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:

Is the source from a reliable publication?
- Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
- Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
Is the source verifiable?
- In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
- Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
- For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
- Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
- Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
- Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
- Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
- In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
- Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
- Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
- Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
- Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.

If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.

Get Help

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:

Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980 Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
- This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.
- This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John (2016). "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.
- This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.

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.

Get Help

[1] 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.

[2] "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.

[3] 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.

[4] "Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-03-21.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]