district.
Project Aims:
Core Research Aims
Comprehensive description of eligibility models used in school districts to identify children with SLD.
Correspondence analysis between eligibility model and identification rates.
Time lagged model analysis to examine the change in identification rates resulting from changes in the eligibility model.
Secondary Research Aims
Correspondence between stated eligibility model criteria and implemented practice (evaluate IEPS for various school districts to determine if data required in the eligibility model was actually collected, appropriately used, and reported).
Focus group with school psychologist to identify key strengths and weaknesses in SLD eligibility models.
Compare and contrast different eligibility models on specific outcomes (identification rates, cost, personnel time, assessment methods, etc.).
Analysis of demographic (sex, grade, socioeconomic status, race) on identification rates across different eligibility models.
Background Information:
In 2007, the U. S. Department of Education proposed substantial changes in the procedures involved to identify children with disabilities. These revisions included the guidelines for identifying children with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and the incorporation of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act regulations provide the following options as criteria:
Severe discrepancy – may permit or prohibit
RTI – must permit
“Other” research-based procedures– may permit
Severe discrepancy provisions typically encompass traditional methods of using ability-achievement discrepancy approaches. RTI provisions state that “…a local educational agency may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures” (IDEA, 2004, Section 614(b)(6)). “Other” approaches are globally considered “a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of [SLD]” (IDEA, 2004, Section 300.309(a)(2)). Both a pattern of strengths and weaknesses and RTI are new; however, the inclusion of RTI is considered the most radical change in federal policy in the past 20 years.
In fewer than two years, almost every state has adopted or is in the process of adopting some form of RTI regulations (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). The majority of states permit RTI in conjunction with severe discrepancy, and/or other research-based approaches (Berkeley, et al., 2009; Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). Six states have or are in the process of adopting an “RTI only” model which includes a prohibition to use a “severe discrepancy” procedure (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008).
The variability in what constitutes an RTI model has prompted various categories to describe different RTI models. RTI models have been categorized as either standard protocol and problem-solving (D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; L. S. Fuchs, 2003a), with some questions of whether problem-solving models are truly a type of RTI model (Shinn, 2005). Other RTI models have been categorized as preventative versus eligibility-oriented (M. K. Burns, Vanderwood, & Ruby, 2005), instructional versus diagnostic (J. K. Torgesen, 2007). However, there is disagreement in the use of these categories (M. Burns, Deno, & Jimerson, 2007) and what models were the precursors to RTI (Kovaleski, 2007).
Regardless of the conceptual categories used to describe different RTI models, there is significant variability across RTI models in definition, terminology, experimental design, measurement system, decision-making criteria, professional role assignment, and validity (D. Fuchs, Deshler, & Reschly, 2004; D. Fuchs, et al., 2003; Gerber, 2005; Hale, 2006; Hale & Fiorello, 2004; K. A. Kavale & Forness, 2000; K. A. Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2006; J. A. Naglieri & Crockett, 2005). Variability in RTI procedures is fairly benign when used only for instructional support. However, when used for the purpose of identifying children with SLD, or other disabilities, the procedural variability across different RTI models leads to markedly different referral procedures for different children (Berkeley, et al., 2009).
Contact Info
If you are interested in participating in any of the ACN Lab's studies, or for further information, please contact
Scott L. Decker, PhD, Principal Investigator (803-777-6147; sdecker@mailbox.sc.edu)