National Academies Press: OpenBook

Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity (1982)

Chapter: Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education

« Previous: Biological and Social Factors Contributing to Mild Mental Retardation
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Classifying Mentally Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices in Special Education." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 229

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Classifying Plenty Retarded Students: A Review of Placement Practices In Specie Education WILLIAM E. BICKEL INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to describe what is currently known about placement processes in special education since the enactment of the Edu- cation for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-1421. Particular emphasis is on the relationship of these processes to the disproportionate representation of minorities in programs for educable mentally retarded (EMR) students. The paper is divided into six major sections. The first section describes several models of placement that have been offered by education theorists and professionals. The second section gives an over- view of empirical research with a discussion of referral and screening pro- cesses. Sections three, four, and five review empirical research in the areas of evaluation, individual education plans and least restrictive environ- ments, and parental involvement and due process procedures. The con- cluding section summarizes major trends in the empirical research on placement and minority representation in special education. The focus of the paper is broad, and several limitations are in order to make the task more manageable. First, testing issues related to minority This paper has benefited from the comments of a number of my colleagues. I would particu- larly like to thank Jack Birch, William Cooley, Alonzo Crim, Gaea Leinhardt, Thomas Oakland, John Ogbu, Jane Mercer, Daniel Reschly, Lauren Resnick, David Sabatino, and Naomi Zigmond for critiquing early drafts. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Rachel Kohnke in research activities for this paper. 182

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 183 placement are not examined in detail. Similarly, litigation and financial policies related to placement are not directly addressed. These issues are the subjects of other background papers prepared for the panel (see Mag- netti, 1980; the papers by Magnetti and Travers in this volume). The re- view of the literature stresses those studies that have examined placement processes since the passage of P.L. 94-142. Finally, the representation of minorities in EMR classes is the primary program area of concern, al- though issues related to learning disabilities (LD) and compensatory edu- cation programs are discussed where appropriate. Explicit attention is given to the empirical research on placement practices directly related to minority representation. In the following discussions, "placement pro- cess" refers to the referral, preplacement, evaluation, classification, and assignment of an individual student to an individualized special education program. This is understood to be distinct from the location, room, or fa- cility in which a specially classified child receives instruction. PLACEMENT MODELS Numerous models of what an effective placement process should consist of have been offered by education theorists and professionals in the field of special education. Jones reviews current models and offers a synthesis that suggests that these models have six basic components in common (Jones, 1979:171: First, a school-related problem is identified. The problem may be one of behavior, of achievement, of appropriateness of the administrative arrangement, or some combination of the above. Second, if formal observations and/or assessments are deemed necessary, permission to engage in such activities is sought from parents/ parent surrogates. Third, formal observations and assessments by various special- ists (e.g., school psychologists, school social workers, resource consultants, speech therapists, physicians, and others) are obtained. Fourth, a planning team is con- stituted to integrate information received about a child and to make recommenda- tions for further case disposition. Fifth, an instructional plan may be formulated. Sixth, follow-up is required. A model proposed by Reynolds and Birch (1977) comprises the four fundamental steps of screening, educational diagnosis, development of short- and long-term objectives, and program evaluation. Particular em- phasis is on the second step, in which there are at least four separate com- ponents: (1) obtaining available information, (2) standardized formal as- sessment (norm-referenced tests), (3) criterion-referenced tests, and (4) observation. Poland et al. (1979), in the context of learning-disabled placement, of

184 BICKEL fer the following detailed 13-step model, based on a survey of special education directors: 1. Child found or referred 2. Review of referral 3. Appoint assessment team 4. Obtain parental permission 5. Assessment 6. Review of assessment results 7. Eligibility determination 8. Contact parent 9. Develop individual education plan (IEP) 10. Placement decision 11. Parental permission for placement 12. Develop strategies to implement the IEP 13. Implement program All of these theoretical models have in common what Oakland calls a commitment to fusing "assessment (i.e., placement) activities ... fused with intervention activities, creating a system in which the diagnostic pro- cesses find meaning by becoming interrelated with viable intervention pro- cesses" (1977:iii). This theme of relating intervention to assessment is at the heart of the panel's recommendations on assessment. The Poland model provides (through step 11) a framework for the anal- ysis of model placement processes. A child enters the placement process either through referral by a teacher, parent, or administrator or through identification by some routine screening process, such as a review of test scores in a district (step 11. The referral is reviewed by an individual or group of persons who function as gatekeepers in the system (step 21. A decision can be made at this point as to the appropriateness of the refer- ral. For example, a school principal may decide that the child's problem can be worked out within the existing classroom assignment. If the initial decision maker decides that further action is justified, an assessment team (also known as the placement team or the planning team) is appointed (step 3~. The team might consist of several of the child's teachers, a school administrator, staff psychologists, counselors, and others. Each member of the team brings specific expertise to the placement process and is individually responsible for collecting informa- tion on the child in the relevant domains). Prior to actually collecting information on the child the placement team informs the parents of the activity and their rights in the process (step 4~. Ideally the parents will not only be informed of the process but will also contribute to it. Once parental permission is obtained the actual evaluation activities are

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 185 undertaken (step 51. The data are collected and reviewed by the placement team (step 61; on the basis of the review, a child may be determined to be eligible for special education services (step 7~. If the child is found to be eligible, the child's parents are notified (step 81. A group consisting of a parent, the child's teacher, and at least one member of the placement team meets to develop an IEP (step 9~. The content of the IEP specifies what services the child requires (step 10), and the child is assigned to a program. The final step (step 11), for the purpose of this paper, is the securing of parental permission for the program of services assigned. (Steps 12 and 13 of the Poland model are not directly relevant to this paper, since they relate to post-placement implementation issues.) As the review of the literature below makes clear, Poland's model in many ways reflects the placement requirements of P.L. 94-142. The prob- lems involved in the federal regulations lie not in their distance from model or ideal practices but in the difficulties of implementing them in the complex and variable world of local and state education agencies. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON PLACEMENT The literature on special education placement primarily addresses the ex- tent to which the P.L. 94-142 regulations are in place and, to a far lesser extent, the degree to which they are having the intended effects. Most of the studies reviewed focus on the placement process, broadly defined, without specifically addressing the minority representation issue per se. However, much of what is uncovered is relevant to the question of minor- ity representation in the sense that the results of these studies provide an important contextual background. Studies specifically addressing minor- ity representation are discussed in detail in a final subsection of each ma . . Jor section. The review of placement research has been organized into four major categories: 1. Referral and screening 2. Evaluation 3. IEPs and least restrictive environments 4. Due process/parental involvement It should be noted that this review is confined basically to work that has been done since the passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975. The literature is developing rapidly, and much relevant research is currently under way. Such work in progress is described in terms of the research design and data-collection procedures, as available. The scarcity in some topic areas of research directly related to EMR

186 BICKEL placement processes has necessitated that the studies reviewed draw on the larger placement context (e.g., learning disabilities). The findings of these studies are relevant in that many if not all of the same placement mechanisms apply in all programs. The program area of each study is made explicit. Each section begins with a brief description of the appropriate regula- tions and a general description of the studies relevant to a specific issue, followed by a review of findings, both convergent and conflicting. Studies that specifically investigate issues related to minority representation are described in detail. Finally, it should be noted that the methodological strategies used in each study are not reviewed in depth, although the stud- ies reviewed were selected on the basis of three criteria: (1) the relevance of the questions addressed, (2) the representativeness of the samples and data base, and (3) the appropriateness of the analysis and conclusions given the data reported. SCREENING AND REFERRAL Federal Mandate Requirements for screening and referral are contained in two sections of P.L. 94-142 (Sec. 300.128, Sec. 300.220~. State and local education agen- cies must ensure that all handicapped children are identified, located, and evaluated. Although specific activities are not prescribed, these agencies must detail in their annual program plans what has been done to locate children in need of service. Increases in Enrollment The number of students in special education programs has steadily in- creased despite a drop in total public school enrollment. The continued growth in the special education population is, in part, a result of federal pressure to institute aggressive screening and referral procedures and the growing availability of alternatives to program placement (especially LD programs) at the state and local levels. This pressure emanates from P.L. 94-142 and the Office of Special Education (OSE), formerly the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. In their semiannual report to Congress (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979b: xiii, here- after referred to as USHEW), OSE noted that "almost 75~o of the nation's handicapped school-age children are receiving special education ... to- day compared to less than half as estimated by Congress at the time P.L. 94-142 was enacted." The report goes on to state that 84 percent of the

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 187 polled states and territories have reported increases over the previous year. Several states (Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio) increased their special education population by more than 10,000 students in a single year. OSE reports that by 1979 approximately 3.71 million children were receiving special education services (USHEW, 1979b). As examples of the kinds of activities that are stimulating the growth in special education, the 1979 OSE report cites the involvement of parent groups, the use of print and electronic media to advertise the availability of assistance, and the availability of toll-free telephone numbers in numer- ous states. In some instances, new activities are the result of specific litiga- tion. For example, the Philadelphia school district was ordered to institute LD screening procedures for the entire student population because of allegedly inadequate prior service (Frederick L. v. Thomas, 1980~. OSE estimated that of 160,000 students evaluated nationwide as a part of screening and referral activities, "80~o were identified as potentially re- quiring special services" (p. 15~. Who Does the Referring? Referrals represent the second major source of students identified for possible placement in special education programs. While the overwhelm- ing opinion is that the classroom teacher is the major source of referral, relatively little direct research on this source has been uncovered. Six studies have looked at some aspect of the question of who does the referring (Birman, 1979; Blaschke, 1979; Nelson, 1980; USHEW, 1979c; Stearns et al., 1979; Stevens, 1980~. A range of states and local areas are to be found in the samples of these studies. In general, the major data- collection strategies involved interviews with special education personnel and/or reviews of referral documentation instruments. Several conclusions are reported in this research. First, the teacher is still the most important source of referrals (Birman, 1979; Blaschke, 1979; Stearns et al., 1979; USHEW, 1979c). For example, Blaschke (1979:9) concluded that most "new students entered special education through the in-school referral process." This generally consisted of the teacher's re- porting to the principal that "he/she is having difficulty teaching the child and needs assistance" (p. Coo. A second conclusion to be drawn from these studies is that there is also a trend toward the diversification of the source of referrals; other school personnel, parents, and health personnel are playing larger roles (Blaschke, 1979; Nelson, 1980; Stevens, 19801. Estimates were based on an OSE survey of 654 LEAs representing 50 percent of the school enrollment in 16 states. These figures were extended as estimates for the nation.

