User:Historian22lbc/Schaffer v. Weast/Bibliography
You will be compiling your bibliography and creating an outline of the changes you will make in this sandbox.
![]() | Bibliography
As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:
|
Bibliography
[edit]Edit this section to compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.
- Conroy, Terrye, Mitchell L. Yell, and Antonis Katsiyannis. "Schaffer v. Weast: The Supreme Court on the Burden of Persuasion When Challenging IEPs." Remedial and Special Education 29, no.2 (2008): 108-117.[1]
- Terrye Conroy is a reference services librarian at the Coleman Karesh Law Library at the University of South Carolina School of Law. Mitchell L. Yell the Fred and Francis Lester Palmetto Chair in Teacher Education and a professor in Special Education at the University of South Carolina. Antonis Katsiyannis is an Alumni Distingushed Professor and Faculty Athletics Representitive at Clemson University. This article published in the journal of Remedial and Special Education defines the burden of persuasion and how cases worked in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before the Schaffer case. This scholarly article also gives a background on the opinions in the Supreme Court decision on the case of Schaffer v Weast.
- Schaffer v. Weast - Amicus (Meritis). Office of the Solicitor General: U.S. Department of Justice (October 21, 2014).[2]
- The United States Solicitor General oversees appeals in the nations court systems - both criminal and civil - to ensure quality and consistency. The website offers information on the case of Schaffer v Weast including the names of participants, officials, transcripts, and rulings.
- Itkonen, Tiina, Bryan Tomlin, Manuel G. Correia, Luis A. Sanchez, Tracie Schneider, and Kellie Kooker. “Schaffer v. Weast ’s Effects on California Special Education Hearing Decisions.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 33, no. 2 (2022): 71–80.[3]
- Itkonen's work analyzed the statistical implications of the Schaffer v. Weast ruling. By analyzing the amount of cases pre and post 2005, Itkonen found the number of student plaintiffs had remained the same after the ruling. But, her research did indicates that the new ruling, actually helped the districts disproportionately since anyone seeking to make a case had to support their claim with proof, which proved difficult for student plaintiffs.
- Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) JUSTIA U.S. Supreme Court. (Accessed March 21, 2024) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/49/[4]
- This is the official Supreme Court ruling. The court found that IDEA had failed to indicate who would be assigned the burden of proof and so they decided that the plaintiff would bear the responsibility. According to the court, if the school district were to be assigned the burden of proof, then school districts could divert funds from IDEA and begin spend some of those funds on the creation of IEPs.
![]() | Examples:
|
References
[edit]- ^ Conroy, Terrye; Yell, Mitchell L.; Katsiyannis, Antonis (April 1, 2008). "Schaffer v. Weast". Remedial and Special Education. 29 (2): 108–117. doi:10.1177/0741932508317273. ISSN 0741-9325.
- ^ "Office of the Solicitor General | Schaffer v. Weast - Amicus (Merits) | United States Department of Justice". www.justice.gov. 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
- ^ Itkonen, Tiina; Tomlin, Bryan; Correia, Manuel G.; Sanchez, Luis A.; Schneider, Tracie; Kooker, Kellie (September 2022). "Schaffer v. Weast 's Effects on California Special Education Hearing Decisions". Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 33 (2): 71–80. doi:10.1177/10442073211066780. ISSN 1044-2073.
- ^ "Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
Outline of proposed changes
[edit]Click on the edit button to draft your outline.
![]() | Now that you have compiled a bibliography, it's time to plan out how you'll improve your assigned article.
In this section, write up a concise outline of how the sources you've identified will add relevant information to your chosen article. Be sure to discuss what content gap your additions tackle and how these additions will improve the article's quality. Consider other changes you'll make to the article, including possible deletions of irrelevant, outdated, or incorrect information, restructuring of the article to improve its readability or any other change you plan on making. This is your chance to really think about how your proposed additions will improve your chosen article and to vet your sources even further. Note: This is not a draft. This is an outline/plan where you can think about how the sources you've identified will fill in a content gap. |