Forest Grove v. T.A. Rejoinder to Zirkel

Abstract

In this issue, Professor Perry Zirkel argues that the points presented in the Dixon, Eusebio, Turton, Wright, and Hale treatise of the Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court case confuses "legal requirements with professional norms." Although we appreciate Zirkel's acknowledgment that our position reflects the professional norm-that comprehensive evaluation of psychological processes is critical for identifying children with learning and other disabilitiesthis position does not equate with "confusion" regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act statutory or regulatory requirements, or legal precedents, presented in Dixon et al. On the contrary, Dixon et al. specifically address all three requirements in their article, suggesting Zirkel's rebuttal is not supported. The resultant effects of Zirkel's arguments on public opinion, professional conduct, and individual children served by the law will be elucidated in this rebuttal.

An Analysis of the Judicial Rulings for Transition Services Under the IDEA

“…Ultimately, it is a matter of extra care and commitment. Rather than personal attacks (e.g., Wright et al, 2013), the response should be evidence-based in line with the corresponding standards for research-based scholarship and practice. Advocacy has its proper place when transparent to the reader, as illustrated by Condit’s (2015) call for the aforementioned Gibson -type approach to transition services.…”

“…Leading examples include the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) issues of child find (Wright, Hale, Backenson, Eusebio, & Dixon, 2013;Zirkel, 2013); response to intervention (Daves & Walker, 2011;Zirkel, 2011Zirkel, , 2013b; behavior disorders (Smith, Katsiyannis, & Ryan, 2014;Zirkel, 2014a); functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (BIPs; Zirkel, 2017b); and procedural violations of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process (Zirkel & Hetrick, 2016). As explained below, the most common problems with the quality, or accuracy, of the litigation analyses of these special education issues include the following overlapping symptoms: (a) confusion or at least lack of careful clarity about the hierarchical weighting within the overall body of relevant case law; (b) insufficient comprehensiveness or at least representativeness of the relevant judicial rulings; and, perhaps most importantly, (c) lack of differentiation of professional norms or legal advocacy from objective analysis of legal requirements.…”