The 2009 Forest Grove School District v. T.A. United States Supreme Court case could have significant implications for school psychology practice. The Court ruled that the parents of a student with a disability were entitled to private school tuition reimbursement even though T.A. had not been identified with a disability or previously provided with special education services. The district multidisciplinary team had not identified T.A.’s disability in part because of a limited psychoeducational evaluation that did not assess him in “all areas of suspected disability” which is a requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B)). Dissatisfied with the team’s decision, the parents sought an independent comprehensive evaluation of T.A.’s psychological processes which revealed the full nature of his disability and needs. Although T.A. had been unresponsive to interventions in his home school, this comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation led to more targeted interventions in his private school placement and likely contributed to T.A.’s subsequent academic and behavioral success. This Supreme Court case highlights the need for school-based teams to conduct comprehensive evaluations in all areas of suspected disability, including psychological processes such as attention, memory, and executive function. The relevant IDEA 2004 and governing 2006 federal regulations are presented, followed by recommendations for school psychologist assessment practices to ensure compliance with IDEA statutory and regulatory requirements.
Barnett, B.W., Daly, E.J., Jones, K.M., & Lentz, F.E. ( 2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity . Journal of Education, 38, 66-79.
2.
Berninger, V.W., & Richards, T.L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier Science.
3.
Broadhurst, M.E. ( 2004). Memorandum and Exhibit, filed in United States District Court, District of Oregon.
4.
Caterino, L.C., Sullivan, A., Long, L., Bacal, E., Kaprolet, C.M., Beard, R., & Peterson, K.K. (2008). Assessing school psychologists’ perspectives on independent educational evaluations. APA Division 16 School Psychology, 62, 6-12.
5.
Chenault, B., Thomson, J., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. ( 2006). Effects of prior attention training on child dyslexics’ response to composition instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology , 29, 243-260.
6.
Collins, D.W., & Rourke, B.P. ( 2003). Learning-disabled brains: A review of the literature . Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 1011-1034.
7.
Elliott, C., Hale, J.B., Fiorello, C.A., Moldovan, J., & Dorvil, C. ( 2010). DAS-II prediction of reading performance: Global scores are not enough. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 698-720.
8.
Federal Register. (2006). Part II Department of Education. 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301. Assistance to States for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities; Final rule, 71(256), 46540-46845.
9.
Fine, J.G., Semrud-Clikeman, M., Keith, T.Z., Stapleton, L.M., & Hynd, G.W. ( 2007). Reading and the corpus callosum: An MRI family study of volume and area. Neuropsychology, 21, 235-241.
10.
Fiorello, C.A., Hale, J.B., Decker, S.L., & Coleman, S. ( 2009). Neuropsychology in school psychology. In E. Garcia Vazquez, T. D. Crespi, & C. A. Riccio (Eds.), Handbook of education, training, and supervision of school psychologists in school and community (pp. 213-233). New York: Routledge.
11.
Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. (Eds.). (in press). Essentials of specific learning disability identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley .
12.
Flanagan, D.B., Fiorello, C.A., & Ortiz, S. W. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory and research: A "third method" approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 739-760.
13.
Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.W., Alfonso, V., & Dynda, A. ( 2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the tower of Babel . Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807-825.
14.
Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (2008). Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
15.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3-17.
16.
Forest Grove School Districtv. T.A., Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (2008).
17.
Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484 (2009).
18.
Fuchs, D., Hale, J.B., & Kearns, D.M. (IN PRESS). On the importance of cognitive andneuropsychological assessment data: An introduction. Journal of Learning Disabilities
19.
Hain, L.A., Hale, J.B., & Glass-Kendorski, J. (2009). Comorbidity of psychopathology in cognitive and academic SLD subtypes. In S. G. Feifer & G. Rattan (Eds.), Emotional disorders: A neuropsychological, psychopharmacological, and educational perspective (pp. 199-226). Middletown, MD: School Neuropsychology Press.
20.
Hale, J.B. ( 2006). Implementing IDEA with a three-tier model that includes response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. School Psychology Forum: Research and Practice, 1, 16-27.
21.
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: An expert white paper consensus. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Disabilities Association of America.
22.
Hale, J.B., & Fiorello, C.A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
Hale, J.B., Fiorello, C.A., Miller, J.A., Wenrich, K., Teodori, A.M., & Henzel, J. ( 2008). WISC-IV assessment and intervention strategies for children with specific learning disabilities. In A. Prifitera, D. H. Saklofske, & L. G. Weiss (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed., pp. 109-171). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
24.
Hale, J.B., Fiorello, C.A., & Brown, L. ( 2005). Determining medication treatment effects using teacher ratings and classroom observations of children with ADHD: Does neuropsychological impairment matter? Educational and Child Psychology, 22, 39-61.
25.
Hale, J.B., Flanagan, D.P., & Naglieri, J.A. (2008). Alternative research-based methods for IDEA (2004) identification of children with specific learning disabilities. Communiqué, 36(8), 1, 14-17.
26.
Hale, J.B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J.A., & Kavale, K. ( 2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools , 43, 753-770.
27.
Hale, J.B., Wycoff, K.L., & Fiorello, C.A. (2010). RTI and cognitive hypothesis testing for specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: The best of both worlds. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification (pp. 173-202). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kavale, K.A., Holdnack, J.A., & Mostert, M.P. ( 2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2-16.
30.
Lovett, M.W., Steinbach, K.A., & Frijters, J.C. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 334-358.
31.
Machek, G.R., & Nelson, J.M. ( 2010). School psychologists’ perceptions regarding the practice of identifying reading disabilities: Cognitive assessment and response to intervention considerations. Psychology in the Schools , 47, 230-245.
32.
Mather, N., & Gregg, N. ( 2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice , 37, 99-106.
33.
Miller, D. C. (Ed.). (2009). Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley.
34.
Miller, J.A., Getz, G., & Leffard, S.A. ( 2006, February). Neuropsychology and the diagnosis of learning disabilities under IDEA 2004. Poster presented at the 34th annual meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society , Boston, MA.
35.
Naglieri, J.A., & Johnson, D. ( 2000). Effectiveness of a cognitive strategy intervention in improving arithmetic computation based on the PASS theory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 591-597.
36.
Reynolds, C.R., & Shaywitz, S.E. (2009). Response to intervention prevention and remediation, perhaps. Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 44-47.
37.
Schrank, F.A., Miller, J.A., Caterino, L.C., & Desrochers, J. (2006). American academy of school psychology survey on the independent educational evaluation for a specific learning disability: Results and discussion. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 771-780.
38.
Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Fulbright, R., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W.E., Constable, R.T., et al. (2003). Neural systems for compensation and persistence: Young adult outcome of childhood reading disability. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 25-33.
39.
Simos, P.G., Fletcher, J.M., Sarkari, S., Billingsley, R.L., Francis, D.J., Castillo, E.M., et al. (2005). Early development of neurophysiological processes involved in normal reading and reading disability. Neuropsychology, 19, 787-798.
40.
Simos , P.G., Fletcher, J.M., Sarkari, S., Billingsley, R.L., Denton, C., & Papanicolaou, A.C. (2007). Altering the brain circuits for reading through intervention: A magnetic source imaging study . Neuropsychology, 21, 485-496.
41.
Stanovich, K.E. ( 2005). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Willis, J.O., & Dumont, R. ( 2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled? Psychology in the Schools, 43, 901-908.
43.
Wodrich, D.L., Spencer, M.L.S., & Daley, K.B. ( 2006). Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools , 43, 797-806.
44.
Zirkel, P.A., & Thomas, L.B. ( 2009). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 56-63.
