The renewal, modification, and ratification of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA; 2004) produced a number of changes in legislation, particularly in the identification for children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). In particular, the requirement that a child must evidence a severe discrepancy between intellectual functioning and academic performance has been modified to allow for a more flexible approach to SLD determination. The rules and regulations providing guidelines for implementation have yet to be completed, leaving many administrators and psychologists speculating on how to incorporate the recommendation that response to intervention (RTI) procedures be incorporated into their current protocols. Given the substantial anti-assessment lobbying by RTI proponents, it may appear that the law has changed significantly to the point that comprehensive assessments are not required to determine eligibility for "any" disabling condition, particularly SLDs. This article reviews historical trends influencing the current legislation, from the inception of the use of ability-achievement discrepancy, the misconceptions that ability-achievement discrepancy and comprehensive assessment are equivalent, and vilification of intellectual assessment to the powerful, inside lobbying forces. In conclusion, we address what the law "really" says about assessment and RTI, and how these two procedures need to be integrated as a best practice for children but also to adhere to the legislative mandate of IDEA.