Opinion ID: 6497375
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Response-to-Intervention

Text: Approach to Identifying a Specific Learning Disability The second method allowed in New Jersey to evaluate a specific learning disability is the response-to-intervention approach. That method applies increasingly intensive and individualized instruction to a child and evaluates the child’s progress in response to that intervention. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6)(B); N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:14–3.5(c)(12)(ii); see also Michael P. v. Dep’t of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057, 1061–62 (9th Cir. 2011). If the child responds positively to the intervention, then he or she does not have a specific learning disability for which special education and related services are needed. But if the child responds negatively to the intervention or responds in a neutral way, then the child does have a specific learning disability and is in need of special education and related services. Thus, the response-to-intervention approach can function as a two-for-one: a negative or neutral response to intervention indicates that the child has a specific learning disability and is in need of special education and related services. 22 Through its intervention team, Summit started using the response-to-intervention approach a month into C.M.’s firstgrade year. That team reviewed C.M.’s classroom behavior, and then it designed and implemented specific interventions to assist him. After implementing the first round of interventions for a month and a half, the team evaluated C.M.’s response and concluded that the interventions were working well. As part of its evaluation of C.M.’s eligibility for special education and related services, a broader group of twelve members of Summit’s staff reevaluated C.M.’s response to Summit’s interventions about two and a half months after Summit’s first evaluation. After that more comprehensive review, based on a larger data set, that group also determined that C.M. had benefited from the interventions and was making progress during his first five months of first grade. 9 On this record, Summit did not violate its child-find duty by concluding that C.M. did not have a specific learning disability. Both the intervention team and the specially assembled evaluation group consisted of “trained and knowledgeable personnel.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(iv). And they gained relevant information about C.M.’s educational needs through a recognized method – incremental, 9 C.M.’s parents argue that Summit improperly implemented the response-to-intervention method in violation of federal and New Jersey regulations. They cite 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(b)(2); id. § 300.311(a)(1), (7); and N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:14- 3.4(h)(6)(i). But without an explanation as to how those alleged procedural violations affected the reliability of Summit’s substantive findings, the parents’ argument does not provide a basis for discrediting Summit’s reliance on the response-to-intervention approach. See D.S., 602 F.3d at 565– 66 (declining to award relief to parents based on an alleged procedural violation where the school district “substantially satisfied” the IDEA’s requirements). 23 potentially escalating interventions based on different tools and strategies. See id. § 1414(b)(3)(C), (b)(2)(A). Having met the relevant statutory requirements and having observed that C.M.’s classroom behavior and academic performance improved in response to interventions, Summit met its childfind obligations even though it concluded that, as of February 8, 2016, C.M. did not need special education and related services for a specific learning disability.