Under IDEA 2004, regarding Specific Learning Disabilities, the law states that it:

Under IDEA 2004, regarding Specific Learning Disabilities, the law states that it:

• A. Requires a discrepancy between IQ and achievement
• B. Prohibits the use of any IQ-achievement discrepancy
• C. Mandates IQ-achievement discrepancy as the sole criterion
• D. Neither requires nor prohibits the use of a discrepancy between IQ score and achievement

Answer: (D)

IDEA 2004 allows districts to determine eligibility for a Specific Learning Disability using either an IQ–achievement discrepancy or a process based on RTI, and it does not require or prohibit the use of a discrepancy. This means schools can use the traditional discrepancy approach if they choose, or they can adopt RTI and rely on progress data to decide if a learning disability is present. The shift was to give flexibility and emphasize data-based intervention. So, the statement that best fits the law is that it neither requires nor prohibits using a discrepancy between IQ and achievement. The other ideas—that a discrepancy is mandatory, that it must be the sole criterion, or that any discrepancy is prohibited—aren’t how IDEA 2004 is written.

IDEA 2004 allows districts to determine eligibility for a Specific Learning Disability using either an IQ–achievement discrepancy or a process based on RTI, and it does not require or prohibit the use of a discrepancy. This means schools can use the traditional discrepancy approach if they choose, or they can adopt RTI and rely on progress data to decide if a learning disability is present. The shift was to give flexibility and emphasize data-based intervention.

So, the statement that best fits the law is that it neither requires nor prohibits using a discrepancy between IQ and achievement. The other ideas—that a discrepancy is mandatory, that it must be the sole criterion, or that any discrepancy is prohibited—aren’t how IDEA 2004 is written.