The enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has effected dramatic changes to the achievement expectations for all students. Under NCLB, all students must demonstrate proficiency in math and English Language Arts by June 2014. As a result, there is a sense of urgency to ensure that students not achieving at benchmark are identified early and provided effective intervention. To this end, an increasing number of districts are turning to Response to Intervention (RtI), a scientifically research-based approach that identifies students not achieving at benchmark and provides a collaborative problem-solving framework to address their learning needs as well as the needs of all students. The research on RtI is exciting! It indicates that through a collaborative problem-solving general education process, 94-98% of all students can meet grade level benchmarks when provided with appropriate instruction (Reid Lyon, testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Education Reform, June 2002). In December 2004, Congress amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This latest version of the federal special education law contains a number of changes to align it with NCLB initiatives. One interface is IDEA 2004’s newly available option of using either RtI or a severe discrepancy model to identify students with learning disabilities. The availability of screening and progress monitoring data generated by an RtI approach may reduce the need for additional standardized assessment as part of a special education evaluation process for a disability, including a learning disability. The RtI approach also allows districts to take a more dynamic look at the child in determining whether the child has a learning disability, rather than waiting until failure escalates over an extended period of time and the child eventually demonstrates a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement.

In May 2005, the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE) established an interdisciplinary committee to research and develop a guidance document that would explain the use of alternate approaches of RtI and severe discrepancy in identifying students with specific learning disabilities under IDEA. The committee consisted of general education personnel, directors of special education, school psychologists, Michigan Department of Education personnel, university professors, educational consultants, and legal counsel. In this endeavor, the committee reviewed current law, position papers, and scientifically-based research literature on both RtI and severe discrepancy. This review ultimately led to the conclusion that limiting the scope of the guidance document to the original intent would be a disservice to both general and special educators alike. From an overall perspective, RtI is a powerful problem-solving tool at all levels of educational decision-making. However, the power comes from understanding the core principles of this problem-solving tool and how the principles actively engage with one another in an ongoing “progress to goal” monitoring loop. From a special education perspective, RtI plays two roles. The narrow role is that of a gatekeeper for eligibility, i.e., it helps to establish that the child’s learning problems are not due to lack of appropriate instruction, and to establish that the child’s problems are posing such an adverse impact that the child needs special education in order to benefit from his/her education. The larger role is the continued application of the RtI core principles in the IEP process itself: problem-solving; using scientific, research-based interventions; monitoring student progress; and using assessment and progress data to make decisions. In the end, the MAASE committee concluded that everyone in the educational community who is committed to effectively teaching all children needs to understand what is embodied in the title of this guidance document - Response to Intervention: Enhancing the Learning of All Children.