188 What Influences Screening and Referral Rates and Content? BICKEL The question of what influences referrals is a difficult one, especially since most studies have relied on self-reported descriptions of the process by special education personnel rather than on direct observation by research- ers. Several studies, relying on interviews, report findings in this area (Blaschke, 1979; Stearns et al., 1979; USHEW, 1979a, 1979c). A most significant finding in these studies concerns the role of program availability in influencing referrals. In effect, the presence or absence of a service in a local education agency (LEA) strongly influences whether chil- dren are referred (Stearns et al., 1979; USHEW, 1979c). One study found that "school districts with more special education staff, facilities, and ser- vices identify more children needing help" (USHEW, 1979c:3~. This study reports one case of a district that has only EMR classes. This district, thus far, has identified only children with EMR handicaps. Not a single addi- tional handicap has been uncovered. The finding that child identification and resources are related is not in itself surprising. However, this trend, if widespread, indicates the difficulty of implementing the section of P.L. 94-142 that requires first the identification of educational needs and then the provision of treatment based on the needs identified. Such a process requires a district to create a program if it is needed rather than to find students who fit into existing programs. A second finding reported is that backlogs in processing assessments can reduce referrals (Blaschke, 1979; Stearns et al., 1979~. The regular classroom teacher becomes frustrated with a process that does not seem to deliver help to the children rapidly enough and tends to refer them less and less often. Another influence on referrals is the criteria for eligibility in a particu- lar state or LEA (Stearns et al., 1979; USHEW, 1979c). Federal regula- tions and education theorists assume that eligibility criteria are applied after a child is evaluated. However, Stearns et al. (1979) found that eligibility criteria can heavily influence the process at much earlier stages. An extreme case is a state that has such rigid eligibility criteria that even the referral forms for use by a teacher are based on specific programs. Thus, a teacher would not refer a student for assessment, but for EMR, ED (emotionally disturbed), or LD assessment. The importance of eligi- bility criteria and the variations in them found across states mean that "whether or not a child is identified as in need of special education [very often] depends on the state of residence" (Stearns et al., 1979 45~. At the other extreme, the Stearns et al. (1979) study found some states with such ambiguous criteria that a great deal of discretion in interpreta- tion is permitted at the local level. This encourages a "considerable lack of

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 189 uniformity in who gets identified both across LEAs and even across schools within LEAs" (p. 46~. (The ambiguity in criteria was documented by Huberty et al., 1980.) Great personal discretion in the referral process was also found by USHEW (1979c). The picture of wide variation from state to state in referral processes coupled with the possibility of signifi- cant personal discretion in the system supports the conclusion noted ear- lier that a child's referral for assessment may be as much a function of where he or she lives and attends school as it is of his or her actual learning capabilities and performance. This pattern of variation is an interesting contrast to the expectations of 27 special education directors in 1979, who indicated that the location and identification of children as required by P.L. 94-142 presented little difficulty (USHEW, 1979b). Outcomes of Identification It is not within the scope of this report to describe in detail the essential demographics of the students who are referred (see Finn in this volume). However, in reviewing the research on referrals, several interesting find- ings have been reported as to who is likely not to be referred. Stearns et al. (1979) found that referrals were generally on the increase in about half the sites in their study. They found a trend away from EMR and toward LD placements. (Such trends are further documented in Bickel, 1981.) They also found that five categories of children were not likely to be identified or referred: 1. Children who were LD at the high school level. 2. Children with emotional problems, especially at the intermediate and secondary school levels. 3. Children who were quiet and well behaved. 4. Children who did not have parents who influence the staff to act on their behalf. 5. Children who fall between the eligibility criteria for LD and EMR programs. Minority Representation and Screening and Referral Since P.L. 94-142 was enacted, little research has been conducted on the relationship of referral and screening practices to minority representation in special education classes. The obvious question is: Are minority stu- dents referred at a higher rate, thus influencing the higher placement rate in EMR classes? A few studies have lool~ed at this question through the re- view of actual referral data. Several others have used referral simulations

190 BICKEL to examine the issue. Because of the small number of studies and their im- portance to this paper, these studies are reviewed individually. Tomlinson et al.'s (1977) study of 355 students referred for psychological services in an urban school system investigated the relationships among referral rates and "minority status, sex, ... types of presenting problems and the na- ture of subsequent psychological services" (p. 456~. The minority popula- tions represented in the samples consisted of 127 black, 42 native Ameri- can, and 5 Oriental students. Tomlinson et al. report the following (1978: 457-458~: 1. The referral rate of minority students was 14% higher than their en- rollment in school. 2. Minority students did not differ significantly from white students with respect to the type of problem (academic or behavior) for which they were referred with 41 percent of the minority students referred for aca- demic problems and 59 percent for behavior, and 39 percent and 61 per- cent, respectively, for these problems among white students. 3. Referral rates for males were higher (68 percent) than those for fe- males (32 percent). 4. There were no significant differences between males and females as to the type of problem identified for referral. An interesting related finding was that "the schools [in the sample] re- ferring the lowest percentage of minority students had been integrated the longest" (p. 458~. These researchers theorize that there exists the possibil- ity "that teachers, in making referrals of minority students, may in part be acting on a bias that decreases as their experience with minority students increases" (p. 458~. (It cannot be overemphasized that this is pure specu- lation, unsupported in the study or in the literature; the question has sim- ply not been addressed.) These researchers concluded their study with a call for further research to "determine if referral behaviors of minority students are quantitatively or qualitatively different from those of majority students, and the extent to which SES status alone would account for dif- ferences obtained" (p. 4581. The issue of socioeconomic status and its relationship to referrals and placements, largely unexamined in the literature, merits additional atten- tion if for no other reason than for the statistical correlations that have been obtained between socioeconomic status and achievement in school. A study in Florida (Lander and Wittmer, 1977) investigated the relation- ships among teacher referral rates and students' minority status, sex, and socioeconomic level. A sample of 359 elementary teachers from a single county school system was asked to review 16 hypothetical fourth-grade

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 191 students. The profiles contained similar information on age, socioeco- nomic status, behavior, achievement, intelligence, and family size. Only race and sex were varied in the samples. These researchers reported that "black students, although with the very same mental capacity and achievement test scores were referred to EMR classes . . . more frequently than were their white contemporaries (regardless of race of referring teacher)" (p. 169~. Craig et al. (1978) compared the characteristics of 7,000 children rec- ommended for special education by using indicators derived from teacher and parent recommendations, medical examinations, school behaviors, test scores, and developmental histories. Variations were investigated for six types of handicaps: hearing, vision, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, orthopedic, and speech. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics were used. Several findings are most relevant: (1) There was little agreement among the various indicators used for recommending students for special services (i.e., teachers and parents were not identify- ing the same groups of students). (2) Despite the inconsistency among in- dicators, more students from lower socioeconomic groups tended to be identified for many of the handicapping conditions. (3) Teachers tended to recommend greater numbers of blacks for EMR and ED placements. Teachers also tended to recommend more males than females for these categories. In addition, disruptive school behavior seemed to play a role in teacher recommendations. The influences of race and sex were also investigated in a study of His- panic students in the Southwest (Zucker et al., 19791. In this study, 180 second- and third-grade teachers were asked to evaluate a student file and rate the appropriateness for placement in an EMR program. The infor- mation used was designed to "create equivocal data," i.e., "no hard evidence to provide justification for special class placement" was present (p. 31. The student was shown to be functioning one year below academic grade level. Only race and sex were varied. The researchers reported that "regardless of sex ... teachers scored special class placement more ap- propriate for Mexican-American children than they did for white chil- dren" (p. 4~. Contrasting findings were uncovered in a recent review of a large urban school district in the Northeast undertaken by the Region III Office of OCR (Naidoff and Gross, 1980~. Data were collected on the referral rates of children for psychological assessments. During the 1978-1979 school year, 978 students were referred for psychological testing for learning or behavioral problems. Approximately 49 percent of these students were black. Since the district population was 48 percent black at the time, it was determined that black students were not being referred disproportion

192 BICKEL ately. It should be noted, however, that in this same district the percent- age of students placed in EMR programs was higher for black students than their percentage in the district. Although the studies discussed in the previous sections on referral did not address minority representation issues explicitly, one finding that turns up in several of these studies may be germane. Stearns et al. (1979) and USHEW (1979c) found that the availability of programs and staff has a positive effect on referrals. The more staff and programs there are, the more referrals are made. This may be significant for the issue of minority representation in urban districts with large concentrations of black stu- dents. If urban districts have more services available and more staff con- cerned with placement (this, of course, would have to be shown), this availability coupled with the concentration of black students may act to inflate referral rates for these populations overall. This question warrants additional research. This review of the literature does not provide an adequate answer to the original question of whether referral rates are higher for minorities. The bulk of the studies, using real or simulated data, do show a tendency toward higher rates of referral for minorities. However, contrasting evidence in a large urban district was also uncovered. This evidence plus the limited number of studies addressing the question lead to the conclu- sion that more research must be undertaken to establish a more thorough understanding of the relationship between minority referrals and EMR placement rates. Conclusion In terms of the larger body of research, two findings stand out most clearly: (1) the tendency for referrals to be influenced by program availability and (2) the ambiguity in some instances and rigidity in others of the criteria for various categories. The next section reviews the literature on what happens after referral. EVALUATION The research discussed in this section describes some of the basic assess- ment practices currently in use. As noted earlier, detailed analysis of test issues is not a focus of this paper. The discussion here is divided into three major subsections: (1) How are evaluations conducted? (2) What influ- ences evaluation processes? (3) What is the quality of the decision made? In theory, referral and assessment activities cannot be easily separated from the writing of IEPs and the assignment of least restrictive environ

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 193 meets. The discussion here of these issues in separate sections, used sim- ply as an organizational strategy, does not imply discrete separation in these processes. Federal Mandate Federal law and regulations require that, once identified or referred, a student must be assessed to determine his or her special education needs. The law requires three major steps in the process: 1. Evaluation of the individual child. 2. Development of an IEP. 3 The assignment of a least restrictive environment in which to receive services. Some specific evaluation regulations also require that a variety of pro- cedures be used that are validated for the purpose, that a variety of data be developed by a multidisciplinary team, that any tests must be adminis- tered in the child's native language by someone trained in their use, and that the assessment must be socially and culturally nondiscriminatory (Sec. 300.532-41. Specific requirements for IEPs are that the document be a written record containing current levels of performance, annual and short-term goals, designation of the least restrictive environment, objec- tive criteria and evaluation procedures, expected duration of services, and provisions for annual and three-year reviews (Sec. 300.342-61. The re- quirement for the least restrictive environment attempts to ensure that a "continuum of alternative placements" is provided to students (Sec. 300.551-31. How Are Evaluations Conducted ? An initial question concerns the current status of implementing the fed- eral requirements. A number of studies have attempted to describe one or more aspects of the evaluation process (Marver and David, 1978; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1980; Poland et al., 1979; Stearns et al., 1979, Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 19781. With the ex- ception of the Thouvenelle and Hebbeler study, this research is based primarily on interviews and/or surveys of participants in the processes of special education assessment. The findings reported to date indicate several important trends. A number of studies lend evidence to the trend reported by OSE toward gen- eral compliance, at least in form, with federal regulations by LEAs (Mar

