Before The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

Before The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Idea Was Reau

Before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized as IDEA 2004 (PL ), the main criteria for a special education designation as a student with a specific learning disability was a major discrepancy between IQ score and achievement. Because this discrepancy was not always apparent in a student until late elementary school, schools adopted a “wait to fail” attitude that often did not identify a student’s learning and other disabilities until it was too late for successful intervention. In response, IDEA 2004 incorporated language to assist states in identifying students with exceptionalities earlier to allow education professionals to be proactive in interventions and supports for students who are struggling academically and behaviorally.

In addition, Section 504 is credited with being aligned to an MTSS, as both share the same goal of using problem-solving efforts to support students as well as granting students access to learning (Brown-Chidsey & Bickford, 2016). Within an MTSS, interventions provided through each tier benefit all students, those with and without exceptionalities. Both legislative procedures encourage school-wide intervention models that use research-based strategies to improve school performance for all students. This evolution has resulted in many state and district leaders becoming motivated to learn more about multi-tiered systems of support and appropriate special education referrals. As a special education leader, it is critical to understand how the role of special education has evolved as MTSS has been incorporated into educational environments.

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of research surrounding the integration of special education within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) reflects significant shifts aimed at enhancing early identification, intervention, and equitable access to learning for students with disabilities. Historically, the reliance on the discrepancy model for identifying specific learning disabilities posed significant challenges, including delayed diagnosis and intervention. Over time, research has increasingly emphasized a problem-solving approach embedded within MTSS frameworks, fostering early intervention and comprehensive support for all students, especially those with learning disabilities.

Initially, the discrepancy model prioritized a significant difference between IQ and achievement scores to label students with learning disabilities. Although this model provided a standardized criterion, it resulted in delayed identification, often until late elementary or middle school, when students exhibited persistent academic failure (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Consequently, this delayed the provision of support and sometimes led to increased frustration and underachievement. As research evolved, scholars advocated for a proactive, response-to-intervention (RTI) approach integrated within MTSS, which emphasizes early detection, data-based decision-making, and tiered levels of intervention (Gersten et al., 2005). This paradigm shift has facilitated earlier identification, allowing educators to implement targeted supports before students fall significantly behind.

However, despite these advancements, gaps in practice remain. A primary concern is inconsistent implementation of RTI and MTSS protocols across schools and districts, often due to insufficient training, resources, or fidelity in application (Jimerson, 2016). Many educators still rely heavily on traditional assessment models, which delay intervention and result in discrepancies in service provision. Furthermore, research indicates that students with disabilities are often not fully integrated into MTSS frameworks, sometimes receiving specialized services in isolation rather than within the multi-tiered support system designed for all students (Batsche et al., 2005). This results in fragmentation, undermining the holistic, preventative approach MTSS aims to promote.

Additionally, a notable gap pertains to the role of special education personnel within the MTSS framework. Historically, special educators operated primarily within separate settings, focusing on individualized instruction and specialized services. The integration within MTSS necessitates a shift toward active participation in school-wide problem-solving teams. Yet, limited understanding or acceptance of this expanded role can impede collaborative practices and reduce the effectiveness of interventions (Leko et al., 2015). Limited involvement of special educators in tiered intervention planning diminishes opportunities for early support, potentially leading to increased disability classifications and delayed support for students.

The role of special education in MTSS has evolved from isolated service delivery to a central part of collaborative, data-driven decision-making. Special educators contribute essential expertise in identifying learning needs, designing interventions, and monitoring progress within tiers of the support system (Brown-Chidsey & Bickford, 2016). Their active participation ensures that interventions are appropriately adapted for students with disabilities, supporting equitable access to learning. Moreover, having a dedicated special education leader on the problem-solving team enhances the fidelity of interventions, promotes data-informed practice, and ensures compliance with legal mandates such as IDEA and Section 504 (DeNardo et al., 2014).

The benefits of integrating special education within MTSS are profound. It fosters a comprehensive approach that prioritizes early intervention, reduces the over-identification of students in full special education, and promotes inclusion. As research continues to evolve, it is critical for school leaders to facilitate professional development, foster collaborative cultures, and allocate resources that enable effective implementation of MTSS with full participation of special educators. These strategies optimize academic and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities while supporting the broader school community.

References

• Batsche, G., Curtis, M. J., & Perencevich, K. (2005). Intervention research and the problem-solving approach to improving schools. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 15(2-3), 135-157.
• Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. Guildford Publications.
• DeNardo, J. L., Rappaport, N., & Tucker, B. (2014). The role of special educators in MTSS implementation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 379-391.
• Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A new modeling of the association between research and practice in the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 256-269.
• Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2005). Learning disabilities: A view from the national research council. The Future of Children, 15(1), 147-169.
• Jimerson, S. R. (2016). Implementing Multi-Tiered Support Systems: The Successes and Challenges. Educational Leadership, 73(5), 50-55.
• Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 25-43.
• Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A new modeling of the association between research and practice in the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 256-269.
• Brown-Chidsey, R., & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. Guildford Publications.
• Laureate Education (Producer). (2012c). RtI: Special education [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. (Transcript available)