Where is Special Education for Students with High Prevalence Handicaps Going?

Abstract

In recent years, more than 4 million handicapped students received special education services supported in part by federal monies supplied for compliance with provisions specified in Public Law 94–142. The numbers of different types of handicapped students served was the focus of this research. Data from 50 states indicating the proportion of students classified in 10 categories of exceptionality were compiled and analyzed. Analysis of average percentages of students served in each handicapping condition for the 1978–1982 time period indicated consistent increases in numbers of learning disabled students, consistent decreases in numbers of speech impaired and mentally retarded students and relatively constant numbers of emotionally disturbed students and students with physical handicaps. Similar trends were evident when data were analyzed across geographical regions of the country; however, considerable variability in numbers of students classified was evident when data from individual states were analyzed. The significance of the findings was discussed with regard to alternative answers that arise when considering what the data mean and what professionals can and should do about them.

State Disparities in the Diagnosis and Placement of Pupils with Learning Disabilities

“…The mean soft LD diagnosis was 3.41 % and the standard deviation .95 (only 27% of the mean). (Our findings, in this regard, confirm earlier work by Hallahan, Keller, and Ball, 1986, and contradict claims made by Algozzine and Korinek, 1985. ) The claim that LD diagnosis varies more than actual LD prevalence would be more plausible, in our view, if one were to find correlations between level of LD diagnosis and factors not thought to be germane to underlying biological prevalence.…”

“…Some such researchers emphasize that neither the need for nor the capacity to benefit from special educational interventions turns on whether one is really learning disabled, whereas others believe that there is no discrete biological category of learning disabilities. Algozzine and Korinek's (1985) remarks are typical of this more skeptical line of argument:…”

Screening for developmental and behavioral problems

“…The concept of "agerelated developmental manifestations " [Bell, 1986] means that every child has an increasing risk of disabilities. Only 1-2% of children between 0 -24 months of age have developmental problems, while the prevalence increases to 8% when children up to age 6 are added [Algozinne and Korinek, 1985;Yeargin-Allsopp et al, 1985;.Newacheck et al, 1998]. The US Department of Education reports special education enrollment rates of 11.8% in the 0 -22 age range [Algozinne and Korinek, 1985], a figure considered quite low by epidemiologists who generally find rates of 16 -18% [Yeargin-Allsopp et al, 1985;Newacheck et al, 1998].…”

“…Only 1-2% of children between 0 -24 months of age have developmental problems, while the prevalence increases to 8% when children up to age 6 are added [Algozinne and Korinek, 1985;Yeargin-Allsopp et al, 1985;.Newacheck et al, 1998]. The US Department of Education reports special education enrollment rates of 11.8% in the 0 -22 age range [Algozinne and Korinek, 1985], a figure considered quite low by epidemiologists who generally find rates of 16 -18% [Yeargin-Allsopp et al, 1985;Newacheck et al, 1998]. If children with behavioral and emotional problems are also included, the combined rates of childhood disability, whether developmental or social-emotional, produces a combined rate of 22% [Lavigne et al, 1993].…”

Learning Disabilities Teachers' Perceptions of Educational Programs for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities

“…Some areas of concern are current assessment and identification procedures (Adelman & Taylor, 1985, 1986Algozzine & Korinek, 1985;Algozzine & Ysseldyke, 1986;Epps, Ysseldyke, & McGue, 1984;McNutt, 1986;Ysseldyke, 1983;Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Epps, 1983); communication among teachers, parents, administrators, and students (Leyser & Cole, 1984;McKinney & Hocutt, 1982); cross-categorical grouping of students (Cruickshank, 1985); the proliferation of tutoring or content area course instruction in special education classrooms (Brozovich & Kotting, 1984;Carlson, 1985;Deshler et al, 1984), and the apparent lack of program evaluation based on systematic appraisal systems (Moya & Gay, 1982). Clearly, addressing these concerns and providing successful educational programs for adolescents with learning disabilities require the wisdom, energy, and collaboration of many people.…”