194 BICKEL ver and David, 1978; Poland et al., 1979; Stearns et al., 1979; Thouve- nelle and Hebbeler, 1978~. Descriptions of the process vary across studies, but in general the pro- cess has shifted away from one of a single psychologist administering one or more tests toward the creation of assessment teams reviewing multiple data sources, as described at the beginning of this paper. These data are reviewed by members of the team and discussed with parents. Within the overall picture of compliance, several studies report findings that are in opposition to some of the major tenets of the law. For example, three studies (Marver and David, 1978; Poland et al., 1979; Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978) report that "preassessment" meetings were held by school officials prior to assessment meetings involving the parents. The purpose of these preassessment meetings seems generally to be to prepare a district's position on an individual child. However, the effect may be to present the parent with a decision determined before the assessment meet- ings envisioned under P.L. 94-142 take place. Poland et al. (1979) report that, despite the trend toward compliance, there still exists a heavy reliance on psychological assessment data as the basis for a decision. Marver and David (1978) found that data files tend to be poorly kept and that assessment is often made by personnel not trained in the procedures. Another study (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1980) indicates that placement team meetings tend to be dominated by administrative personnel or psychologists. Finally, Stearns et al. (1979) report that there is clearly a tension in LEAs between the need to do thorough, individualized case studies and the requirement of many states for speedy processing. Not only can backlogs affect the referral rates, as reported earlier, but they can also reduce the quality of the assessments as a system attempts to catch up on its case load. What Influences Assessment Decisions? Only a few studies have directly investigated factors that may influence evaluation decisions (e.g., Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978~. Such studies are expensive and time-consuming in that direct observation of placement meetings are probably required to supplement interviews or survey data. A number of studies have investigated this question through interviews and simulations (Poland et al., 1979; Thurlow and Ysseldyke, 1980; Ysseldyke et al., 1979a, 1979b). Based on the observations of a number of meetings, Thouvenelle and Hebbeler (1978) report that it is difficult to determine when and how the placement decision is made. It is therefore equally difficult to determine

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 195 precisely what influences the decision. These researchers report that the decision seems to be made by one or two school representatives and that the parent is not directly involved. Information on a student's academic achievement and social and behavioral needs seems to be the most impor- tant data used in the process. Program characteristics and specific goals are in the next most frequently discussed category. The importance of achievement as a primary data source influencing the decision was generally confirmed by Poland et al. (1979) and Yssel- dyke et al. (1979a). In addition, Poland et al. (1979) found that teachers' reports of achievement are particularly important. This finding to a cer- tain extent parallels that of Thurlow and Ysseldyke (1980), Yesseldyke et al. (1979a), and Ysseldyke et al. (1980a). These studies found in simula- tion investigations that a final decision was heavily weighted by the original referral data. Since many referrals are made by teachers, the referral data may subtly influence the placement of the child. The impor- tance of the referral statement to the final decision also adds additional significance to the findings cited above, that, on one hand, the referral process involved a great deal of personal discretion and that, on the other hand, in states with rigid criteria, the initial referral is made with a final potential placement already in mind. The net effect of these relationships may be to put a student on a preconceived track toward a placement prior to the actual evaluation process. Several of the simulation studies explicitly investigated the potential in- fluence on evaluation of sex, socioeconomic status, and physical appear- ance (Thurlow and Ysseldyke, 1980; Ysseldyke et al., 1979~. In addition, Poland et al. (1979) studied the effects of student's race on evaluation. In general, these studies do not report a strong effect for these character- istics. The influence of referral information is much stronger. Thurlow and Ysseldyke (1980) indicate that special education directors rate the in- fluence of student characteristics less highly than assessment and ob- servation in the evaluation process. It is important to note, however, that these studies were simulations, and in the Thurlow and Ysseldyke (1980) study the researchers are reporting on what special education directors perceive to be influencing their decisions. From the evidence presented in these studies, it would be extremely unwise to dismiss without additional investigation the possible effects of student characteristics. To summarize, the literature reviewed on what influences the final eval- uation decision contains several relatively consistent findings. Student achievement, particularly as evidenced by reports of teachers, is of pri- mary importance. Achievement, when coupled with initial referral infor- mation, represents the single most important data influence on the final . . c Recision.

196 BICKEL What Is the Quality of the Decision? The question of the quality of the decisions made can be addressed in several ways. One measure of quality may be found in discrepant classifi- cation rates across racial, sexual, and economic groups. Studies examin- ing this measure are reviewed below. Some researchers have examined the consistency of the educational characteristics of children in a special pro- gram as compared with those placed in another classification, those re- ferred but not placed, and those in the general population (Birman, 1979; Craig et al., 1978; Gajar, 1977; Hallahan and Kauffman, 1977; Hansche et al., no date; Larson, 1978; McDermottt, 1980; Meyers et al., 1978; Petersen and Hart, 1978; Thurlow and Ysseldyke, 1979; Ysseldyke et al., 1979a). It is important to note that these studies looked at placement deci- sions across a number of special education categories and, in one instance (Birman, 1979), Title I placements as well. Furthermore, these studies generally used post hoc statistical analyses of placement data comparing the mean characteristics of one group (e.g., EMR students) with those of another (e.g., LD or ED or both). With these methodological limitations in mind, several interesting trends in the data are discernible. One major impression to be drawn from these studies is that placement decisions are remarkably inconsistent. This seems to be particularly true in LD placements (Larson, 1978; Thurlow and Ysseldyke, 1979; Yssel- dyke et al., 1979a). The single most consistent indicator distinguishing various groups seems to be IQ (Gajar, 1977; Larson, 1978; Meyers et al., 1978; Petersen and Hart, 1978~. Birman (1979:80) sums up inconsistency of placements in the following statements: The characteristics of special education studies varied by schools, by district, and by state. Variability and ambiguity in the criteria used to select students for both programs ispecial education and Title I] implied that students who are viewed as Title I students in one school or district are seen as belonging in special education programs in other schools or districts, or vice versa. The role of IQ is summed up by Petersen and Hart (1978:754) as follows: Those diagnostic categories which are described in the guidelines in terms of ex- plicit IQ ranges were the most clearly identifiable statistically.... But in the ap- plication of such labels as "emotionally handicapped" and "learning disabled" in which diagnosis is generally viewed as representing a complex, inferential process, there was little consistency in evidence. The importance of the IQ score in describing, post hoc, the populations in various classifications lends credence to those who suggest that this single

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 197 score still plays an inordinate role in placement decisions. This may be true despite the requirements of P.L. 94-142 that a broad data base be used in evaluating students. Heavy reliance on IQ scores also represents a significant departure from the theoretical models described in this paper. The findings on the use of IQ in placement decisions, coupled with those concerning the importance of achievement to initial referral, suggest a process in which poor achievement "nominates" a student for assessment and the IQ "anoints" him or her in a particular classification. Minority Representation and Evaluation The major issue, and the focus of most of the research related to evalua- tion procedures and minority representation, concerns test bias and the possibility of developing technically sound and culturally fair test instru- ments. A technical review of testing issues is not within the scope of this papery However, some research has investigated the effects of race on placement decisions not directly related to testing issues and is reviewed here. One thesis about the cause of the high percentages of minorities in EMR programs is based on the perception that placement relies heavily on IQ scores as the major factor in the final decision (Mercer, 1972~. This tendency, coupled with the finding that minorities tend to score lower on IQ tests (Kaskowitz, 1977:Append~x B), may explain much of the dispro- portionate representation of minorities in EMR classes. Studies reviewed earlier have documented the continuing emphasis that is generally given by the placement team to test scores. A recent survey (Huberty et al., 1980) of state definitions for EMR pop- ulations confirms that the IQ score is still a major criterion for placement. Table 1, a summary of the variations found among the responding states, shows that significant variations do occur among the reporting states. Variations in definition concern the basic elements of the definition as well as the presence and nature of cutoff scores on IQ tests. It is important to note the number of states (15) that do not list adaptive behavior as part of their definitions and the number of states (24) that, while specifying adaptive behavior in their definitions, do not identify the criteria used. In such states it can be presumed that IQ scores continue to play a predomi- nant role in the classification of EMR children. The relationship between an emphasis on IQ scores in EMR placement and disproportionate representation of minorities is explored at some 2 For detailed reviews of testing issues, see Bersoff (1979), Hobbs (1975), Oakland (1977), and Travers (in this volume).

198 V' Ct ~_ - Ct ._ s~ o ._ Ct .> Ct ~o ._ C) S: o V, - ._ V) o C. C) s" o o C) Co~ C,, ._ , o ~ ~ - , ~ Ct ~ Ct ~ C) Ct ,,= Ct ._ ~ ~ ~ _ ° , 5- ~ ~ ~ _ s~ ~, o Ct ~ ~ ~7 ~ C~ C,2 C~ o o ~ o o o o o C) C) C) o ~ o o ~ZZ~ZZZZZ~Z~ZZ o o ~ o Z Z ~ Z o o o ~ o o o o ~> 0 o o o o o o o o C~ o o ZZZ ~ Z ZZ Z~ ZZZz ZZ ZZZ~ Z Z o o o o o o o o CD o o o o o o o o o o o o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C) .= o _ a' ~ . - ._ C~ ~ ~ V ~> C~ V) r ~ o ~- c,7 ~c~ cn ~ ~ v, ~c~ ) ~ o ~ ~ o cD ~ z~z~zz~^z>~z^^zz~ c) f ~o ~ ·s~ o o: - ~ s~ s~ cD oD c) ~ .- ~ c) ~ ~ ~s ~s ~ ~ ~ o o o o u' o o c., a., O ~ c' ~ O O O c~ O' c' ~ s:L (- --. ~ ~ (~l (~ (- =~- = o 0 1 1 o 0 1 1 1 o ~ o ~ z z Vl Vl z z Vl Vl Vl z Vl z Vl · 5 C' ~ ~ CD . ._ ._ ~ ._ . ~ ~ C) C) o C) C~ ~ C) o =d S . 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Vl z z z z Vl 5 s:: Ct Ct s~ ~ Ct ~ ~ _ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ <: <: ~ <: ~ O ~ O O O O O O O ~:5~ C)C) ._._ ._._ C)C) C~C) U~ ~ ~ ~C~ ~= ~r ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~O ~ ~ $ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ t- ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ t- 't r- t- ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ C~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .7 _______,c._________~__~ C~ ._ - ce ce .~ .~ o ~ c~ ~ =~ ~ 3 o o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c Z Z ~ ~ ~ C) ~ c) [,x,4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V' O' =. Ir) 1 Vl

