Publications (previous)

These are selected publications since 2010 on frequent issues in special education law. For the full publication list, see the Curriculum Vita, which is available as a PDF download on the About page.

For those items on this list that are available freely from here, see the URLs and PDF links below.  The other items are only available from the publisher, who holds the copyright and has not provided permission for downloading here.

Overviews:

  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Special education law: Illustrative basics and nuances of key IDEA components. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 263–275.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). An updated primer of special education law. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52, 261–265.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Legal Information in special education: Accuracy with transparency. Exceptionality, 28(4), 312–315. [PDF]
  • Gratton-Fisher, E., & Zirkel, P. (2021). Ten legal lessons for special educators. Exceptionality 29(1), 41–46.

Child Find:

  • Zirkel, P. (2014). “Child find”: The lore v. the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 307(2), 574–580. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Child find: The “reasonable period” requirement. West’s Education Law Reporter, 311(2), 576–580. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). The “red flags” of child find under the IDEA: Separating the law from the lore. Exceptionality, 23, 192–209.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Child find. Principal, 95(1), 50–51.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016, February). Child find: An update of the lore v. the law. Inquiry & Analysis (National School Boards Association), 1–7.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). Child find under the IDEA: An empirical analysis of the judicial case law. CommuniquĂ©, 45(7), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Child find under the IDEA: An updated analysis of the judicial case law. CommuniquĂ©, 48(8), 14–16.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The Fifth Circuit’s latest child find ruling: Fusion and confusion. West’s Education Law Reporter, 377, 464–471. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). You be the judge #22: Child find and eligibility under the IDEA. CommuniquĂ©, 50(6), 16–18.

Eligibility:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for IDEA eligibility: The latest case law. CommuniquĂ©, 41(5), 10–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). The legal meaning of SLD eligibility: The most recent case law. CommuniquĂ©, 43(7), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). A new major court decision: Are blurred boundaries worth the price on the eligibility side? Exceptionality, 25(1), 1–8. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). An adjudicative checklist for child find and eligibility under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 357, 30–31. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). ADHD checklist for identification under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 366(2), 585–595. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Checklist for identifying students as eligible under the IDEA classification of emotional disturbance (ED): An Update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 373, 18–22. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020).  Through a glass darkly: Eligibility under the IDEA—The blurry boundary of the special education need prong article. Journal of Law & Education, 49(2), 149–169 [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). An update of legal issues for students with autism: Eligibility and methodology. West’s Education Law Reporter, 376(1) 1–46. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). The legal meaning of specific learning disability: The next case law update. CommuniquĂ©, 49(6), 18–20

 FAPE

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Is it time for elevating the standard for FAPE under IDEA? Exceptional Children, 79, 503–508.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Parental participation: The paramount procedural requirement under the IDEA? Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 15, 1–36. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Hetrick, A. (2016). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are most judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235.
  • Zirkel, P., & Bauer, E. T. (2016). The third dimension of FAPE under the IDEA: IEP implementation. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 36, 409–427. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). The Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1: A meaningful raising of the bar? West’s Education Law Reporter, 341, 545–554.[PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). An adjudicative checklist of the four criteria for FAPE under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 346, 18-20. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). Failure to implement the IEP: The third dimension of FAPE under the IDEA. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28, 174–179.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). Endrew F. after six months: A game changer? West’s Education Law Reporter, 348, 585-596. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). The aftermath of Endrew F. one year later: An updated outcomes analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 352, 448–455. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). The aftermath of Endrew F.: An outcomes analysis eighteen months later. West’s Education Law Reporter, 361, 488–497. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). The aftermath of Endrew F.: An outcomes analysis two years later. West’s Education Law Reporter, 364(1), 1–13. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Safeguarding procedures under the IDEA: Restoring the balance in the adjudication of FAPE. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 39(2), 1–18. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). An update of legal issues for students with autism: Eligibility and methodology. West’s Education Law Reporter, 376(1) 1–46. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The Orton-Gillingham approach for students with disabilities: Case law update under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 377, 472–483. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). Challenges based on lack of teacher licensing qualifications under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 395, 477–483. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). Challenges based on lack of sufficient specialized training of special education teachers under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 395, 890–896. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). The “peer-reviewed research” provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A current comprehensive snapshot. West’s Education Law Reporter, 397, 422–431. [PDF]

IDEA Remedies:

– General:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Adjudicative remedies for denials of FAPE under the IDEA. Journal of National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 33, 220–241. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). The remedial authority of hearing and review officers under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The latest update. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 37, 506–557. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). An adjudicative checklist of the criteria for the two primary remedies under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 354, 637–640. [PDF]

– Tuition and Other Reimbursement:

  • Zirkel, P. (2012). Tuition and related reimbursement under the IDEA: A decisional checklist. West’s Education Law Reporter, 282(2), 785–794. 2019 Update [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017).  Independent educational evaluation reimbursement under the IDEA: The latest update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 341, 555–564. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. A. (2020). You be the judge #20: Reimbursement for residential treatment. CommuniquĂ©, 49(4), 20–21.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). A step-by-step overview of tuition reimbursement under the IDEA. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 34(2), 94–99.

