Statewide SLD Survey

Minnesota School Psychologists Survey: Evaluation Methods for Specific Learning Disability

Key Findings:

1. 97.9% of survey respondents indicated that they currently use the discrepancy model to identify students with SLD.

2. 71.2% of respondents indicated that they are NOT allowed to use RTI to identify students who have an SLD based upon current state policy, and 11.7% were unsure if they are allowed to.

3. 80.3% of respondents reported barriers to MTSS implementation. 59% of those who reported barriers identified multiple contributing factors. Barriers that were commonly identified included staffing, funding, limited resources, a lack of administrative support, and a limited understanding of MTSS and RTI by themselves and other staff members.

Purpose

This current survey was designed to investigate current practices in identifying students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) as well as the scope of implementation of the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) framework throughout Minnesota. It was completed by 283 school psychologists representing all regions of the state.

School psychologists throughout Minnesota have reported that the use of the outdated discrepancy model to identify students with SLD remains extremely common. The discrepancy model determines a student’s perceived ability level (IQ score) and compares it with their academic skill level, determined by their performance on standardized assessments of achievement. For decades, research has demonstrated that the discrepancy model functions as a wait-to-fail approach that is ineffective in identifying students’ with SLD. Additionally, the standardized assessments used to determine students’ perceived ability and academic achievement levels have been shown to be culturally and linguistically biased. The use of the discrepancy model consequently results in the misidentification of students for special education, and those ill effects are experienced disproportionately by students of color along with other marginalized student populations. As a result, research has consistently demonstrated a need to cease the use of the discrepancy model for SLD identification in favor of evidence-based methods of evaluation for SLD identification, namely Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI emphasizes the implementation of high-quality instruction matched to meet a student’s needs as well as the use of progress monitoring to evaluate the effects of this instruction on the student’s levels of achievement. The use of RTI is designed to promote proactive instruction that meets students’ needs when they need it.

For educators to use the evidence-based RTI method to identify students with a learning disability, Minnesota Administrative Rule 3525.1341, subp. 4 requires their districts to identify an outline for introducing a tiered system of scientific, research-based interventions (SRBI) within their respective Total Special Education System (TSES) plans. Districts must provide their TSES plans to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE); however, to date these plans have not been publicly analyzed to understand how Minnesota’s schools are identifying who has an SLD.

This is important because, if a district does not identify a tiered system of support within their TSES plan, they are required to determine eligibility using outdated methods such as the ability-achievement discrepancy model, a method that has not been supported by research for decades and contributes to disparities in educational opportunity and achievement. In fact, Minnesota’s required use of the ability-achievement discrepancy model directly conflicts with federal law. The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Sec. 300.307 dictates that each state “must adopt criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.” Specifically, the statute indicates that states’ criteria “must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement” and that they “must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention (SRBI).”

SLD is the largest special education eligibility category in Minnesota, most commonly due to deficits in reading. In 2019, 33,834 students were eligible for special education services with a primary disability of SLD. This figure, which represents 22.9% of students with disabilities in Minnesota, reveals an upward trend with 30,306 students having been identified under the same category just three years prior. The methods that we use to determine eligibility under SLD impact thousands of students every single year. By investigating practices in evaluating for SLD, we can better understand the extent to which Minnesota’s policies are supporting the implementation of MTSS which ultimately impacts access to high quality instruction, support, and services for all of our students.

Given the lack of information on these educational practices that is publicly available and the potential role of Minnesota’s current statute in perpetuating outdated and inappropriate practices, the Minnesota Collective for Educational Equity (MnCEE) developed a survey to gather information regarding what methods Minnesota school psychologists are currently using to identify students who have SLD, and inform an important conversation on the extent to which MTSS is being implemented in Minnesota schools.

MnCEE recognizes that the implementation of MTSS is not solely or primarily the responsibility of special education and that realizing this framework must be a collaborative effort of all departments of education. In this survey, we focus on the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) to identify students who have SLD, because if schools are engaged in meaningful and comprehensive MTSS implementation, practitioners will be more likely to use RTI to identify students with SLD. We acknowledge that MTSS and RTI are not synonymous terms, and we do not intend them to be used interchangeably. Rather, we recognize that MTSS is a comprehensive, prevention-based framework that is used to align school initiatives and resources to support the needs of all students. RTI is a process for providing evidence-based instruction, progress monitoring, and data-based decision making to improve students’ academic achievement as well as a viable option for identifying students who have SLD.