199 o o o o o o o o o o o ~ o C) o o o o o ZZZZZZZZZZZ~Z~ZZZZZ o o o o o o o o ~ o o ~ o o C) o o C) o ZZZZZZZZ~ZZ~ZZ~ZZ~Z o ._ L~ ._ £ s ;- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ o o o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ Z Z Z .= ~ o o C) ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ C~ C~ ~ V, ~ ;~ C~ o o o CD ~ C) CD C) ~ ~ o ~ C) C) ZZZ~Z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ,~ ~ U) `~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~n O' O' O' 0 O' ~ O' ~ ~ O' O O' O' O ° ~ U~ ~ I I ~ o U~ I o ~ o ~ ~ U) o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o o z Vl z Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl z Vl z z Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl ~s ~ ~ ~ ~S: ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ E ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ,., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t: O O O O O O O O ~ C~ O O ~ O ~ O O C) ._ C, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s~ O~ CJ' =' a~ (~ ° =\ __________________Z_ D ~d S 3 3 ,, ,0 ~ oO _ ~ = - ~ ~ = == - O E Z Z Z Z Z' Z O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s: 5 ._ -5: - Ct ~: o ._ C) ~i C} s: C) ._ ~ . ~ ') P: ._ e4 ~ -0 C) .~4 ~; ~o ~ ~ ._ ° .S L. O _ ~ ~ ~ ,ce .. ~ ~ ° C) .~ o o ,= ~ ~ ~ . ~ s" · E 0 ~ ~ =- a ;- ~ ~ 0 ~ ._ C) o 0 ~s: Ct _ ; - O ~ 00 O ~ ~ _ ~ ~ .= s~ :^ s o C~ 4: - o .~ ~ oo o ~ - _ t - Ct o C~ et s~ C) . 1 ~ ~ .. Ct ~ :e ~ U' ~ o

200 BICKEL length in a study on validation of state counts of handicapped children (Kaskowitz, 19771. In a review of a number of studies, Kaskowitz reports that, theoretically, an emphasis on IQ scores alone would invariably yield a disproportionately higher number of minority children in the EMR pop- ulation. The range reaches proportions of 10 to 1 when IQ is the sole crite- rion and a cutoff score of approximately 70 is used.3 Kaskowitz also reports that, when IQ scores are adjusted for socioeconomic and racial differences, prevalence rates diminish dramatically. Several studies have investigated the consequences of manipulating IQ cutoff scores as a way to minimize disproportionate representation of minorities. For example, a study in Arizona (Reschly and Jipson, 1976) in- vestigated the impact of IQ cutoff scores of 69 or 75 on minority place- ment in a sample of 1,040 randomly selected children. The researchers re- port the following (p. 1601: If the cutoff point is 69 and the guidelines from the Diana and Guadalupe deci- sions applied (i.e., use of nonverbal intellectual measures with Mexican-American children), then overrepresentation of Mexican-American children in the mildly re- tarded classification is virtually eliminated. Application of the above procedure greatly reduces the overrepresentation of Blacks and Papago Indians. However, the IQ cutoff score of 75 leads to disproportionate representation of all non-Anglo groups in the mild retardation classification. P.L. 94-142 states that a simple reliance on IQ scores to determine placement is no longer permissible. The regulations require that a variety of assessment measures be used, including ones that assess adaptive be- havior. A similar position emerges from the review of theoretical models in this paper. Several studies have examined the impact that the use of such additional measures might have on minority representation measures. One study (Fisher, 1977) used three different classification schemes to as- sess and classify a sample of 46 students. The sample included black (4), Hispanic (30), and Anglo (12) students from low and middle socioeco- nomic backgrounds. The first classification scheme simply used a full- scale IQ score two standard deviations below the mean. The second scheme used multiple test criteria including subtest scores on an IQ mea- sure, achievement scores, and performance on a visual-motor test. The third approach was a pluralistic model that included the traditional psy- chometrics of the second model and added the ABIC (Mercer, 1979), a 31t is interesting to note that this same study (Kaskowitz. 1977:80) cites research by Craig et al. (1978) to the effect that "if classification were based on teacher opinion, the difference in rates would be diminished [by almost one half]...."

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 201 measure of adaptive behavior of children. The results of the study indicate (Fisher, 1977:5) that: The full scale IQ approach led to classification as EMR of 34 (75%) of the total 46 students. The psychometric approach led to 28 (demo) EMR classifications and the pluralistic approach led to 12 (26%) EMR classifications. Hence, the pluralistic approach decreased the number of students classified as EMR two to three times as compared to the other two approaches. The majority of the differences among the three classification schemes oc- curred as a result of differing classification of Mexican-American stu- dents. The small number of blacks in the study prevents interpretation of significance in the changes that occurred among these students. This study also investigated socioeconomic trends within the sample and found that the pluralistic model tended to classify as EMR far fewer low-income students than the other models. Findings similar to those of Fisher are reported by Reschly (in press). This researcher examines the application of procedures developed by Mercer and Lewis (1978~: the System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assess- ment (SOMPA). A feature in this system is the inclusion of measures of adaptive behavior. (ABIC, the test used in Fisher's study, is part of SOMPA.) Reschly reports that the use of SOMPA can indeed produce a "reduction in the number of students, especially minority, eligible or clas- sified for special education. . ." (p. 121.4 An interesting opportunity to study the effects of a Reemphasis on IQ scores for EMR placement is occurring in California as a result of Judge Peckham's decision (Larry P. v. Riles, 1979) to impose a ban on their use. A recent study (Stevens, 1980) investigates this question in Los Angeles. Since the original ban on IQ testing, the Los Angeles district has used an elaborate assessment model that includes achievement tests, estimates of adaptive behavior, language assessment, school and family histories, and psychological measures other than IQ scores. Stevens reports that "the school district continues to have black EMR enrollment above the percent of its total black enrollment. However, the actual numbers of black stu- dents and the percentages have declined from 1976 to 1979 by 976 stu- dents or 19.6 percent" (p. 51. Apart from variations in the assessment criteria and instruments used, the question remains as to whether a student's race affects the classifica- tion process through other mechanisms, such as expectations concerning Sit should be noted that Reschly is not without reservations concerning SOMPA, and he sug- gests that a great deal of work must be done to further refine measures of adaptive behavior.

202 BICKEL various ethnic groups on the part of those making the assessment. Presumably such expectations may influence the selection of instruments and/or the interpretation of results. One survey mentioned earlier (Poland et al., 1979) examined the influence of race on placement decisions and did not find this kind of relationship: Special education directors judged that the factors of race and sex were not influential in making a placement decision. However, the fact that the data are self-reports by people who are significantly involved reduces the likelihood that the findings repre- sent actual practice. Matuszek and Oakland (1979) investigated factors that influence teach- ers' and psychologists' recommendations regarding assignment to various special class settings. In this study, 53 psychologists and 76 teachers were asked to review 10 cases and make recommendations for enrollment in a program continuum, from regular class to full-time special class. The par- ticipants were not asked to assign a special label. Sex, age, time of year, physical abnormalities, referral source, and teacher characteristics were held constant in the cases. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language preference, and home-related anxiety were some of the variables in the cases. Matuszek and Oakland (1979) report that, in general, (p. 116~: Both groups consider IQ, test achievement, class achievement, and home-related anxiety important in making recommendations, with IQ and test achievement weighted more heavily by psychologists than by teachers. SES is important only to psychologists, while adaptive behavior and self-concept are important only to teachers. Recommendations by both groups were not influenced by children's eth- nicity, language, home values, classroom manageability, and interpersonal rela tionships. Additional findings of interest in this study include the fact that teachers did not appear to make different program or setting recommendations on the basis of a child's manageability in the classroom. The authors specu- late that this may be because the teachers in the study were making rec- ommendations for enrollment in someone else's class and would not be re- sponsible themselves for working with the child on a daily basis. Another interesting finding was that teachers did use measures of adaptive behav- ior in their decisions and recommended fewer special services for children with average performance on these measures. Finally, teachers in the study recommended more special placements for children with language backgrounds other than English. Another study (Amira et al., 1977), investigating the impact of stu- dents' race and socioeconomic status on psychologists' decisions, used a sample of 217 members of the School Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. The cases used for review varied only in the

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 203 race (black/white) and socioeconomic level (middle/lower income) of the student. The participants were asked to "rate the severity of several diag- nostic conditions, and the desirability of several remedial programs, and their attitude toward the boy" (p. 435~. Measures of the professional ex- perience of the psychologists as well as their personal value structures were obtained. The finding that is most relevant for the purpose of this paper concerns a three-way interaction effect in which more traditional psychol- ogists tended to regard lower-income black students as less mentally retarded and less suitable for placement in a custodial care situation. Cau- tion is warranted in interpreting such an interaction, as it would necessar- ily require further inspection and verification. Johnson (1977), investigating the decision-making behavior of school psychologists, examined their behavior on being presented with data that suggest multiple problems when the available classification system per- mits only singularly defined disorders (as is generally the case in most spe- cial education contexts). Johnson hypothesized that in such cases nonsa- lient characteristics (e.g., age, socioeconomic level, sex) would be used over salient characteristics (e.g., IQ for EMR, behavior problems for ED, and achievement discrepancy for LD) to resolve the ambiguity and to reach a classification decision. While race was not included in the research as a nonsalient characteristic, the use of socioeconomic level, which overlaps heavily with race, makes a review of this study of interest. A total of 373 school psychologists were asked to review hypothetical cases; some were textbook cases based on unambiguous information, and some were cases based on conflicting information in which multiple disorders were present. Johnson reports that "recommendations were always based solely on the salient features. Rather than using age, sex, and social class ... the psychologists appeared to weigh the significance of the salient features against each other [in conflict situations] to arrive at their placement recommendations" (p. ix). As noted earlier, race was not included in this study. The finding of this research concerning the lack of effect of socioeconomic level is particularly interesting. This study's finding seems to contradict other studies that found correlational patterns between socioeconomic level and placement in special classes. The apparent contradiction may not exist if one takes the position that the correlations between socioeconomic level and place- ment are in fact a reflection of the well-documented relationship between socioeconomic level and income and achievement (Wolf, 1977~. Given the importance accorded to achievement tests in determining placements, it is not surprising that a relationship to socioeconomic level would also show up in final placements. The Johnson (1977) study, on the other hand, at- tempts to measure direct socioeconomic bias on the part of psychologists.

