Erratum: The legal dimension of RTIConfusion confirmed: A response to Walker and Daves (Learning Disability Quarterly (2012) 35:2 (72-75) DOI: 10.1177/0731948711433092);The legal dimension of RTI-confusion confirmed: A response to walker and daves

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 72-75

  Zirkel, Perry A ^a  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Case law; IDEA; Response to intervention; Specific learning disability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878124783     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: 2168376X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0731948712462974     Document Type: Erratum

References (23)

1. Daves, D. P., & Walker, D. W. (in press). RTI: Court and case law -confusion by design. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), XX.
2. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 918 (W.D. Tex. 2009
3. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-To-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
4. Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B. Christo, C., Clark, E., ⋯ Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in response-To-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 223-236.
5. Hoover, J. J., & Love, E. (2011). Supporting school-based response to intervention: A practitioner's model. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 40-48.
6. Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50, 4-11.
7. Joshua Indep. Sch. Dist., 56 IDELR ¶ 88 (Tex. SEA 2010
8. J.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004
9. further proceedings, 47 IDELR 43 (W.D.N.Y. 2007
10. Lembke, E. S., McMaster, K. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The prevention science of reading research within a response to intervention model. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 22-35.
11. Letter to Brekken, 56 IDELR ¶ 80 (OSEP 2010
12. Letter to Zirkel, 56 IDELR ¶ 140 (OSEP 2011
13. Marshall Joint Sch. Dist. v. C.D., 616 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2010
14. Mellard, D. F., Byrd, S. E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J. M., & Boesche, L. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-To-intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243-256.
15. Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner's guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
16. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2009
17. Polk County (FL) Sch. Dist., 56 IDELR ¶179 (OCR 2010
18. Vanderheyden, A. (2011). Technical adequacy of response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 77, 335-350.
19. Walker, D. W., & Daves, D. (2010). Response to intervention and the courts: Litigation-based guidance. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 40-46.
20. Yell, M. L., & Walker, D. W. (2010). The legal basis of response to intervention: Analysis and implications. Exceptionality, 18, 124-137.
21. Zirkel, P. A. (2004). NCLB: What does it mean for students with disabilities? West's Education Law Reporter, 185, 805-818.
22. Zirkel, P. A. (2011). State laws and guidelines for RTI: Additional implementation features. Communiqué, 39(7), 30-32.
23. Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60-73.