Admission to Special Education

      The qualification process for admission to Special Education was revised in the IDEA 2004. In the 1990s, it was recognized that there were four major problems with the current system. These included the following:

1. “Lack of emphasis on prevention and early intervention;”
2. “Limited weight given to the importance of research-based instruction and intervention;”
3. Identity and eligibility did not correspond with the types of intervention that were given;
4. And the general and special education service delivery was lacking.

     This led to a series of meetings by special education leaders across the country. They discussed better options to admitting students into the special education program. To do this, they had to delve deeper into the problems that existed with the current model, the IQ Achievement Discrepancy Model.

Before IDEA 2004, the system used was called the IQ Achievement Discrepancy Model. This has many flaws that Reschly identified in 2003. He said that the IQ Achievement Discrepancy Model was:

1. Unreliable and unstable;
2. Invalid;
3. A way to undermine best practices;
4. and harmful.

      Academic benchmark exams and scores naturally vary with time. This is what makes this model unstable. It is invalid because the model is based on the assumption that achievement levels will rise and fall along with the IQ score. This is simply untrue. And there is no single definition of what a “normal” achievement score may be. This has led to various definitions and decisions among states. This would also lead to some states having more students with SLD (states which determined a smaller discrepancy was correct) and other states having fewer students with SLD (states which determined a larger discrepancy was correct). This process would undermine best practices because it did not line up with classroom practices. It did not take into account different remediation practices which were scientifically proven. Lastly, this model was truly harmful to many students like me. While many of the students with learning (academic and behavioral) disabilities do not show this discrepancy, their disabilities do truly exist and hamper their learning.

      Basically this model involved determining a discrepancy between intelligence and classroom achievement of each child. If this discrepancy was large enough (a benchmark determined by each state), the student was said to have an SLD, or Severe Learning Disability. The model itself was based on a very broad generalization of what learning disabilities are.

      The Response to Intervention Model was introduced in IDEA 2004. This model would be based on prevention of both academic and behavioral risk. This is important because the previous model (introduced in 1975) did not take into account behavioral risks. The idea of this new model was that it would save time, money, and effort in the admittance process. This is likely due to the fact that it weeds out some students from having to be admitted into the special education program (which costs in employee hours, testing materials, etc).

      The Response to Intervention Model is divided into three tiers. The first tier is referred to as “Primary Prevention.” All students fall under this tier. This requires teaching and treating all students in the same manner. All students are taught the rules and expectations, a positive environment is created through rules and procedures, focusing on a well-rounded curriculum and instruction, evaluation of instruction and curriculum, and school-wide assessments to gauge performance in the core academic courses. The purpose of this tier is to identify students who are at-risk (behaviorally and academically).

      What happens after these students are identified? They are moved into Tier Two. This tier is known as “Secondary Prevention,” or the monitoring stage. These are targeted services for students who are at-risk for entering the special education program and for those whom the universal instruction simply was not enough. The services provided in this tier are:

1. small group instruction;
2. additional support;
3. and remediation programs (like Title I).

     These three services are provided in addition to the curriculum. They are applied through one or both of the following methods.

1. Standard Protocol/Researcher Approach
2. Problem-Solving/School Practitioner Approach

     The Standard Protocol Approach is the approach in which all students who show a problem in a particular area will get the same proven method of remediation. The Problem-Solving Approach involves a creation of building-level or problem-solving teams to review student data. They select appropriate strategies and determine if strategies need to be modified, maintained, or aborted due to success. The end-goal of Tier Two is to return that student to Tier One. So what happens when the student cannot be returned to Tier One and does not succeed in Tier Two?

      Tier Three is the last step in this process. This one is very similar to Tier Two. It is simply more thorough and individualized involving monitoring more frequently. This is saved for students who continued struggling through the first two tiers. If a student progresses beyond Tier Two and Tier Three, only then is he or she likely to have a learning disability.

How are these two methods different?

The RTI, or Response to Intervention, remedies all of the problems with the IQ Achievement Discrepancy Model. RTI is stable and reliable because it is based on educators' opinions and individualized monitoring while not being based on academic scores, which vary from place to place.

RTI does not assume that achievement levels go along with IQ. In fact, it rejects this theory. It embraces the fact that all students are unique. All students will test differently in academia and the IQ levels will not necessarily follow these scores.

RTI relates special education admission to classroom practices. It takes into account the opinions of teachers and what is actually occurring in the classroom whereas previously testing was required to determine whether or not a student was suited for special education services. This does not take into account borderline students and behavioral issues.

The RTI method also removes the harmful aspect of identifying students who should be in a special education program. This new method allows students eligible for special education services to be identified quicker and allows them to begin receiving services even before being admitted into the program. This time saved can truly help any special education-eligible or any students at-risk for the special education program. It also helps identify special education-eligible students whereas the old method might not. m

How are these two methods alike?

Both set some loose standards while allowing the state and educators to determine what standards they will use to admit students into the special education program. The RTI method says that teachers will determine whether or not students are struggling through the tiers and which methods they will use to provide services. The IQ method simply involves testing over a number of years.

Both of these methods attempted to be based on scientific facts. The IQ test is thought to be a reliable way of determining a person's intelligence. And academic success was often based on achievement tests which were thought to be stable. Unfortunately, it was determined that scores vary with time. So any discrepancy value “standard” would need to be universalized and the tests would need to be universalized, yet the test would need to be changed regularly to keep up with improving teaching methods. Teaching methods themselves would also need to be evaluated and standardized. This takes away from the individualized educational needs of all students. The RTI method requires that any services provided be backed up by scientific evidence.

Martinez, R.S., Nellis, L.M., & Prendergast, K.A., (2006). Closing the achievement gap series, part II: Response to intervention (RTI) – Basic elements, practical application, and policy recommendations. Education Policy Brief, 4(8), Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 495749).