204 BICKEL Johnson's conclusion suggests that such a direct bias was not active in his sample. More research on the relationships among race, socioeconomic level, and placement is clearly in order. Turning to other questions related to evaluation processes and minority representation, two studies (Mishra, 1980; Swanson and Deblassie, 1979) investigated the effects of test administration on their outcomes when bi- lingual Mexican-American students were involved. The Swanson and De- blassie study examines the question of whether "the use of an interpreter and/or a regular examiner in administering the WISC would affect the results of a group of Mexican-American children" (p. 231~. In this study, 90 children were divided into 3 groups of roughly comparable levels of mental maturity. One group was administered the test in English; the sec- ond, in English with interpretation; and the third in Spanish. The researchers report a single subtest-language interaction in which the "ad- ministration of the verbal phase of the WISC in English and the perform- ance phase in Spanish appears to be most efficacious in terms of eliciting optimum performance of Mexican-American children" (p. 2351. In all other cases the interactions did not seem to be significant. Mishra (1980) investigated the effect of the ethnicity of the examiner on intelligence test performances of Anglo and Mexican-American children. Verbal subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Raven Progressive Matrices (four in all) were used. Half of each subtest was administered by a Mexican-American examiner, and English was used exclusively in the testing situation. Mishra reported that on one of the four subtests-the WISC vocabulary Mexican-American children scored significantly higher when the test was administered by Mexican- American examiners. It would be unwise at this point to draw any conclu- sions based on this evidence. Further exploration of the relationship among test performances, the ethnicity of the examiner, and special education seems to be warranted. Several features of the research on assessment practices are most strik- ing. First, there clearly remains a tension between the requirement to do more thorough, multidimensional assessments and the need to process students efficiently given due process mandates and limited resources. Second, the research indicates the continuing importance of IQ tests in the placement process, despite the federal mandate to broaden assessment strategies. Third, in their examinations of the question of quality in place- ment decisions, most researchers used consistency among categories as a primary criterion. To this writer the efficacy of the placement and effi- cacy is taken to mean the impact on student growth under a special educa- tion program, as compared with previous growth or growth that may be

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 205 attributed to alternative programs not considered to be part of special ed- ucation must remain the more important criterion in an evaluation of quality in placement decisions. Fourth, the continued importance of IQ scores has serious implications for minority placement, given the often noted differences in minority and majority group IQ means. This issue, however, is not easily amenable to a simple solution. Any new system of assessment (e.g., one not using IQ scores) must meet the test of being at least as accurate as the one currently used. A final point on assessment concerns an agenda for future research. Useful research would include investigations of the innovative practices in assessment that are currently being implemented in various jurisdictions across the country. Of particular interest is the tendency to implement treatment strategies prior to a formal assessment process as a way of elimi- nating the need for an eventual special education assessment and place- ment. Magnetti (1981) reports on procedures in Louisiana that call for ob- servations of children once they are referred but prior to formal assess- ment for the purpose of identifying changes that might be tried in the reg- ular classroom that would alleviate the need for special education. Similar procedures have been noted by Bickel (1981) and Wang (1981~. These in- novations reflect the assessment philosophy of the panel, and the results obtained from such work would be important to examine in this context. IEPS AND LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENTS The development of an IEP in the theoretical model of placement dis- cussed earlier in this paper occurs after a child's assessment and determi- nation of eligibility. In theory, once an IEP is developed, a placement decision is reached. As noted in previous sections, these stages are often collapsed into one or two meetings, and the review of assessment data, the determination of eligibility, the development of an IEP, and placement decisions all occur at one time. The requirement of P.L. 94-142 that an IEP be developed before a child is placed and that it must be continually updated has sparked a great deal of discussion among educators across the country. The IEP requirement has also stimulated a large amount of research focused primarily on the status of the implementation of these regulations and the reactions of educators to them. This section is divided into four parts: a discussion of the federal re- quirements and a review of the literature on the status of the implementa- tion of IEPS, problems in implementation, the typical content of an IEP, and the implementation of requirements of least restrictive environments through IEP documentation.

206 Federal Mandate BICKEL P.L. 94-142 specifies that an IEP must be completed for each child receiv- ing special services and the content areas that must be included in an IEP. Each IEP must contain a statement of "the child's present levels of per- formance; ... annual goals including short term instructional objectives; ... specific special education and related services ... tand] the extent to which the child will be able to participate in regular education programs; the projected dates for initiation of services and ttheir] . . . duration; and ... objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for deter- mining ... on an annual basis whether the short term .. . objectives are being achieved" (34 CFR 300.346~. Status of Implementation Several studies have examined the status of the implementation of IEP regulations (Blaschke, 1979; USHEW, 1979b; Research Triangle Insti- tutes, 19801. In general, these studies found IEP regulations at the state level to be in place and that most LEAs actually had IEPs for individual students. For example, OSE reports (USHEW, 1979b) that state policies "regarding IEPs were found to be consistent with federal regulations in all but one state" (p. 191. This report also stated that a review of IEPs in 281 programs across the nation found 269 with IEPs in place. Problems in Implementation While most states and districts seem to be moving toward implementation in form, numerous problems have surfaced as state and local jurisdictions have attempted to move toward compliance (Blaschke, 1979; Marver and David, 1978; National Association of State Directors of Special Educa- tion, 1980; USHEW, 1979c). A primary problem in implementation con- cerns the management of the logistics necessary for each case (i.e., time, scheduling, etc.~. A second problem concerns anxiety among participants over the use that was to be made of IEPs in evaluating special education services. Teachers and administrators seemed to be particularly con- cerned that IEPs would be used for purposes of accountability (Marver and David, 1978; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 19801. Two studies found that the relationship of IEPs to their use in instruc- tion was unclear (Blaschke, 1979; USHEW, 1979c). There seemed to be particular difficulty in this regard when a student crossed organizational boundaries within a district (e.g., from junior to senior high school).

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 207 Several studies have found that there is difficulty in implementing IEP regulations involving parent participation (Blaschke, 1979; Marver and David, 1978; USHEW, 1979c). Problems ranged from LEAs that devel- oped IEPs before meeting with parents, to difficulty in getting parents to meetings, to IEPs written with so much education jargon that parental understanding was hindered. In several of the studies, problems in imple- mentation seemed to be reduced as an LEA gained experience with the process. Content of IEPs A number of studies have examined samples of IEPs to determine their content (Alper, 1978; Blaschke, 1979; Marver and David, 1978; Reisman and Macy, 1978; Research Triangle Institute, 1980; Schenck and Levy, 1980; Stearns et al., 1979; Wall, 19781. In general, most of the IEPs reviewed contained most of the requirements of the regulations. Within this broad framework of compliance, however, are some areas in which IEPs consistently fall short of the P.L. 94-142 mandate. For example, Alper notes (1978:64-69) that the principal language of the student was not specified in 89 percent of the cases and that evaluation procedures and/or criteria were infrequently specified. Several studies confirm this lack of specification in evaluation proce- dures and/or criteria (Alper, 1978; Marver and David, 1978; Research Triangle Institute, 1980; Schenck and Levy, 19801. There also seems to be a tendency to stress long-term goals in IEPs, leaving short-term goals am- biguous or to be specified by the special education teacher. The fact that many IEPs lack evaluation procedures and criteria makes it particularly difficult to monitor student progress. While the final regu- lations specifically exempt special educators from accountability for the progress of an individual student, it is nevertheless important to under- stand where progress is being made in order to develop a better picture of the efficacy of special education programs generally. Requirements for Least Restrictive Environments A specific component of the IEP is the specification of the final placement of a child and the amount of regular instruction he or she will receive. P.L. 94-142 requires that a placement be in the least restrictive environment, i.e., an environment as close to the home school and the regular classroom as is feasible. One study that actually observed placement meetings (Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978) did not find much discussion of least

208 BICKEL restrictive environments but noted a general trend in placement that gave most of the students (78 percent) some contact with regular classrooms. Another study reports a close link among least restrictive environments, program availability, and the label assigned to a child (Stearns et al., 1979~; that is, a given district might only have one type of classroom set- ting (e.g., self-contained EMR instruction). If a child receives the EMR label, he or she is inevitably placed in the classroom setting available in the district, in this case self-contained, irrespective of his or her ability to adapt to a similar program offered in a less restrictive setting. It is impor- tant to recall that the significance of both single program availability in a variety of settings and various programs available in the same setting has surfaced in terms of the referral and evaluation processes. This issue is a key point of tension between the law, which requires a continuum of pro- grams, services, and settings needed for an individual child and what seems to be the reality that most districts simply cannot provide such a range. Minority Representation and IEPs The writing of an IEP does not directly affect the numbers of minority children that are classified as EMR. However, it is important to know whether, in the process of writing IEPs and assigning the least restrictive environment, minority students are given significantly different goals and types of assignments. No research was found that directly examined the question of whether the content of IEPs (especially short- and long-term goals) varies by race. However, there is some information on the effects of race on the types of setting in which children are placed. Tomlinson et al. (1977) investigated the question of whether race affects assignments to special education settings. These researchers report that "minority students were recommended more frequently for resource help, while majority students were recommended more frequently for placement in self-contained classes" (p. 4591. It should be noted that this trend is in the context of an overall greater tendency to recommend minority students for some special education placements. Another study (Matuszek and Oakland, 1979) also addresses the issue of variation in type of placement. Psychologists participating in this study chose from a program continuum of options, from regular-class place- ment with no additional help to placement in a full-time special class or special school. These researchers report that "the data from this study clearly indicate that they [the psychologists] did not make different recom- mendations on the basis of race" (p. 121~. It is interesting to note that

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 209 these researchers indicate that socioeconomic status was a factor in deter- mining the nature of the placements. In this regard, they found that psy- chologists tended to recommend more services (and a more restricted en- vironment) for higher-income students. Two issues identified by the research on IEPs are of particular impor- tance to the panel's work. These concern (1) the failure in one study to find a relationship between IEP content and classroom instruction and (2) the more general finding that evaluation criteria and/or procedures are often missing from IEPs. In each case the panel's interest in establishing the efficacy of special placements is hindered by the absence of key links or data. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND DUE PROCE S S Reviews of the research on due process and parental involvement are com- bined in this section because of the overlap in the literature. Research on due process in placement has examined almost exclusively the interaction between parents and schools.5 Although due process must presumably in- clude the role of students vis-a-vis school personnel as well as that of par- ents, these aspects have yet to receive much attention. Research on pa- rental involvement includes, of course, the examination of procedural due process mechanisms; it also extends to a consideration of the quality of the interaction between parents and school personnel as students are being identified, assessed, and placed in special education programs. Federal Mandate Specific due process regulations in P.L. 94-142 call for the right of parents to information, to prior approval of preplacement and initial placement activities, and to appeal (34 CFR 300.502-5101. Beyond these pro- cedural rights, parental involvement in the placement process is further specified in regulations concerning the writing of IEPs (34 CFR 300.3451. The clear effect of these regulations is to encourage parental participation in placement activities and to place the burden for ensuring their involve- ment on the schools. 5There has, of course, been a great deal of litigation on due process in special education. Specific reviews of court cases are not within the scope of this paper. For good reviews of due process litigation, see Bersoff (1979), Kotin (1976), and National Association of State Direc- tors of Special Education (1978).

