Publications

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.

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. Communiqué, 45(7), 4–6

Eligibility:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). ADHD checklist for identification under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 293(1), 13–27. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for IDEA eligibility: The latest case law. Communiqué, 41(5), 10–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Checklist for identifying students eligible under the IDEA classification of emotional disturbance: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 286, 7–11. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). The legal meaning of SLD eligibility: The most recent case law. Communiqué, 43(7), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Update of the law and students with dyslexia: Identification and intervention. West’s Education Law Reporter, 318, 603–615. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). An update of legal issues related to students with autism: Eligibility and methodology. West’s Education Law Reporter, 322(1), 10–44. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). A new major court decision: Are blurred boundaries worth the price on the eligibility side? Exceptionality, 25(1), 1–8. [PDF]

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]

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. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017).  Independent educational evaluation reimbursement under the IDEA: The latest update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 341, 555–564. [PDF]

– Compensatory Education:

  • Seligmann, T., J. & Zirkel, P. (2013). Compensatory education for IDEA violations: The silly putty of remedies? Urban Lawyer, 45, 281–312. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Compensatory education: An annotated update of the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 291(1), 1–10. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Compensatory education: The next annotated update of the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 336(2), 654–666. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). The two competing approaches for calculating compensatory education services: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 339, 10–22. [PDF]

– Money Damages:

  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Individual liability under the IDEA: Crofts warrants correction. West’s Education Law Reporter, 350, 497–503. [PDF]

– 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]

Due Process Hearings:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013, January). Impartial hearings under the IDEA: Legal issues and answers (2d ed.) Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education [available at www.nasdse.org].
  • 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. (2013). “Stay-put” under the IDEA: An annotated overview. West’s Education Law Reporter, 286, 12–22. [PDF]
  • 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. (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]

Other IDEA Dispute Resolution:

  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Legal boundaries for the IDEA complaint resolution process: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 313(1), 1–10. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). Mediated settlement agreements under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 317(1), 1–5. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). A comparison of the IDEA’s dispute resolution processes: Complaint resolution and impartial hearings. West’s Education Law Reporter, 326(1), 1–8. [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 Journal16(2), 169–207. [PDF]
  • Hansen, K., & Zirkel, P. (2018). Complaint procedure systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state sruvey. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(2), 108­–116. [PDF]

Case Law Updates:

  • Zirkel, P. (2012). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present.  In IDEA: A handy desk reference to the law, regulations, and indicators (pp. 669–752). Albany, NY: LexisNexis
  • Zirkel, P., & Rose Bailey, T. (2013). Special education law update X. West’s Education Law Reporter, 291(2), 503-533. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present. In IDEA: A handy desk reference to the law, regulations, and indicators (pp. 709–790). Albany, NY: LexisNexis.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present. [Online at www.nasdse.org ]
  • 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. (2018). 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). (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. Communiqué, 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. Communiqué, 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. Communiqué, 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]

RTI 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. Communiqué, 39(7), 30–32.
  • Zirkel, P. (2012). The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling: RTI? Communiqué, 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. Communiqué, 43(4), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). The legal meaning of SLD eligibility: The most recent case law. Communiqué, 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.

Section 504 and the ADA:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Top five Section 504 errors redux. ELA Notes, 48(2), 14–15. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Section 504, the ADA and the schools: 3d edition, Supplement 3. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
  • 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. (2012). A comprehensive comparison of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 282(2), 767–784. [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]

School Psychologists:

  • Zirkel, P. (2013). Lore v. law for school psychologists. Communiqué, 41(8), 10–12.
  • Zirkel, P. (2013). The law of evaluations under the IDEA: An annotated update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 297, 637–654. [PDF]
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). The “case” of a school psychologist: The legal and larger meaning. Communiqué, 42(5), 4–6.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). A “Rad” case for two school psychologists. Communiqué, 42(8), 8–9.
  • Zirkel, P. (2014). You be the judge I: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? Communiqué, 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? Communiqué, 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? Communiqué, 43(8), 10–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). You be the judge IV: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? Communiqué, 44(1), 10–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2015). You be the judge V: “Appropriate” school psychology practice? Communiqué, 44(4), 10–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge VI. Communiqué, 44(5), 4–7.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge VII. Communiqué, 44(7), 4–10.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge VIII. Communiqué, 44(8), 4–10.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge IX. Communiqué, 45(2), 16–19.
  • Zirkel, P. (2016). Appropriate school psychology practice?: You be the judge X. Communiqué, 45(4), 18–20.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #11: Response to intervention and SLD identification. Communiqué, 45(6), 4–8.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #12: School psychologist liability. Communiqué, 45(8), 8–11.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #13: IEEs at public expense. Communiqué, 46(1), 19–21.
  • Kaplan, R., & Zirkel, P. (2017). Are student communications with school psychologists legally privileged? Communiqué, 46(1), 1, 18–21.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). Ask Perry #1. Communiqué, 46(3), 13–14.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #14: Appropriate IDEA evaluations. Communiqué, 46(4), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2017). You be the judge #15: Advocacy or insubordination. Communiqué, 46(5), 12–13.
  • Zirkel, P. (2018). Ask Perry #2. Communiqué, 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. Communiqué, 46(8), 16.

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.
  • 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.

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]