Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges.

Three broad issues continue to dramatically impact the education of children with specific learning disabilities (SLD): (a) the development and implementation of scientifically defensible methods of identification, (b) the development and implementation of scientific interventions to ensure that children with SLD have access to and make progress in the general education curriculum, and (c) ensuring that children with SLD benefit from school improvement and accountability efforts that are underway across the country. Recently, active discussion has focused on the methods of identifying students with SLD (Bradley & Danielson, 2004; Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002). In this brief article, no attempt will be made to summarize these discussions; however, we will provide hypotheses regarding the near-term future of LD identification. The amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifically state that "a local educational agency (LEA) may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures ...." [[section] 614(b)(6)(B), IDEA 2004)]. This language, along with research findings that have emanated from the recent work of the OSEP Learning Disabilities Initiative, will likely encourage many states to pursue response to intervention (RTI) as an approach to SLD identification. States will most likely review the RTI models in place across the country as they consider which procedures to adopt, such as problem-solving models or prereferral strategies. In the next few years, we anticipate that information will be disseminated to SEAs and LEAs regarding models of identification, which will include the present level of scientific support for the various approaches. Further, OSEP-funded technical assistance centers will help states and, to some extent, school districts identify and implement new approaches to identification. Although there is currently no one preferred, validated model of RTI, as an approach to identification RTI has significant conceptual appeal. Most important, RTI begins with the implementation of scientifically based, schoolwide interventions and promotes intervention at the first indication of non-response. The greatest challenge in implementing RTI is that we have limited experience implementing it on a large scale, across all academic areas and age levels. Ideally, large-scale implementation of innovations would be preceded by large research and development efforts. However, policy often precedes and drives research and development. We have seen this in the past with assessment, access to the curriculum, and discipline issues. As a result, there will likely be significant innovation at the state and local level, some of which will prove to be effective and, eventually, may lead to more formalized policies and practices. Although we have much to learn by continuing to evaluate such innovations, we remain optimistic that this new approach to identification will be more effective and efficient in identifying children with SLD. It is our belief that an emphasis on RTI will be consistent with a shifting of emphasis from process to outcomes for students with SLD. This is an important shift both practically and theoretically for the field of SLD, which has historically concentrated more on the search for the specific condition and its cause than on intervention effectiveness (Ysseldyke, 2002). As reflected in IDEA and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), current policies require that students with disabilities: (a) have access to the general curriculum, (b) have their progress in the curriculum monitored, and (c) participate in accountability assessments in a meaningful way. When RTI procedures are used, interventions and their specific effects on the student are monitored continuously, ensuring that modifications can be made in the student's instruction as needed (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004). …