210 Status of Implementation sICKEL A number of studies have reported on the status of the implementation of due process procedures (Blaschke, 1979; Stearns et al., 1979; Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978; USHEW, 1979b). In general, these studies, in re- viewing the annual program plans and the procedures in place in LEAs, find that the regulations (if not necessarily the practice) within most juris- dictions are in compliance with the P.L. 94-142 requirements. For exam- ple, the OSE, in its report to Congress (USHEW, 1979b) confirms this status of compliance, concluding that "since September, 1977, approxi- mately 40 states have changed their laws and/or regulations to meet the due process . . . requirements of P.L. 94-142" (p. xv). In terms of parental involvement in the placement process, Blaschke (1979) reports that most attention has been given to their involvement with IEPs. He reports that "most district activities to involve parents focus upon obtaining written permission (e.g., for testing... IEPs, and for placement) and informing parents (e.g., assessment results, rights to par- ticipate, results of IEP reviews)" (p. 201. Several studies have examined the content of due process hearings as part of the research on implementation (Blaschke, 1979; National Asso- ciation of State Directors of Special Education, 1978; Stearns et al., 1979~. Although the numbers of hearings reviewed in these studies are rel- atively few, the findings in several cases are reasonably consistent. Dis- putes over private school placements (i.e., the parents who want them and want the public school district to pay for them) and the provision of re- lated services are the two most frequent topics of the hearings. However, earlier work (e.g., Buss et al., 1976) that examined due process data in Pennsylvania after the decision in Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (1971) adds an additional category of dispute between school of- ficials and parents: the classification of children. Parents most often disputed the assignment of a label (especially that of mentally retarded) by school officials, preferring their child to remain classified as normal. Problems in Implementation Difficulties in implementing due process protections can be divided into two parts: one relating to parental involvement in decision making about placements and one relating to the use of hearings to resolve disputes. Sev- eral studies find that, while more parental contact has occurred in place- ment processes as a result of P.L. 94-142, parents have relatively little real involvement in decisions (Blaschke, 1979; National Association of State /

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 211 Directors of Special Education, 1978; Stearns et al., 1979; Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978; USHEW, 1979c). For example, Thouvenelle and Hebbeler (1978) report that "while parents were asked to contribute infor- mation about the child, decisions about educational placement were made primarily by the school district staff, and then presented to parents for ap- proval" (p. 7~. Blaschke (1979) confirms this finding when he writes that increased contact between parents and school officials resulting from P.L. 94-142 has not meant "a dramatic increase in shared parent/staff deci- sion-making ..." (p. 20~. Several studies have reported findings on what influences parental in- volvement (Blaschke, 1979; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1978, 1980; Stearns et al., 1979; USHEW, 1979c). Clearly, traditions within a school or district have much to do with the ex- tent of parental involvement. The social class of parents also seems to be important; increased involvement was found among middle-class, subur- ban, nonminority populations. Reasons cited for noninvolvement cover a wide spectrum: parental lack of knowledge, school personnel resistance, difficulty in scheduling, mistrust between parents and officials, trust of school officials by parents, and proximity to the school. Several studies cite problems attendant to the due process hearings themselves that militate against implementation of federal regulations (Blaschke, 1979; National Association of State Directors of Special Edu- cation, 1978; Stearns et al., 19791. Two findings are most common. First, the due process procedures have tended to formalize the interactions be- tween school officials and parents to the point, in some instances, where recordkeeping takes precedence over communication. Second, the costs, in terms of time and attorneys' fees to parents and districts, may have the effect of depressing the use of due process hearings in cases in which it is warranted. The trauma of a hearing can negatively affect one party's will- ingness to exercise due process rights again. These studies also reported that in some school districts creative alternatives have been developed that can mitigate disagreements without resort to formal hearings. For exam- ple, Stearns et al. (1979) note the importance of mediators, advocacy groups, and the like in assisting parents and school officials in ironing out problems before a formal hearing becomes necessary. Overall, the research literature provides a mixed picture of parental in- volvement and due process. Clearly, there has been significant movement as a result of P.L. 94-142; procedural forms are in place, meetings are held, parents sign approval forms, etc. The literature also indicates that the actual reality of compliance in many instances falls short of the objec- tives of the legislation.

212 BICKEL Minority Representation, Parental Involvement, and Due Process Have minority parents become more involved in placement processes? Do the requirements of P.L. 94-142 work to diminish the number of minority children that are placed in EMR classes? Have parents used due process procedures? Little research has been conducted that can directly answer these questions. Three studies (Blaschke, 1979; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1980; Stearns et al., 1979) do pro- vide some information on the participation of minority parents. These studies indicate that a lower degree of participation tends to occur in ur- ban areas, especially among minority populations. However, these studies do not provide specific information on the question of whether due process procedures are affecting the rates of minority representation in special education programs or whether they would affect these rates if parents were fully involved. Several studies have addressed the question of whether black parents and white parents are differentially treated during the evaluation process. For example, Tomlinson et al. (1977) indicate that psychologists assessing students "made contact with the parents of majority students significantly more often (58 percent) ... than with parents of minority students (41 percent) ..." (p. 457~. This occurred despite the fact that contacts with teachers for majority and minority students by psychologists were about the same. These researchers also report that the range of options pre- sented to minority parents by psychologists when they were contacted was significantly more restricted than that presented to majority parents. Recommendations to parents of minority students most commonly in- volved program placement, while recommendations to parents of majority students were more varied across a number of categories (e.g., behavior management, help at home, counseling, etc.~. Lanier and Wittmer (1977) report findings similar to those cited above for teachers. These researchers state that teachers involved in an EMR re- ferral process "were more likely to request a parent-teacher conference with the parents of white students than with black students" (p. 168~. The important point is that too little is known about minority parental involve- ment to draw any but the most tentative conclusions. It is clear from research on parental involvement and due process that much remains to be accomplished in the implementation of the P.L. 94-142 regulations. Some of the changes must come at the local level, in terms of knowledge and attitudes of school personnel and parents. Pos- sibly some changes may have to occur at the national level, where empha- sis on procedural swiftness in processing students at times runs counter to mandates to involve parents meaningfully in the decisions made. It is also

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 213 clear that the research undertaken thus far on due process hearings raises as many questions as it answers. More detailed investigations are required as to what policies are in place and how they are working. SUMMARY Research on placement practices since the passage of P.L. 94-142 has em- phasized investigation of the status of the implementation of the law's regulations. Table 2 reviews some of the questions addressed by the major national studies of the implementation of P.L. 94-142 as well as their basic characteristics and the methodologies used. Table 3 summarizes the sig- nificant problems in implementation that have been uncovered by these studies. To a far lesser extent, the literature on placement has also ad- dressed questions related to whether the law is having the intended effects and the impact the regulations are having on minority students. P.L. 94-142 has clearly had a great impact on state and local placement policies and practices. Since 1977, when the completed regulations be- came official, states and school districts have changed their policies to re- flect the basic tenets of the federal requirements. However, the research demonstrates that more must be done to accomplish full implementation, especially in light of the spirit and intent of the specific regulations. The description here of the research on placement processes highlights both the progress made and the need for continued improvement. It also points out that gaps in knowledge still exist, particularly with regard to the im- pact of the law on minority students. This section summarizes what is cur- rently known about these processes. SCREENING AND REFERRAL A student enters the placement process in one of two ways. The child may be identified through a district or statewide screening process, which often entails the systematic review of student performance on some standard- ized measure (e.g., achievement or IQ tests). Or the student may be re- ferred for evaluation by someone who knows him or her. The person typically making the referral is the classroom teacher, although P.L. 94-142 has effectively broadened the participatory base in special educa- tion placement processes. A minority student's chances for referral seem to be considerably higher in most instances than those of a majority student. Based on a very limited number of studies, there does not seem to be much difference between minority and majority students in the problems for which they are re- ferred. There is some suggestion in the literature that the experience of

214 Cal ._ V) o ._ Ct a, so o .~, Ct a, o C,2 ._ o o o Ct Cal C) ._ En ._ so au C) Ct 50 AS A - Ct Us ._ :- o ·E' o - o o o . _ Cal U) a: ._ V) V' 3 U' 5: i ~1 0£ ~ ~ 4 c) ~ . __ .> 0 .- ') as O ~ O ~ ~i =: ~ ~ of O By ~. ~O · C.) ·- O _ ~ ._ : - ~ Cat Cal ~ ~ ,= , ~ Ct -S: O .. C) ~ ~ . ~ ~ fi ~ ? 3 ~ ~ ~ ~, · . . Ct · ~ Ct Ct Ct ._ ~ ._ ._ ._ {~: · ~ ~ ~;-, ~=,., ~ C - >, ~ ~ ~ ·- o,o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o = ,= ~ ~ o o ~ ~o c~ ~ ~ ? ~ ce <e ~o ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ :;s c~ -= ~° oo ~ = 0 o ~ =4 = E = oo ,6 E ~ _ ~ .- ~ ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .. Cq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ C~ V' ~ ~ Ce ~ ~ V) ,r) ~=, _ ~ ~ r~ - _~ o ooC.) a~ C~ -~ - _a' ~ {v~ 'e ~ tc~ e~ E~v s~ o ~ ~ ~v e v, · s ~v, · ~ ct c~ o ct q) c.} c: o ~ ~ 5- ce) ~ o ~ · ~ c) ·- · - ct {v "D ~ s~ o

215 ~· C} ~ = 0 ~ o ~ 01) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ = .- .~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ , P ~ ' C ~ - == o 3 ~-e ~ ~ E ~ ~c .. .o · ~ ~, ~ _ ct , cat ~ E Y I,, .< C AS < ri ~C _ ' ~ ELI ° Cal ~ A, _ - , _ _ lo, it, ~ ~At, en _ V' ~ o o ~i= _ ~= e .,_ ~'a' ~ O O o ~ _ ~ ~ z ~m

216 x s o o so o I' JO - o o ~4 - Cal V) ._ U) Ct V) :^ v) , - v . ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ in,, _ . ~ ~ to ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~-~ ~ as, ~ to ~ ~ ' £ 3 C) ._ ~ o .,_ . _ ~ C} 5- ~ ~ C) _ o ._ C) ._ ~ o ~ <l, - _ Cal ~ 5°- :^ U) Ct ;~7 C,2 U) is, Cal . Ct ._ - Ct 3 C) ._ ._ Ct ~ ; - o C) Cal CJ ~ o . - _ ~ em C) "D X C.) - 3 5 ~ ~ C) Cal a: .0 Cal I: ~ ~ ~ ~I) V) ~To ._ ~ ~ . ~ .= c lo: en To 3 o, ~ ~ o : ~ ~ __ _ _ C}O cat "D Go of - _ _ _ lo, LL1 ~ U) ~U. V'

217 ~ `,, ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ o ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ° I- ~ :< ~ ~ -= ~ · ~ ~ Q., O Ad ~ cLd ~I ~ O ~ ~ _ o C,- _ c,V ,; ~ - ~ U _ _ ~ ~. ~ _ ~<,, 3 Cal .. C< >\ 3 ;: ~ ._ ~ 3 o Cat Cal ~ ·, A: o : - C4 C) ._ Ct ~ [.q C, ._ () Vet ~ - ._ - o o U7 £ Ct Cal i: o o o c: o Ct pal _ . Cal U. o V, ~C~ ~ o ~ X ~ o ~ o _ _ ~ ~ Lr: ~ _ - L~ ~ _ °C oo Ct . _ - o o E~ ~ ~,= ~_ ~c ~ _ c, - ;,' ~c ~0 . . :^ c~ ~ oc 04 ct ct c: ~ 0 0 . _ . _ v~ ct ct ;: ~ c~ o = ~ ~ _ c~ ~ c~ s~ ct c~ v, ° 1 1 0 ~ ~ LL1 u, ct .° ct c' e~ ~ - ~ ~:; £, ~ ._ c' c~ _ ._ 1 1 =, - Lt1 ~ _

218 0861 A U Id 0861 'an atSun!lL qol~asa~ 8L6 1 'ladly 6L6 1 'Ada., a? ._ us - sit u, v, cat a: o o o ._ cat a_ - - ._ cn i_ o q6L61 'M]HSn ~6L61 'MSHSn 36L61 'AASHSn bL61 Awash 0861 'a jArplass~ pun ~olln~,L 8L61 P!A~G pun 1DAlU 0861 'ASOSYN 6L61 ' 1r pa sultans 8L61 'lalaqqaH pun allauaAnotlL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c c ~,c s 0 S u ~o ~ C 5 E · ~ ~ E ° ~ ~) ~ ~v:e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~, ct _ ~LU ~ - . .

