Rti

Daves, David P.; Walker, David W.

doi:10.1177/0731948711433091

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not uncommon to find in the professional literature the view that the IDEA provides for the generic use of RTI extending well beyond SLD identification (e.g., Daves & Walker, 2012). Yet, a careful review of the IDEA legislation and regulations clearly reveals that the only reference to and recognition of the use of "a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention" (i.e., RTI) is limited to the identification of students with SLD ( § 1414[b][6][B]; § § 300.307, 300.309, and 300.311).…”

Section: The Various State and Local Provisions For Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Intervention: Lore v. Law

Zirkel

2017

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The legal dimension of response to intervention (RTI) has been the subject of considerable professional confusion. This brief article addresses the issue in three parts. The first part provides an update of a previous iteration that compared 12 common conceptions, referred to here as the "lore," with an objective synthesis of the applicable primary sources of law. Due to the relative paucity of case law to date, this synthesis includes various policy interpretations of the United States. The second part consists of a summary of the results of the polling of professionals who attended a recent series of regional RTI conferences. The third part provides a discussion of these results, including the limitations of the items and the polls, the implications for practitioners, and recommendations for further research.

show abstract

Section: The Various State and Local Provisions For Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Intervention: Lore v. Law

Zirkel

2017

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zirkel

2017

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting with a constructive critique of legal articles in special education journals concerning transition services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this article presents an empirical analysis of relevant judicial rulings for the period 1990-2016 that shows a prevailing prodistrict approach that is not otherwise evident in the prior articles. The findings include an increased frequency of these judicial rulings generally in accord with the trajectory of special education litigation and, more significantly, an approximate 3:1 district-parent ratio in the outcomes of these rulings that, with up-and-down variation, prevails for the entire period. The conclusion is that the time is ripe for an elevated substantive standard for law-based articles in special education journals as well as a continued, but differentiated, rigorous normative standard for transition services.

show abstract