Method

Due to the fact that there isn’t a database that includes contact information for school psychologists across Minnesota, MnCEE obtained the email addresses of school psychologists by searching district, school and/or cooperative websites. 801 email addresses were obtained and used to distribute the current survey.

Results and Implications

Results indicate that nearly all school psychologists who responded to the survey are using the ability-achievement discrepancy model to identify students who have an SLD. Survey participants were allowed to select more than one method of eligibility determination. 14.5% reported also using patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) and only 13.5% reported also using RTI. Of greatest concern was that 71.2% of respondents indicated that they are NOT allowed to use RTI to identify students who have an SLD, and 11.7% were unsure if they are allowed to. There was also a mismatch between those who identified that they were allowed to use RTI (17.1%) and those who reported that they do use RTI (13.5%), which means that even when school psychologists are technically allowed to use RTI for SLD identification, there are other factors that prevent them from using it effectively.

Obstacles to MTSS Implementation

School psychologists completing the survey were given the option to identify obstacles that their schools and districts are experiencing in implementing MTSS. 80.3% of respondents reported barriers to MTSS implementation. Over half (59%) of those that reported barriers identified multiple obstacles. The most common obstacles were related to infrastructure (staffing, funding, resources, etc.), administrative support, and the ability to implement quality interventions and progress monitoring, two essential components of RTI implementation. They reported the lack of understanding about how to implement MTSS and RTI from themselves and those that they work with.

Implications for Equitable and Non-Discriminatory SLD Identification Practices

These findings are extremely concerning and suggest that, in the state of Minnesota, students are overwhelmingly being identified as having an SLD using an outdated method that has been discredited by research for decades and contributes to the misidentification of students, most notably of students of color, for special education services. Many practitioners are unable to utilize RTI for SLD identification, and the pervasive absence of pre-referral intervention and support further suggests that there is a lack of meaningful implementation of MTSS in Minnesota.

MnCEE feels strongly that Minnesota must move forward with support for the proper identification of students with SLD and pursue MTSS implementation to ensure equitable access to prevention-based services. During the 2018-2019 school year, 16.3% of students had been identified as eligible for special education services in Minnesota. During that same school year, 14.1% of students had been identified as eligible for services nationwide. Minnesota’s lack of proper prevention and identification efforts has a number of negative consequences. In 2019, just 63.0% of students with disabilities graduated in four years, whereas 87.5% of their non-disabled peers graduated during that same year. Additionally, a lack of underfunding of special education at the federal and state level, and the increasing cost of special education services, has resulted in a cross subsidy. This means that special education services are being paid for by general education funds. Consequently, schools are forced to make decisions that impact class sizes, levels of support staff, and course offerings.

When school psychologists use the discrepancy model for SLD identification, there is no part of this evaluation process that is instructionally useful. Within each evaluation, school psychologists are spending hours gathering data that will have little to no impact on that student’s educational plan. Aptitude tests, which have been demonstrated to be culturally and linguistically biased, do not provide data that can be used to plan interventions for students that need them. Conversely, RTI is a way to identify students who have an SLD and provide data that can be used to inform intervention, meaning that resources are not wasted on ineffective procedures. Not using instructionally relevant practices in our assessment methods is not only inefficient and ineffective, it is also an equity issue, as students who continue to struggle with basic academic skills will have limited access to higher education, employment and income opportunities.