219 + + 1 + + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ~ ~ ~c U a ,0 o a . ,, ~ _, ~ ,. ~ _ -] - ) ~0 _ V, V, ._ Ct Cal ~7 Cal o ._ ; - - · c: o 5 o O ~ V' To to .. + c.) so: - _ a>

220 BICKEL teachers in teaching minority students may be positively related to lower referral rates: that is, the greater the experience, the lower the rate. On these questions, like most questions related to minority issues, there are large gaps in our knowledge about the impact of the law; thus, conclu- sions at this juncture are premature. Referral rates do not seem to be greatly influenced by the presence of federal money per se. There is no evidence that students are placed simply to increase a school district's budget by the federal increment that sup- ports special education. However, this may be because of the relatively modest levels of support for new programming that currently exist. The availability of state and local resources was found to be highly significant: Students are referred to and placed in programs that exist. Rigid eligibility criteria for specific programs in some districts actually influence the referral process. That is, students are not referred for a gen- eral assessment of needs, but rather for an ED, LD, or EMR evaluation. Procedural requirements for assessment (e.g., extensive reviews, due process, etc.) within a state (most often) and within a district also in- fluence referral rates. For example, the emphasis on individualized assess- ment (in part as a result of the federal mandate for IEPs) has tended to slow the evaluation process, creating a backlog in the referral process that in turn can discourage referrals. Parental pressure was found to be a significant factor in referral. In some districts a history of strong parental involvement tended to discour- age referrals because teachers (and presumably others) were hesitant to face the hostility that such a referral might entail. It is also true, however, that active parental pressure has acted to bring students' needs to the at- tention of school officials. It is clear that a great amount of personal discretion still exists in the re- ferral process, and as a result there is a tendency to refer children who have more severe problems or who disrupt school routines. EVALUATION Once a child is identified or referred, some individual or group determines whether the case merits further assessment. As the system currently func- tions, gatekeepers at this point in the process often use largely undeter- mined criteria to decide if an assessment should be made. The gatekeeper may be the school principal, counselor, or some district officer. A decision to assess usually brings the involvement of additional par- ticipants, often the school psychologist and the parents (at some point). Additional participants can include regular and special education teach

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 221 ers and administrative personnel. This group, or key individuals in it, de- termine the areas in which the child should be evaluated. There is wide variation in the areas in which a child might be assessed. Important trends have been documented indicating that a broadening in the domains assessed is occurring as required by P.L. 94-142. However, data clearly indicate a heavy reliance on traditional asessment informa- tion, especially IQ and achievement tests, in the EMR evaluation process. The continued reliance on IQ tests in EMR placement has a significant impact on minority placements. Minority students, in the aggregate, do not do as well as majority students on these measures, a fact that may ex- plain in part the higher placement rates among minority populations. The rate of placement of minority students diminishes as the IQ cutoff score is lowered. The use of measures of adaptive behavior also was found to lower the rate of placement of minority students, provided such measures were not simply standardized tests of in-school adaptive behavior. Once the data are collected, a decision is made as to eligibility. The decision process often occurs with the ostensible participation of the entire placement team. There are some indications, however, that participation is often a formality, in which a key individual (e.g., an administrator or a school psychologist) makes a recommendation to the group for fairly routine approval. A variety of factors influence the determination of eligibility. The most important seems to be not individual educational needs, as the law re- quires, but rather the availability of programs. The data clearly indicate that a child is rarely determined eligible for services that are not currently in place. Initial referral information and achievement and IQ test scores were also found to be very influential in the eligibility decision. Demo- graphic factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and sex were in them- selves not found to be directly significant in the limited number of studies that examined these variables. For example, race alone did not seem to determine placement when other variables were held constant. However, the correlation among socioeconomic status, race, and test scores clearly establishes a general pattern of higher placement of minority students when these measures are relied on heavily. It should be noted that some interesting, contrasting findings to the above pattern- are reported in several studies of the placement behavior of psychologists. Some psychologists tended to place minority students at a lower rate (or in less restrictive environments) than their majority counter- parts when majority students had similar test scores. Researchers spec- ulate that this pattern may be the result of a growing sensitivity within the profession to minority issues, perhaps as a result of P.L. 94-142.

222 sICKEL Personal discretion on the part of team members also was found to be influential in the placement decision, particularly in the selection of the areas in which a student is evaluated. The evidence is too thin, however, to draw conclusions about this issue. Additional factors that influence the placement decision include the ex- istence of program alternatives outside special education (e.g., Title I) and ambiguity in state and federal criteria for placement. Ambiguity in the guidelines was especially significant for LD placements. The federal regulations and the theoretical models reviewed in this paper indicate that an assessment of needs should precede a determina- tion of eligibility, followed by the design of a program to meet the needs (IEP), and then an assignment to a context in which to implement the services (least restrictive environment). This sequence is rarely found in practice. The practical limitations of resources, noted above, in addition to the demands on the time of school personnel usually mean that the pro- cess is compacted into one or two meetings. And a placement decision is seldom separate from the program realities (i.e., the existence of services and available space) of a given local education agency. A number of studies investigated the quality of placement decisions and the outcomes of those decisions. Consistency in the ability of placement procedures to discriminate between various populations needing services and those not needing services was the basic criterion used. Research on EMR programs generally indicates consistency in these placements; how- ever, it tended to be the result of a single measure, IQ scores. Research on ED and LD placements demonstrated little consistency in these place- ments. Ambiguous disability guidelines, inadequate testing technology, and inconsistently applied psychological theory created patterns of place- ment in which inconsistency was more the rule than the exception. It is important to remember that consistency is not the only measure of the quality of placement decisions. Ultimately, the efficacy of the place- ment for the child is the criterion that must be used to determine quality. Research on efficacy is needed, especially as efficacy relates to minority students. IEPS AND LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENTS Research on IEPS and least restrictive environments has investigated issues concerning the status of the implementation of P.L. 94-142 regula- tions, how IEPs and least restrictive environments are determined, and their content. A general trend of compliance with the form of P.L. 94-142 regulations in these areas is documented in the research; most states now have policies in place that reflect federal requirements.

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 223 Research examining the writing of IEPs supports the view that factors external to the assessment of needs often guide the final content of the in- dividual program of services. That is, service availability may be more sig- nificant than the particular need of a child. An IEP is often written by some or all of the same group that detainee placement and sometimes even at the same time. A point of contention in the process seems to center on the federal requirement that IEPs include specific evaluation strategies to assess whether the goals are met. There seems to be a serious concern among educators that such evaluations will be used for accountability purposes. As a result there is a genuine reluctance among practitioners to be specific in the statement of goals. Another major point of tension related to IEPs concerns the amount of time that is required on the part of teachers to write them. The quality and content of IEPs range dramatically from district to district and from state to state. In general, long-range, open-ended goals take precedence over short-term, specific objectives. As noted above, this may be the result of fears on the part of teachers and school officials that the IEPs will be used for accountability purposes; The special education teacher plays a key role in the writing of an IEP, especially when short- term goals are included. Little research has been done to determine whether the content of IEPs varies with the ethnicity or social class of a student. The importance of this question is related to the issue of whether special education placements for minority students are dead-end placements or whether these students receive important services in these classes. The few studies that have reported information on this issue suggest that content is not dependent on the race or the social class of the student. Decisions on least restrictive environments are similar to those on IEPs. That is, the close link between the availability of a program and a classifi- cation influences the determination of the least restrictive environment. Most districts simply do not have the range of program alternatives that is implied in P.L. 94-142. Thus, an EMR placement in a given district may automatically imply a certain decision on the least restrictive environment regardless of the capabilities and needs of an individual child. Research on variations in least restrictive environments, like that on IEPs, is limited. One study that investigates the issue finds no relationship between the type of environment chosen for placement and the race of a student (Matuszek and Oakland, 19791. Another study finds a tendency to place minority students in less restrictive environments than their white counterparts (Tomlinson et al., 1977~. This may be a result of a trend in the referral process that refers fewer majority students; these students pre

224 BICKEL sumably have more obviously serious problems than the larger numbers of minority students referred. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND DUE PROCESS Research on parental involvement and due process proceedings docu- ments that, while the law has had an important impact, there is room for considerable improvement. Parents are becoming more involved in place- ment processes. They are important sources of initial referrals, and they are often an important source of pressure on school districts to provide ad- ditional or better services. For the most part, parents attend IEP meetings and sign forms approving assessments, placements, and service delivery. However, the research also demonstrates that participation is often super- ficial and that consent is seldom informed. Interestingly enough, the re- sponsibility for shortcomings in this area is rather equitably distributed among all concerned. Parents often are unknowledgeable, apathetic, or too trusting. School officials often see parental involvement as an unhelp- ful intrusion on the exercise of their professional expertise. Unrealistic regulations place extreme burdens on the time and energy of parents and school personnel in requiring attention to IEPs, more comprehensive assess- ment, and increased parental involvement all with due speed. The history of school-parent interactions and the social class of parents are significant influences on involvement. The type of district (i.e., subur- ban or urban) was also important; parental involvement occurred to a lesser extent in urban districts. Each of these factors contributes to the lack of parental involvement in placement decisions. What little research exists on the involvement of minority parents suggests that they are not fully participating beyond the formal requirements of the law. There is some suggestion (based on only two studies) that even when minority parents do become involved, they receive different treatment (e.g., are given fewer program options) than that typically given to majority parents. Due process procedures providing recourse for the parents and school personnel when there are disagreements are generally in place. The most common foci of these proceedings since P.L. 94-142 have been on acquiring public school support for private placement and the provision of related ser- vices. Clearly, more research is required in this area. Factors that hinder the use of due process hearings by parents include (1) the complexity of the law and parental lack of understanding and (2) the costs of participation in terms of time and attorneys' expenses. The parents involved in due process hearings tend to be white, nonurban, and middle class. Interesting by-products of due process hearings have been an increas- ing formality and tension in communications between school officials and

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 225 parents, with greater emphasis placed on recordkeeping and written agreements. CONCLUSION The research on placement processes for special education indicates that most of the P.L. 94-142 requirements are in place, at least in form. Great amounts of time and energy are being expended by school personnel, children, and parents in the implementation of specific regulations. How- ever, additional time, resources, and effort will be required to fully imple- ment the intent of the P.L. 94-142 regulations in placement. In terms of the impact that the placement provisions of P.L. 94-142 are having on the dis- proportionate representation of minorities in special education programs, research undertaken to date does not adequately address this issue. What indications there are suggest that much remains to be done to ensure that placement occurs in an accurate, fair, and efficacious manner for these students. It is also clear that research concerned with minority experiences in special education must extend to issues related to efficacy. Regardless of the circumstances of placement, one question remains: Does placement in special programs lead to the effective treatment of a child's actual prob- lems? It is on these grounds that special education programs must justify themselves to minority students and to all other students who are placed in them. REFERENCES Alper, T. G. 1980 IEPs, How Well Do They Work? Paper prepared under grant no. 77-37-B for the California State Department of Education. Amira, S., Abramowitz, S. I., and Gomes-Schwartz, B. 1977 Socially-charged pupil and psychologist effects on psychoeducational decisions. Journal of Special Ed location 11 :433-440. Bersoff, D. N. 1979 Regarding psychologists testily: regulation of psychological assessment in the public schools. Maryland Law Review 39(1):27-120. Bickel, W. E. 1981 Second Assessment for Minority Students in Special Education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Birman, B. F. 1979 Case Studies of Overlap Between Title I and P.L. 94-142 Services for Handicapped Students. Research report EPRC 26 prepared for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International. Blaschke, C. L. 1979 Case Study of the Impact of Implementation of P.L. 94-142. Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Education Turnkey Systems.

