Online ISSN: 2325-7466
2006
Triannual
National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET)
United States

Articles

Teacher Perceptions of Response to Intervention Implementation in Light of IDEA Goals

  • J. Kevin Jenkins, Ed.D (Author) Mercer University image/svg+xml
    Dr. J. Kevin Jenkins earned his Ed.D in Educational Administration & Supervision (with a focus on education law, 1999), Ed.S (1997) and M.Ed (1996) from the University of Georgia, and his B.A. in Spanish (1989) from Mercer University. Dr. Jenkins spent several years teaching Spanish and serving as a local school administrator at both the middle and high school levels. He is currently a tenured Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Mercer University, where he teaches primarily education law at the Ed.S and doctoral levels, as well as directing doctoral dissertations. Dr. Jenkins has presented scholarly papers at local, state, national and international conferences and published multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals. His publications have focused on equal protection law, but have also dealt with various other aspects of education law including religious and gender discrimination, zero tolerance policies, and student self-defense law. His scholarship has been cited in numerous prestigious legal publications, and in amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Dia Sekayi, Ph.D (Author) Georgia Institute of Technology image/svg+xml
    Dr. Sekayi earned her Ph.D. in Education (1996), Ed.M. in Education (1991), and B.S. in Business Administration (1989) from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Sekayi began her career in education in the elementary classroom where she taught mathematics and science. She subsequently held various positions at the university level including: Assistant Professor, Faculty Chair for Research, Associate Director of the Center for Research Support, co-Director of Doctoral Studies and currently, tenured Associate Professor of Research. She has made local, state, national, and international conference presentations and published articles, book chapters, and books in the areas of qualitative research, program evaluation, and the social foundations of education. Her most recent edited volume, Urban teacher education and teaching: Innovative practices in diversity and social justice, won the American Educatio n Studies Association Critics Choice Award for 2007. Her areas of specialization are qualitative research, urban education, and resistance theory in education. Dr. Sekayi regularly teaches courses in qualitative and quantitative research, and higher education leadership.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.230
Abstract
Traditionally, school systems have identified students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) by a measured gap between achievement and ability in a specific area. Recent amendments to the IDEA allowed for the use of alternative methods of identifying students with a SLD. Some states have responded by using Response to Intervention (RTI). This new method represents a radical change in identification of SLD students. Consequently, policy makers need to know if RTI, as it is actually implemented, is serving the goals of the IDEA. Attempting to provide information on this subject, the authors conducted a modified Delphi study in a school system that requires RTI as the method of SLD identification. They analyzed the resultant data in light of the identified goals of IDEA. This article describes the research process employed, provides the aforementioned analysis, and draws conclusions and makes some initial recommendations for further research in this area.
Keywords
Delphi Technique, Disabilities, Disability Identification, Educational Legislation, Equal Education, Experience
References

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Child Find, 34 CFR §300.111

Christ, T., Burns, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (November, 2005), Conceptual Confusion Within Response to Intervention Vernacular: Clarifying Meaningful Differences. NASP Communiquè, Vol 34, #3. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq343rti.aspx

Cooper, B, Fusarelli, L, & Randall E.V. (2004), Better Policies, Better Schools; Theories and Applications, Pearson, Allyn & Bacon (Boston) Dayton, J. (2008) Individuals with Disabilities and the Law In Michael W. LaMorte, School Law: Cases & Concepts, 9th Ed. (p.331-374) Boston: Allyn & Bacon Downar, J. (2010) What Should We Say When Discussing “Code Status” and Life Support with a Patient? A Delphi Analysis. Journal Of Palliative Medicine, 13(2), 185. doi:10.1089/jpm.2009.0269

Education for All Handicapped Act, Public Law 94-142 (1975)

Fuchs, D., & Young, C. (2006) On the Irrelevance of Intelligence in Predicting Responsiveness to Reading Instruction. Exceptional Children (Fall 2006) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607300101

Gorton, A., & Snowden, P. (2007) School Leadership & Administration: Important Concepts, Case Studies, & Simulations (7th ed.), McGraw-Hill (Boston)

Hasson, F., Keeney, S., McKenna H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 32, 4, 1008-1015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x

Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.

Katz, L.G., STEM in the Early Years, Early Childhood Research & Practice (Fall, 2010) http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/katz.html

Kavale, K.A., Spaulding, L.S., and Beam, A.P. (2009) “A Time to Define: Making the Specific Learning Disability Definition Prescribe Specific Learning Disability” Learning Disability Quarterly (2009). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25474661

Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972) Murry, J. r., & Hammons, J. O. (1995) Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research. Review Of Higher Education, 18(4), 423-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0008

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2007). Two approaches. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/resourcetype/dialogue-guide-two-approaches-response-intervention

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation.report.org

Strauss, A.L. (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Old Deluder Act of 1647, (Mass.) http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html (Last retrieved Oct. 4, 2012)

A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (VA, 1778, 1780) Retrieved from http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-more-general-diffusion-knowledge

Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise & Potential Problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3). Zirkel, P. (March 22, 2009). Legal eligibility of students with learning disabilities: Consider not only RTI but also § 504. Learning Disability Quarterly. Volume 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/27740356

There are 17 references in total.
How to Cite
Jenkins, J. K., & Sekayi, D. (2014). Teacher Perceptions of Response to Intervention Implementation in Light of IDEA Goals. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 9(1), 66-86. https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.230

Winter 2014

Article Information

  • Article Type Articles
  • Submitted December 28, 2013
  • Published February 15, 2014
  • Issue Winter 2014
  • Section Articles
  • File Downloads 0
  • Abstract Views 0
  • Altmetrics
  • Share
Download data is not yet available.