Public information on Minnesota’s use of MTSS educational practices is limited if not non-existent. Despite state regulations that allow districts to identify MTSS-related practices within special education decision making, educators continue to observe the pervasive use of outdated and harmful identification models for disability identification in the state. The school psychologists who responded to this survey offered numerous suggestions and ideas on why RTI-related practices are limited as it relates to special education eligibility. After a detailed review of the results, MnCEE believes that Minnesota has thus far been unsuccessful in supporting the implementation of a systemic and evidence-based approach to prevent learning difficulties and to adequately identify those who may need special education services. If we believe that our students deserve high quality education, we cannot continue to cling to ineffective practices and refuse to embrace what we know to be the best way to support Minnesota’s students. It is time to create statewide support and allocate funds to meaningfully implement a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) framework.

Additional Questions & Considerations

Beyond the direct results of the current survey, there are several questions and implications to inform future educational practice in Minnesota.

• How does the Minnesota Department of Education currently monitor the use of Best Practices as it related to the determination of eligibility for special education?

  • Results of the current survey suggest that an overwhelming majority of decisions regarding students’ eligibility for special education services are made using outdated methods. For our schools to update their methods of evaluation and implement a tiered support that meets the needs of all students, MnCEE recommends a statewide process of monitoring current practices and aligning guidance accordingly.

• What regional/state supports are provided to districts at the state level regarding the use of RTI in special education eligibility determination? For the implementation of MTSS?

• What is unique to the districts that are able to use RTI for SLD identification? What is their support and connection to general education?

• The barriers that respondents identified are very likely inter-related. For example, district and building leadership was one of the most common obstacles; however, the actions taken by local leadership are not independent of other variables (e.g., state-level leadership and policy, funding).

• Funding and resource allocation are factors that have a notable impact on the educational experience of our students. In the absence of a statewide equity-centered MTSS framework, resources are allocated in a manner that is often inefficient, ineffective, and inequitable.

  • Within-School Variance - A recent research study looking at student outcomes Minnesota’s schools revealed that a significant proportion of variance (80% or more) in student performance exists within schools, as opposed to between schools. This finding would suggest an urgent need to look at how resources are allocated within schools and pursue the implementation of tiered frameworks of support to more effectively and proactively address students’ needs.

  • Between-School Variance - The aforementioned study found that 72% of the variation in student performance between schools can be explained by student demographics. When demographic variables are not accounted for, school-level resources and teacher variables explain 29% to 60% of the between-school variance in mathematics and 23% to 66% for between-school variance in reading. However, when we account for race and free or reduced price lunch (FRL) status, these school-level resource variables only explain 2% or less of the variation in performance between schools. Why do these resource variables only explain such a small proportion of the variation when we account for student demographics? The reason is that school resource allocation in Minnesota is linked to race. Dr. Michael Rodriguez summarized this finding when speaking at the Minnesota House of Representatives’ Education Symposium entitled Bridging the Gap in March of 2020 by stating, “When we know the race of schools, we know the resource allocations for those schools.”

Action Steps

For more information, see MnCEE’s White Paper, “Pursuing Educational Equity in Minnesota through a Statewide Multi-Tiered System of Support” and MnCEE’s Presentation on Equity and Eligibility “The Perpetuation of Disparities by Special Education Policy in Minnesota.”

• Policy Makers

  • Amend Minnesota Administrative Rule 3525.1341 to fade out the use of the outdated discrepancy model in the state of Minnesota, and embed MTSS within our current educational policies.

  • Increase funding for special education and preventative intervention services.

  • Establish an Equity-Centered MTSS framework through a collaborative effort that deliberately involves educational experts along with diverse community stakeholders. Establish the infrastructure and support mechanisms necessary to implement and maintain this framework statewide.

• Educational Leaders

  • Commit to implementing an Equity-Centered MTSS framework within your district.

  • Inform your staff of what methods they are allowed to use for SLD identification. Involve them in decision making that will support best practices in evaluation to determine eligibility for special education. When tiered systems of support have been developed, identify them within your district’s TSES and allow for the use of proper evaluation methods to determine special education eligibility under the category of SLD.

• School Staff

  • Engage in professional development on equity-centered MTSS and RTI.

  • Commit to engaging in the use of evidence-based practices to provide equitable access to pre-referral services and instructionally useful methods of SLD identification.

• Supporters of Education

  • Share this report with your local representatives and ask for change in policy that promotes the use of effective practices in identifying students with disabilities in Minnesota’s schools.