226 BICKEL Buss, W. G., Kirp, D. L., and Kuriloff, P. J. 1976 Exploring procedural modes of special classification. Pp. 386-431 in N. Hobbs, ea., Issues in the Classification of Children. Vol. II. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey- Bass, Inc. Craig, P. A., Kaskowitz, D. H., and Malgoire, M. A. 1978 Teacher Identification of Handicapped Pupils (Ages 6-11) Compared with Iden- tification Using Other Indicators, Volume II. Menlo Park, Calif.: Educational Policy Research Center, Stanford Research Institute. Fisher, A. T. 1977 Four Approaches to Classification of Mentally Retarded. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 172-495. Frederick, L. v. Thomas 1980 408 F. Supp. 832 (E.D. Pa., 1976); 419 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Pa., 1976); afford. 557 F.2d 373 (3rd Cir., 1977), 578 F.2d 513 (3rd Cir., 1978); Stipulation, E.D. Pa., 4/7/80. Gajar, A. H. 1977 Characteristics and classification of educable mentally retarded, learning disabled, and emotionally disturbed students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Dissertation Abstracts International 3&:4090A. University microfilm no. 77-28, 644. Hallahan, D. P., and Kauffman, J. 1977 Labels, categories, and behaviors: ED, LD, and EMR reconsidered. Journal of Special Education 11:139-149. Hansche, J. H., Gottfried, N. W., and Hansche, W. J. No Special Education Classification: A Multivariate Analysis and Evaluation of Clini date cal Judgments. Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, Tulane University. Hobbs, N., ed. 1975 Issues in the Classification of Children. 2 vols. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Huberty, T. J., Koller, J. R., and Tenbrink, T. D. 1980 Adaptive behavior in the definition of mental retardation. Exceptional Children 46:256-261. Johnson, V. M. 1977 Salient features and sorting factors in the diagnosis and classification of excep- tional children. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Dissertation Abstracts International 37:4282-A. University microfilm no. 76-29, 649. Jones, R. L. 1979 Protection evaluation procedures: criteria and recommendations. Pp. 15-84 in PEP: Developing Criteria for the Evaluation of Protection in Evaluation Proce- dures Provisions. Philadelphia, Pa.: Research for Better Schools. Kaskowitz, D. H. 1977 Validation of State Counts of Handicapped Children. Vol. II. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research Institute. Kotin, L. 1976 Due Process in Special Education: Legal Perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: Re- search Institute for Educational Problems. Lanier, J., and Wittmer, J. 1977 Teacher prejudice in referral of students to EMR programs. The School Counselor 24: 165-170.

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 227 Larry P. v. Riles 1979 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979) (decision on merits) appeal docketed No. 80.4027 (9th Cir., Jan. 179 1980). Larson, S. L. 1978 The implementation of labeling and diagnostic placements of children within schools in two southeastern Nebraska communities. Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Nebraska. Dissertation Abstracts International 39:1442A-1441A. University microfilm no. 78- 14700. Magnetti, S. S. 1980 The Legal Context of Special Education Placement. Background paper prepared for the Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded, Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1981 Assessment Practice in Louisiana. Memorandum prepared for the Panel on Selec- tion and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded, Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy, National Research Council. Washington, D.C. Marver, J. D., and David, J. L. 1978 Three States Experiences with IEP Requirements Similar to P.L. 94-142. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, Educational Policy Research Center. Matuszek, P., and Oakland, T. 1979 Factors influencing teachers' and psychologists' recommendations regarding spe- cial class placement. Journal of School Psychology 17: 116- 125. McDermott, P. A. 1980 Congruence and typology of diagnoses in school psychology: an empirical study. Psychology in the Schools 17: 12-24. Mercer, J. R. 1972 I.Q.: the lethal label. Psychology Today 6:44; 97. 1979 System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment Technical Manual. New York: Psychological Corporation. Mercer, J. R., and Lewis, J. F. 1978 System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment. New York: Psychological Corpora- tion. Meyers, C. E., MacMillan, D. L., and Yoshida, R. K. 1978 Validity of psychologists' identification of educable mentally retarded students in the perspective of the California Recertification experience. Journal of School Psychology 16:4-15. Mishra, S. P. 1980 The influence of examiner's ethnical attributes on intelligence test scores. Psychol- ogy in the Schools 17: 117-122. Naidoff, S. W., and Gross, J. A. 1980 Memorandum prepared for Office of the Regional Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa. National Association of State Directors of Special Education 1978 The Implementation of Due Process in Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.: Na- tional Association of State Directors of Special Education. 1980 Summary of Research Findings on IEPs. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Nelson, F. H. 1980 Fiscal Determinants of the Provision of Services to Handicapped Children. Paper

228 BICKEL presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Mass. Oakland, T., ed. 1977 Psychological and Educational Assessment of Minority Children. New York: Brun- ner/Mazel. Pennsylvania Associatio'' for Retarded Citizens v. Pennsylvania 1971 344 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa., 1971). Petersen, C. R., and Hart, D. H. 1978 Use of multiple discriminant function analysis in evaluation of a state-wide system for identification of educationally handicapped children. Psychological Reports 43:743-755. Poland, S., Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., and Mirkin, P. 1979 Current Assessn2e'2t a,2d Decision Making Practices i,2 School Settings as Reported by Directors of Special Educatio,2. Research report no. 14. Minneapolis. Minn.: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. Portny, S. E. 1980 An External Evaluatio,2 of' C0~2ti'2Uu''? Educatio,2 in the Montgomery County Public Schools. Alexandria, Va.: Portny & Associates. Reisman, K., and Macy, J. 1978 Context Evaluation of IEPs in an Urban School District. Paper presented at the meeting of the Rocky Mountain Educational Association, Albuquerque, N.Mex. Reschly, D. J. In Assessing mild mental retardation: the influence of adaptive behavior, sociocul press tural status and prospects for non-biased assessment. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkin, eds., A Handbook for School Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Reschly, D. J., and Jipson, F. J. 1976 Ethnicity, geographic locale, age, sex, and urban-rural residence as variables in the prevalence of mild retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 81:154-161. Research Triangle Institute 1980 A National Survey of Individualized Education Programs {IEPs) for Handicapped Children. Final report, Vol. I, Executive Summary. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, Center for Educational Research and Evaluation. Reynolds, M. D., and Birch, J. W. 1977 Teaching Exceptional Children in all America's Schools: A First Course for Teachers and Principals. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children. Schenck, S. J., and Levy, W. K. 1980 IEPs: The State of the Art-1978. Hightstown, N.J.: Northeast Regional Resource Center. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 175-201. Stearns, M. S., Greene, D., and David, J. L. 1979 Local Implementation oy'P. L. 94-142. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International. Stevens, F. I. 1980 The Impact of the Larry P. Case on Urban School Districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Boston, Mass. Swanson, E. N., and Deblassie, R. R. 1979 Interpreter and Spanish administration effects on the WISC performance of Mexican-American children. Journal of School Psychology 19:231-236. Thouvenelle, S., and Hebbeler, K. 1978 Placement Procedures for Determining the Least Restrictive E'2vironn2e'2t Place- ment for Handicapped Children. Silver Spring, Md.: Applied Management Sciences, Inc.

Classifying Mentally Retarded Students 229 Thurlow, M. L., and Ysseldyke, J. E. 1979 Current Assessment and Decision-Maki~qg Practice i'' Model Programs for the Learning Disabled. Research report no. 11. Minneapolis, Minn.: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota. 1980 Factors Influential on the Psychoed ucational Decisions Reached by Teams of Educators. Research report no. 25. Minneapolis, Minn.: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota. Tomlinson, J. R., Acker, N., Conter, A., and Lindborg, S. 1977 Minority status and school psychological services. Psychology i,' the Schools 14:456-460. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1979a Progress Toward a Free Appropriate Public Educatio'': A Report to Congress on the Impleme,~tat~on of P.L. 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1979b Progress Toward a Free Appropriate Public Educatio'': Semi-A,'''ual Update o'' the Implementatio,' of P.L. 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children Act. Office of Education. Superintendant of Documents no. 0-631-611/2923. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1979c Service Delivery Assessment: Education for the Handicapped. Unpublished report. Inspector General's Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Wall, C. 1978 Pennsylvania's Preschool Pilot Individualized Educational Program. Paper pre- sented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto. Wang, M. C. 1981 The Adaptive Mainstreaming Learning Environments Project: A'2 Interim Report. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pitts- burgh. Weatherly, R. A. 1979 Reforming Special Education: Policy Implementatio'' from State Level to Street Level. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wolf, F. 1977 The Relationship between Poverty Ed Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. Ysseldyke, J. E., and Algozzine, R. 1980 Diagnostic Classification Decisions as a Functio'2 of Referral I'~forn2atio,7. Re- search report no. 19. Minneapolis, Minn.: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, R., Regan, R.. and McGue. M. 1979a The Influence of Test Scores and Naturally-Occurring Pupil Characteristics O,Z Psychoeducatio'`al Decision Making with Childre,2. Research report no. 17. Min- neapolis, Minn.: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. University of Minnesota. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, R., Shinn. M., and McGue, M. 1979b Similarities and Differences betu~ee,' Underachievers arid Students Labeled Lear,?- ing Disabled: Identical Twins with Different Mothers. Research report no. 13. Minneapolis, Minn.: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities University of Minnesota. Zucker. S. H., Prieto, A. G.. and Rutherford. R. B. 1979 Racial Determinants of Teacher's Perceptions of Placement of the Educable Men- tally Retarded. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children. Dallas, Texas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 191 015.

Next: Testing in Educational Placement: Issues and Evidence »
Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $125.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!