Confrontation: Special Education Placement and the Law

Ross, Sterling L.; DeYoung, Henry G.; Cohen, Jeffrey P.

doi:10.1177/001440297103800101

Cited by 44 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These tests' inherent biases have resulted in students being misdiagnosed as mildly retarded and improperly placed in special classes (Garrison & Hammill, 1971;Mercer, 1971Mercer, , 1975Coulter, Morrow & Tucker, Note). A rapid growth of legal suits followed, which have held placement agents accountable for their decisions (Ross, DeYoung, & Cohen, 1971 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

School Psychology and Special Education Students' Placement Decisions: IQ Still Tips the Scale

Smith

Knoff

1981

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syracuse University's Psychoeducational Teaching Laboratory attempted to evaluate how well it was transmitting the principles of multidimensional and nonbiased assessment practices to its students. School psychology and special education graduate students were asked to make program placement decisions for a child when given data about IQ, adaptive behavior higher than IQ, and academic achievement. Results indicated that the school psychology and special education programs were equally successful in training students to seek least restrictive school placements. Their decisions reflected a greater degree of integration with nonhandicapped students than might be expected from either the child's IQ or adaptive-behavior data alone. However, no matter what the order of presentation of IQ and adaptive-behavior data, IQ had a powerful paralyzing effect on further flexibility in problem solving. For these students, the mainstreaming ideology had taken hold, but the IQ information had not been demystified. If these findings are supported in replications, definite implications arise regarding the manner of presenting IQ information when making placement decisions. It has been known for a long time that IQ is not highly related to our educational system's goal of postschool adult adjustment. Therefore the recent development of adaptive-behavior measures, although imperfect in conceptualization and construction, is viewed positively. Their impact upon school placement and programming decisions, relative to other measures, will depend on future reliability and validity research. Recent developments have solidified the special educator's role alongside that of the school psychologist in placement and programming decisions. The multidimensional and least biased assessment procedures mandated by P.L. 94-142, and increasing emphasis on social competence (Zigler & Trickett, 1978) have encouraged greater collaboration between the special educator and school psychologist in selecting appropriate placements and instructional methods for exceptional children. The school psychologist has traditionally identified most retarded school children (Meyers, 1973), and has been most influential in special class placement decisions (Keogh, 1972). Special class placements were often authorized on the basis of a standardized intelligence test. In addition, prior to both P.L. 94-142 and Section 504 of P.L. 93-112, there was no mandate for selecting intelligence measures appropriate to a student's experience and skills. As a result, the practice of using IQ tests as the sole determiner of a handicapping condition and special placement has been justifiably attacked

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

School Psychology and Special Education Students' Placement Decisions: IQ Still Tips the Scale

Smith

Knoff

1981

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are no longer certain that our categorizations of mental retardation and emotional disturbance do not reflect merely our own sociocultural biases, which suggests that many of our placements may be legally unjustifiable (Jones, 1971;Ross, DeYoung, & Cohen, 1971;Weintraub, 1968). Obviously, if categorization is suspect, assumptions of parental guilt and responsibility for such categorized conditions must also be questioned.…”

Section: A Brief For Involvementmentioning

confidence: 94%

Parental Roles in Special Educational Programming—A Brief for Involvement

Kelly

1973

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…B.C., Canada. The need for sensitive and consistent evaluation of teacher performance, as an essential component of special education programs, has frequently been suggested (Csapo, 1977;Dunn, 1968;Martin, 1972;Ross, De Young, & Cohen, 1971). Empirical evidence of learners' progress in a predetermined direction and the efficiency of various teacher interventions to produce these specified changes in pupil behavior are fundamental components of precision teaching (Kunzelmann, Cohen, Hulten, Martin, & Mingo, 1970;Lindsley, 1967Lindsley, , 1972 or the direct systematic instruction methods of teaching (Csapo, 1976;White & Haring, 1976).…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Teaching Effectiveness Of Special Educatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Teaching Effectiveness of Special Education Teachers-in-Training

Csapo

1981

Teacher Education and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confrontation: Special Education Placement and the Law

Cited by 44 publications

References 4 publications

School Psychology and Special Education Students' Placement Decisions: IQ Still Tips the Scale

School Psychology and Special Education Students' Placement Decisions: IQ Still Tips the Scale

Parental Roles in Special Educational Programming—A Brief for Involvement

Evaluation of the Teaching Effectiveness of Special Education Teachers-in-Training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About