– Compensatory Education:

  • Seligmann, T., J. & Zirkel, P. (2013). Compensatory education for IDEA violations: The silly putty of remedies? Urban Lawyer, 45, 281–312.
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Compensatory education: An annotated update of the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 291(1), 1–10. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). The two competing approaches for calculating compensatory education services: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 339, 10–22. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Compensatory education: The latest annotated update of the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 376(2), 850–863. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). COVID-19 confusion: Compensatory services and compensatory education. Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, 30, 391–414. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021).  Post-pandemic “compensatory services.” NASET Special Educator e-Journal, pp. 7–11. [PDF]

– Money Damages:

  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Individual liability under the IDEA: Crofts warrants correction. West’s Education Law Reporter, 350, 497–503. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Monetary liability of public school employees under the IDEA or Section 504/ADA. BYU Journal of Education and Law, 2019, 1–20. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Are school personnel liable for money damages under the IDEA or Section 504 and the ADA?, Exceptionality, 27(2), 77-80.

– Attorneys’ Fees:

  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Attorney’s fee awards to defendant districts in IDEA cases: The road in the reverse direction. West’s Education Law Reporter, 321(2), 603–622. Reprinted in NSBA’s Inquiry & Analysis (Dec. 2015). [PDF]

– Purely Prospective Relief:

  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Safeguarding procedures under the IDEA: Restoring the balance in the adjudication of FAPE. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 39(2), 1–18. [PDF]

Due Process Hearings:

  • Zirkel, P. (2012). Judicial appeals of hearing/review officer decisions under the IDEA. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 375–384.
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Who has the burden of persuasion in impartial hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 13, 1–18. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Appropriate decisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Journal of National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 33, 243–260. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Balance and bias in special education hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 67–74.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). Expert witnesses in impartial hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. West’s Education Law Reporter, 298, 648–655. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). Longitudinal trends in impartial hearings under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 302, 1–11. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). Trends in impartial hearings under the IDEA: A follow-up analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 303, 1–21. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Skidmore, C.A. (2014). National trends in the frequency and outcomes of hearing and review officer decisions under the IDEA: An empirical analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 525–576. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Are the outcomes of hearing (and review) officer decisions different for pro se and represented parents? Journal of the National Association of the Administrative Law Judiciary, 34, 264–282. [PDF]
  • Skidmore, C.A., & Zirkel, P. (2015). Has the Supreme Court’s Schaffer decision placed a burden on hearing officer decision-making under the IDEA? Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 35, 283–304. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Of mouseholes and elephants: The statute of limitations for impartial hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 35, 305–332 [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). “Stay-put” under the IDEA: An annotated overview. West’s Education Law Reporter, 330, 8–22. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). State laws for due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 38(1), 3–33. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). The “snapshot” standard under the IDEA: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 358(2), 455–459. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Impartial hearings under the IDEA: Legal issues and answers. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 38(2), 32–100. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). The statute of limitations for an impartial hearing under the IDEA: A guiding checklist. West’s Education Law Reporter, 363, 483–488. [PDF]
  • Connolly, J,  Zirkel, P., & Mayes, T. (2019). State due process hearing systems under the IDEA: An update. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30, 156–163.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). State laws for due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act II: The post-hearing stage. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 40(1), 1–29. [PDF]
  • Lee, A., & Zirkel, P. (2020). State laws for due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act III: The pre-hearing stage. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 40(2), 1–26. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Gullo, G. (2020). Trends in impartial hearings under the IDEA: A comparative update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 376(3), 870–879. [PDF]
  • Gullo, G., & Zirkel, P. (2020). Trends in impartial hearings under the IDEA: A comparative enrollments-based analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 382, 454–470. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). The legal boundaries for impartiality of IDEA hearing officers: An update. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 21(4), 257–279. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Is appealing a hearing officer’s decision likely to result in a major outcome change in the final court decision? West’s Education Law Reporter, 393(1), 1–6. [PDF]
  • Holben, D., & Zirkel, P. (2021). Due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Justice delayed …. Administrative Law Review, 73, 833–867. [PDF]
  • Lee, A., & Zirkel, P. (2022). State laws for due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IV: Expedited hearings. Journal of the National Association of the Administrative Law Judiciary, 42, 56–81. [PDF]

