The Connecticut State Department of Education issued radically new Guidelines for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities in June 2009.  These new Guidelines can be found at:

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/LDGuide.pdf

Reduced to their core, the new Guidelines create a five-pronged test for eligibility for special education based on a specific learning disability.  The five tests are:

1.         The child is not at age or grade level in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading fluency, reading comprehension, math calculation, or math problem-solving.

2.         The child does not make sufficient progress in these areas when provided with scientific, research-based intervention.

3.         The child has been provided with explicit and systematic instruction in the essential components of scientific, research-based reading instruction or math from a qualified teacher, including regular assessments of achievement.

4.         The learning disability is not primarily due to a visual, hearing or motor disability, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency.

5.         The disability affects the child’s educational performance and, as a result, the child requires special education. 
In adopting this five-pronged test, the State Department of Education eliminated two pre-existing criteria for identifying a child with a learning disability.  Eliminated were:

a.         The requirement for a severe discrepancy between educational performance and intellectual ability.
b.         The requirement for a disorder in one or more basic psychological process impacting the area of educational weakness. 

The foundation on which this whole structure stands is the Connecticut Response to Intervention (RTI) model, known as Scientific Research-Based Interventions (SRBI).  The full details can be found at:

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/Pressroom/SRBI_full.pdf

The idea of SRBI is multi-tiered intervention, in the general education environment, with increasing levels of intensity for students who fail to make meaningful progress in less intense tiers.  SRBI requires screening of all students, data-based progress monitoring using curriculum-based measurements, use of research-based teaching strategies, and differentiating instruction for all learners.

And, therein lies the problem.  There is nothing wrong with SRBI in principle.  In fact, it is a terrific model for effective, individually-based instruction for all students.  The problem is that it does not exist.  Some school districts are making progress in implementing a SRBI-based teaching model in their schools.  But, no district has enough trained teachers and psychologists or enough resources to develop an SRBI model with integrity.  There are too many kids with too many different levels of maturity, learning styles, backgrounds, and ability levels to implement SRBI on a school-wide, never mind district-wide or state-wide basis.  SRBI relies on a sizeable cadre of highly trained, highly skilled teachers.  Connecticut possesses a fair number of teachers who meet this standard, but nowhere near enough to implement the SRBI program.

The new Guidelines for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities presume the existence of an effective SRBI system.  The Guidelines do not discuss how eligibility for special education should be determined where the district lacks a credible SRBI program.  Prong #2 of the Guidelines requires lack of sufficient progress “when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific research-based intervention (SRBI).”  Prong #3 requires that the child has been provided with “explicit and systematic instruction in the essential components of [SRBI] from a qualified teaching, including documentation of regular assessment of achievement.”  What happens when the school does not use a SRBI process, does not provide explicit and systematic instruction, does not afford the child qualified teaching, or does not conduct regular assessments of achievement?  The Guidelines do not tell us.

My central concern is challenging a district’s failure to designate a child for special education.  Special education, for a child with a learning disability, means the legal, enforceable right to specific services that can help the child catch up with his or her peers.  Being designated as eligible for special education may be the difference between the child growing up to be a contributing, independent of society or not.  Is it possible that a school’s or district’s failure to develop and implement a strong SRBI program could deprive such a child of the right to succeed?  Do the Guidelines really mean to punish kids in poorly managed, poorly staffed or poorly resourced districts?  Yet, that is exactly what the Guidelines now say.