Peer-Reviewed Research and the IEP: Implications of Ridley School District v. M.R. and J.R. ex rel. E.R. (2012)

Intervention in School and Clinic

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 253-257

  Yell, Mitchell L ^a   Katsiyannis, Antonis ^b   Losinski, Mickey ^c   Marshall, Kelsey ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

IEP process; law; legal; policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956651841     PISSN: 10534512     EISSN: 15384810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1053451215589182     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. B.D.BatemanM.A.Linden (2012). Better IEPs: How to development legally correct and education useful programs. Verona, WI: IEP Resources/Attainment.
2. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
3. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
4. V.E.Greene (2013). Project Read. Retrieved from http://www.projectread.com
5. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973).
6. D.J.Reschly (2008). School psychology RTI paradigm shift and beyond. In (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 3–15). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
7. Ridley School District v. M.R. and J.R. ex rel. E.R, No. 11-1447 (3rd Cir. 2012). Retrieved from http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/111447p.pdf
8. U.S. Department of Education, 71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (2006).
9. B.A.Wilson (2013). Wilson language training. Retrieved from http://www.wilsonlanguage.com
10. M.L.YellM.E.Rozalski (2013). The peer reviewed research requirement of the IDEA: An examination of law and policy. In (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Evidence-based practices (pp. 149–172). London, UK: Emerald Press.