Other IDEA Dispute Resolution:

  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Mediated settlement agreements under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 317(1), 1–5. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). The complaint procedures avenue of the IDEA: Has the road less traveled by made all the difference? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(2), 88–97. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). The two decisional dispute resolution processes under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: An empirical comparison. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 16(2), 169–207. [PDF]
  • Hansen, K., & Zirkel, P. (2018). Complaint procedure systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state survey. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(2), 108­–116. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). State laws and guidance for complaint procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. West’s Education Law Reporter, 368, 24-50. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). A comparison of the IDEA’s dispute resolution processes: Complaint resolution and impartial hearings: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 369, 550–563. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Questionable initiation of both decisional dispute resolution processes under the IDEA: Proposed regulatory interpretations. Journal of Law & Education, 49, 99–109. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). The state complaint procedure: A state decisional alternative under the IDEA. CommuniquĂ©, 50(3), 16–17.
  • Fairbanks, A., Jones, N., & Zirkel, P. (2021). Frequency trends in the state complaint procedures under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 394, 440–454. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., Fairbanks, A., & Jones, N. (2022). Outcomes trends in the state complaint procedures under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 396, 24–36. [PDF]

Case Law Updates:

  • Karanxha, Z., & Zirkel, P. (2014). Trends in special education case law: Frequency and outcomes of published court decisions 1998–2012. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(2), 55–65.
  • Rose Bailey, T., & Zirkel, P. (2015). Frequency trends of court decisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 28(1), 3–13. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Rose Bailey, T. (2016). Special education law update XIII. West’s Education Law Reporter, 334(1),1–44. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. A. (2021). National update of case law 1998 to the present under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. [PDF]

Aversive Procedures, Behavioral Interventions & Manifestation Determinations:

  • Zirkel, P. & Lyons, C. (2011). Restraining the use of restraints with students with disabilities: An empirical analysis of the case law. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 10, 323–354. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2011). Case law for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans: An empirical analysis. Seattle University Law Review, 35, 175–212. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2011). State special education laws for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans. Behavioral Disorders, 36(4), 262–278.
  • Bon, S., & Zirkel, P. (2014). The time-out and seclusion continuum: A systematic analysis of case law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(1), 35–45.
  • Bon, S., & Zirkel, P. (2014). Time-out and seclusion litigation: A liability nightmare? University of Toledo Law Review, 45(3), 505–526. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). The use of restraints with student with disabilities: An update of the case law. CommuniquĂ©, 44(6), 4–10. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). The use of restraints with student with disabilities: An updated empirical analysis of the case law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 327(1), 1–16. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). The use of time-out and seclusion with students with disabilities: An update of the case law. CommuniquĂ©, 45(1), 12–15.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Manifestation determinations under IDEA 2004: A legal analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 29(1), 32–45.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). State special education laws for functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans: An Update. CommuniquĂ©, 45(3), 4–6.
  • Collins, L., & Zirkel, P. (2017). Functional behavior assessments and behavior intervention plans: Legal requirements and professional recommendations. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(3), 180–190.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). An update of judicial rulings specific to FBAs or BIPs under the IDEA and corollary special education laws. Journal of Special Education, 51(1), 50–56.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Manifestation determinations under the IDEA: The latest case law. The School Psychologist, 72(1), 13–23. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). The use of restraints for students with disabilities: The latest case law update. CommuniquĂ©, 48(3), 10–19.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The substantive “yes” and “no” manifestation determinations under the IDEA: An updated case law analysis. CommuniquĂ©, 48(5), 26–29.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The use of time-out and seclusion for students with disabilities: The latest case law update. CommuniquĂ©, 48(7), 22–25.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). FBAs and BIPs under the IDEA: An updated analysis of the judicial case law. CommuniquĂ©, 49(3), 20–21.

