1986
DOI: 10.1080/00405848609543234
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sex equity and disabled students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…*p < .05. and around cultural biases. The latter may stem from differences in the interaction of teachers with boys and girls (Kedar-Volvodas, 1983;Kratovi & Bailey, 1986), divergent expectations for males and females on the part of teachers and parents (Gottleib, 1987), and the tools and definitions used to screen for disabilities (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994). Given that most of the gender difference in early identification persisted even after we controlled for disability type, physiological explanations lose some weight.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…*p < .05. and around cultural biases. The latter may stem from differences in the interaction of teachers with boys and girls (Kedar-Volvodas, 1983;Kratovi & Bailey, 1986), divergent expectations for males and females on the part of teachers and parents (Gottleib, 1987), and the tools and definitions used to screen for disabilities (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994). Given that most of the gender difference in early identification persisted even after we controlled for disability type, physiological explanations lose some weight.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Hypotheses to explain the gender difference in the overall prevalence of disabilities center around physiological or maturational differences in chromosomal or brain structure and motor and language skill development (Harmon, Stockton, & Contrucci, 1992;Shaywitz, 1996) and around cultural biases. The latter may stem from differences in the interaction of teachers with boys and girls (Kedar-Volvodas, 1983;Kratovi & Bailey, 1986), divergent expectations for males and females on the part of teachers and parents (Gottleib, 1987), and the tools and definitions used to screen for disabilities (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994). Given that most of the gender difference in early identification persisted even after we controlled for disability type, physiological explanations lose some weight.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Study the effects of similar policies in varied circumstances and copy those that seem effective. For example, experience with civil rights legislation for the disabled such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Public Law 94-142 indicates that policies can attend to individual and group needs simultaneously (Kratovil & Bailey, 1986).…”
Section: Develop and Revise Policies Tomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The excess of boys in special needs programmes is well known, although the explanations vary. A common theme is a gender bias in referrals by teachers and other education professionals (Bernard and Clarizio, 1981;Green, 1993;Anderson, 1997), with boys more likely to be identi ed for behavioural rather than academic reasons (Kratovil and Bailey, 1986;Croll and Moses, 2000). The relationship of ethnicity to special educational needs is both complex and sensitive (Croll and Moses, 2000), but two studies have reported the necessity of considering socio-economic bias in the identi cation of ethnic minority children with special needs (Amira, Abramowitz and Gomes-Schwartz, 1977;Peagam, 1994).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%