Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The article by Dixon, Eusebio, Turton, Wright, and Hale is entitled “Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court Case: Implications for School Psychology Practice.” Its implications are that a “comprehensive evaluation” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires assessment of the child’s cognitive neuropsychological as well as academic and psychosocial functioning and, thus, must include cognitive assessment in the identification of specific learning disabilities. However, neither the Supreme Court’s Forest Grove decision nor the other legal authority that Dixon et al. cited provide such a requirement. Instead, the applicable federal regulations and case law generally are far less detailed and definitive in prescribing appropriate evaluations under the IDEA. This discrepancy illustrates the need of the special education and school psychology literature to improve the legal information and understanding of practitioners by more careful differentiation of analysis and advocacy that does not confuse legal requirements with professional norms.

Keywords

law assessment evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alex, R. v. Forrestville Valley Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist., 375 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2004).

D.G. v. Flour Bluff Indep. Sch. Dist., 481 F. App’x 887 (5th Cir. 2012).

Dixon

S. G.

Eusebio

E. C.

Turton

W. J.

Wright

Hale

J. B.

(2011). Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court case: Implications for school psychology practice. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 103-113.

Forest Grove Sch. Dist., 40 IDELR ¶ 190 (Or. SEA 2004).

Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A, 557 U.S. 230 (2009), further proceedings, 638 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1145 (2012).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 et seq. (2006).

IDEA regulations commentary, 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540 et seq. (2006, August 14).

Letter to Zirkel, 49 IDELR ¶ 50 (OSEP 2008).

Martin

Zirkel

(2011). Current issues in eligibility decisions for students with ADHD: What the courts say. Communiqué, 40(4), 26-27.

10.

Martin

Zirkel

(2012). Child find for students with ADHD. Communiqué, 40(6), 40-41.

11.

R.R. v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 412 F. App’x 544 (3d Cir. 2011).

12.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2003). Do OSEP policy letters have legal weight? West’s Education Law Reporter, 171(2), 391-396.

13.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2006). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for special education eligibility. Arlington, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.

14.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2010). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for special education eligibility. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(5), 62-67.

15.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2011). IDEA requirements for FBAs and BIPs: A quick quiz. Communiqué, 40(1), 8-9.

16.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012). The legal dimension of RTI: Confusion confirmed. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 72-75.

17.

Zirkel

P. A.

(in press). The law of evaluation under the IDEA: An annotated update. West’s Education Law Reporter.

18.

Zirkel

P. A.

Thomas

L. B.

(2009). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 56-63.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Supreme Court’s Forest Grove Decision?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References