RTI/MTSS and SLD:

  • Zirkel, P., & Thomas, L. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60–73.
  • Zirkel, P. (2011). State laws and guidelines for RTI: Additional implementation issues. CommuniquĂ©, 39(7), 30–32.
  • Zirkel, P. (2011). RTI and the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 268(1), 1–16. 2019 Update [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling: RTI? CommuniquĂ©, 40(5), 26–27.
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). The legal dimension of RTI: Part I – The basic building blocks. RTI Action Network [online at http://rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-i-the-basic-building-blocks].
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). The legal dimension of RTI: Part II – State laws and guidelines. RTI Action Network [online at http://rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines].
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). The legal dimension of RTI: Part III – RTI legal checklist for SLD identification. RTI Action Network [online at http://rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines].
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). The common lore about RTI. RTI Action network [online at http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/common-lore-about-rti].
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(5), 473–479. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). The Hale position for a “third method” for specific learning disabilities identification: A legal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 92–95.
  • Zumeta, R., Zirkel, P., & Danielson, L. (2014). Identifying specific learning disabilities: Legislation, regulations, and court decisions. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 8–24.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). A collateral case of RTI requirements. CommuniquĂ©, 43(4), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). The legal meaning of SLD eligibility: The most recent case law. CommuniquĂ©, 43(7), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). RTI and other approaches to SLD identification under the IDEA: A legal update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 165–73.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Response to intervention: Law v. lore. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(2), 113–118.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). The legal meaning of specific learning disability: The latest case law. Communique, 46(7), 14–16.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Response to intervention and child find: A problematic intersection? Exceptional Children, 84(4), 368–383.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The law on RTI and MTSS. West’s Education Law Reporter, 373, 1–17. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). An update of the law and students with dyslexia: Identification and intervention. West’s Education Law Reporter, 375, 608–624. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Legal developments for students with dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(3), 127–139.

Section 504 and the ADA:

  • Zirkel, P. (2012). Impartial hearings for public school students under Section 504: A state-by-state survey. West’s Education Law Reporter, 279(1), 1–17. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). The public schools’ obligation for impartial hearings under Section 504. Widener Law Journal, 22, 135–181. [PDF]
  • Hardcastle, L. A., & Zirkel, P. (2012). The “new” Section 504: Student issues in the wake of the ADAAA. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(4), 32–39.
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). Section 504 for special education leaders: Persisting and emerging issues. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25(2), 99–105.
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). Section 504 eligibility and students on individual health plans. West’s Education Law Reporter, 276(2), 577–586. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., Granthom, M., & Lovato, L. (2012). Section 504 and students with health problems: The pivotal position of the school nurse. Journal of School Nursing, 28(6), 423–432.
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Top five Section 504 errors redux. ELA Notes, 48(2), 14–15. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). Three birds with one stone: Does meeting the requirements for an IDEA-eligible student also comply with the requirements of Section 504 and the ADA? West’s Education Law Reporter, 300(1), 29–35 [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Are students with concussions qualified for Section 504 plans? West’s Education Law Reporter, 311(2), 589–594. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Weathers, J. M. (2015). Section 504-only students: National incidence data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(3), 184–193.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Is a 504 plan required (or permitted) in the wake of revocation of an IEP? West’s Education Law Reporter, 321(2), 623–628. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Service animals in K–12 schools: A legal update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 327(2), 554–560. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Weathers, J.M. (2016). K–12 students eligible solely under Section 504: Updated national incidence data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(2), 67–75.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Impartial hearings under Section 504. West’s Education Law Reporter, 332(3), 51–54. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). An updated comprehensive comparison of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 342(3), 886–915. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). The courts’ use of OCR policy interpretations in Section 504/ADA   K-12 student education cases. West’s Education Law Reporter, 349, 7–14. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Do courts require a heightened, intent standard for students’ Section 504 and ADA claims against school districts? Journal of Law & Education, 47, 109–118. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). State-by-state rates of 504-only students in K–12 schools. West’s Education Law Reporter, 352, 9–14. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Huang, T. (2018). State rates of 504-only students in K–12 public schools: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 354, 621–625 [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Public school rates of 504-only students. West’s Education Law Reporter, 356, 1–10. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). School district rates of 504-only students. West’s Education Law Reporter, 356, 11–20. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Identification of 504-only students: An alternate eligibility form. West’s Education Law Reporter, 357, 39–43. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Avoiding under- and over-identification of 504-only students: Pitfalls and handholds. West’s Education Law Reporter, 359, 715–720 [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Principal Leadership, 19(7), 40–43.
  • DuPaul, G., & Zirkel, P. (2019). Section 504 eligibility determinations: Concentrating on ADHD.  CommuniquĂ©, 47(6), 8–11.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Identifying and mis-identifying “504-only students.” CommuniquĂ©, 49(1), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P., & Gullo, G. (2021). State rates of 504-only students in K–12 schools: The next update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 385, 14–23. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Gullo, G. (2021). School district rates of 504-only students: The next update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 385. 24–33. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Gullo, G. (2021). Public school rates of 504-only students: The next update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 387(1), 1–11. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). Section 504/ADA grievance procedure for school districts. West’s Education Law Reporter, 397, 929–932. [PDF]

School Psychologists:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Lore v. law for school psychologists. CommuniquĂ©, 41(8), 10–12.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). The “case” of a school psychologist: The legal and larger meaning. CommuniquĂ©, 42(5), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). A “Rad” case for two school psychologists. CommuniquĂ©, 42(8), 8–9.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). You be the judge I: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? CommuniquĂ©, 43(1), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). The legal quality of articles published in school psychology journals: An initial report card. School Psychology Review, 43(3), 318–339.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). You be the judge II: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? CommuniquĂ©, 43(3), 16–20.
  • Zaheer, I., & Zirkel, P. (2014). The legal content of school psychology journals: A systematic survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51(10), 999–1016.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). You be the judge III: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? CommuniquĂ©, 43(8), 10–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). You be the judge IV: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? CommuniquĂ©, 44(1), 10–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). You be the judge V: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? CommuniquĂ©, 44(4), 10–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge VI. CommuniquĂ©, 44(5), 4–7.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge VII. CommuniquĂ©, 44(7), 4–10.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge VIII. CommuniquĂ©, 44(8), 4–10.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge IX. CommuniquĂ©, 45(2), 16–19.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). State laws for functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans: An update. CommuniquĂ©, 45(3), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge X. CommuniquĂ©, 45(4), 18–20.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #11: Response to intervention and SLD identification. CommuniquĂ©, 45(6), 4–8.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #12: School psychologist liability. CommuniquĂ©, 45(8), 8–11.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #13: IEEs at public expense. CommuniquĂ©, 46(1), 19–21.
  • Kaplan, R., & Zirkel, P. (2017). Are student communications with school psychologists legally privileged? CommuniquĂ©, 46(1), 1, 18–21.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). Ask Perry #1. CommuniquĂ©, 46(3), 13–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #14: Appropriate IDEA evaluations. CommuniquĂ©, 46(4), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #15: Advocacy or insubordination. CommuniquĂ©, 46(5), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Ask Perry #2. CommuniquĂ©, 46(6), 7–8.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). The legal meaning of special education eligibility: The latest case law. Communique, 46(7), 14–16.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Ask Perry #3. CommuniquĂ©, 46(8), 16.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). You be the judge #16: The costly consequences of a concussion. CommuniquĂ©, 47(1), 14–15.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Ask Perry #4. CommuniquĂ©, 47(2), 11.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Ask Perry #5. CommuniquĂ©, 47(4), 11.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). You be the judge #17: FAPE and tuition reimbursement. CommuniquĂ©, 47(5), 18–20.
  • DuPaul, G., & Zirkel, P. (2019). Section 504 eligibility determinations: Concentrating on ADHD.  CommuniquĂ©, 47(6), 8–11.
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Revisiting the PPRA: An amended answer. CommuniquĂ©, 47(7), 16–17.
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Professional misconceptions of the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F.  CommuniquĂ©, 47(8), 12–15.
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Liability for student suicide: An updated empirical analysis of the case law. CommuniquĂ©, 48(1), 1629.  Zirkel, P. (2021). FAPE during the pandemic: Two leading questions and emerging answers. CommuniquĂ©, 49(7), 7–8& 28–31.
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). You be the judge #18: Providing a comprehensive evaluation. CommuniquĂ©, 48(2), 12–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). The law of evaluations under the IDEA: An annotated update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 368, 594-617. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). The use of restraints for students with disabilities: The latest case law update. CommuniquĂ©, 48(3), 10–19.
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). Ask Perry #6. CommuniquĂ©, 48(4), 8.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The substantive “yes” and “no” manifestation determinations under the IDEA: An updated case law analysis. CommuniquĂ©, 48(5), 26–29.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). You be the judge #19: Providing a FAPE. CommuniquĂ©, 48(6), 20–22.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). The use of time-out and seclusion for students with disabilities: The latest case law update. CommuniquĂ©, 48(7), 22–25.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Child find under the IDEA: An updated analysis of the judicial case law. CommuniquĂ©, 48(8), 14–16.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Identifying and mis-identifying “504-only students.” CommuniquĂ©, 49(1), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Ask Perry #7. CommuniquĂ©, 49(2), 24.
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). FBAs and BIPs under the IDEA: An updated analysis of the judicial case law. CommuniquĂ©, 49(3), 20–21.
  • Zirkel, P. A. (2020). You be the judge #20: Reimbursement for residential treatment. CommuniquĂ©, 49(4), 20–21.
  • Zirkel, P. A. (2021). Independent educational evaluations. CommuniquĂ©, 49(5), 24–25.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). The legal meaning of specific learning disability: The next case law update. CommuniquĂ©, 49(6), 18–20.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). FAPE during the pandemic: Two leading questions and emerging answers. CommuniquĂ©, 49(7), 7–8.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). You be the judge #21: Twice exceptional students and the IDEA or Section 504. CommuniquĂ©, 49(8), 8–10.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Transition services under the IDEA: A legal overview and update. CommuniquĂ©, 50(1), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Ask Perry #8. CommuniquĂ©, 50(2), 14–15.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). The state complaint procedure: A state decisional alternative under the IDEA. CommuniquĂ©, 50(3), 16–17.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Tips for testifying as a witness at an IDEA due process hearing. CommuniquĂ©, 50(3), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). Extended school year: The legal framework. CommuniquĂ©, 50(5), 24–26.
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). You be the judge #22: Child find and eligibility under the IDEA. CommuniquĂ©, 50(6), 16–18.

Other IDEA and/or Section 504 Issues:

  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Court decisions specific to public school responses to student concussions. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services. 35(1), 1–16. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Stay-put under the IDEA: An updated overview. West’s Education Law Reporter, 330(1), 8–22. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). State education agencies as defendants under the IDEA and related federal laws: A compilation of the court decisions. West’s Education Law Reporter, 336(2), 667–675. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017).  The courts’ use of OSEP policy interpretations in IDEA cases. West’s Education Law Reporter, 344(2), 671–677. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Legal obligations to students with disabilities in private schools. West’s Education Law Reporter, 351(2), 688–693. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). An analysis of the judicial rulings for transition services under the IDEA. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(3), 136–145.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Confidentiality for students with disabilities: Liability cases. Exceptionality, 26(4), 209–217 [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2019). School resource officers and students with disabilities: A disproportionate connection? Exceptionality, 27, 299–314. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). School attendance issues in special education case law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 379, 1–13. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). Post-Fry exhaustion under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 381(1), 1–15. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2020). English learners in K–12 schools at the perilous intersection with disability laws: The need for guardias bilingĂĽes. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 30, 59–88. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Legal decisions for special education COVID-19 issues: Emerging answers. InCASE, 62(4), 1–7. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). “Specially designed instruction” under the IDEA: Is it something special? West’s Education Law Reporter, 387(1), 17–23. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). COVID-19 confusion: Compensatory services and compensatory education. Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, 30, 391–414. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Twice-exceptional students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. West’s Education Law Reporter, 389(1), 1–16. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). What are the criteria for an appropriate extended school year program? West’s Education Law Reporter, 391(1), 1–9. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). State laws for extended school year under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 391(1), 10–18. [PDF]
  • Sayeski, K. L., & Zirkel, P. (2021). Orton-Gillingham and the IDEA: Analysis of the frequency and outcomes of the case law. Annals of Dyslexia, 71(3), 483–500.
  • Zirkel, P. (2021). Exhaustion of Section 504 and ADA claims under the IDEA: Resolving the confusion. Rutgers University Law Review, 74, 123–142. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P., & Osborne, A. (2021). Eligibility for extended school year under the IDEA: A current comprehensive snapshot. West’s Education Law Reporter, 395, 17–30. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2022). Speech language pathology under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. West’s Education Law Reporter, 396, 377–391. [PDF]

Bullying:

  • Holben, D. M., & Zirkel, P. A. (2018). Bullying of students with disabilities: An empirical analysis of the case law. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 20(3), 133–155
  • Holben, D.M., & Zirkel, P. A. (2019). Bullying of students with disabilities: An empirical analysis court claim rulings. West’s Education Law Reporter, 361, 498–508. [PDF]
  • Holben, D., & Zirkel, P. (2020). Bullying litigation: An empirical analysis of the dispositional intersection between inconclusive rulings and ultimate outcomes. Hawaii Law Review, 42, 76–100. [PDF]

Gifted Education:

  • Zirkel, P. (2010, March). Legal rights for gifted education. Parenting for High Potential, pp. 15–18.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Legal update of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 315–337. [PDF]