Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 23
2
Placement In Special Eclucation:
Histoncal Developments and
Current Procedures
In the United States, definitions of educable mental retardation and
methods of recognizing its existence are closely tied to social expectations
inherent in our education system. In contrast to the often obvious mani-
festations of severe mental deficiency, educable mental retardation is not
as easily identifiable. In fact, the category itself did not exist until the ad-
vent of compulsory education at the turn of the century and the adoption
of intelligence tests as a simple method of tagging deficient performance.
Even today it is not recognized by many cultures in less-developed areas of
the world and is identified at widely varying rates among industrialized
countries.
To understand the concepts and issues concerning the identification
and education of educable mentally retarded (EMR) children, we first de-
scribe characteristics of children identified as mildly or educably mentally
retarded. We then review the historical origins of special education in
America. Within the historical context, the central role of the standardized
intelligence test for identification and placement of mentally retarded stu-
dents receives special note. The development of a nationally supported
system of special education set the stage for a rising debate over dispro-
portionate representation of black students and, to a lesser extent, His-
panic students in classes for EMR children. This controversy has resulted
in recent court decisions and federal and state legislation dealing with
placement procedures and the rights of handicapped children.
We turn then to a detailed examination of current procedures for spe-
cial education placement. According to the regulations of Section 504 of
23
OCR for page 24
24
REPORT OF THE PANEL
the Rehabilitation Act and P.L. 94-142, a child can be placed in an EMR
program only after various stages in the process of referral, assessment,
and placement have been completed. The relation of each step in the pro-
cess to the eventual receipt of the EMR label is discussed, with special
attention to those factors that mediate the placement of minority students.
WHO ARE THE CHILDREN CLASSIFIED AS EMR?
Defining and describing the population of EMR children is fraught with
difficulties because of the inherently social nature of such identification. A
child is considered to be educably mentally retarded only after he or she
has proceeded through the steps of referral, evaluation, and placement in
the classificatory systems used by schools. He or she may receive the label
not only on the basis of identified subnormal functioning but also as a
consequence of administrative factors operating within schools.
Formal definitions of mental retardation reflect the changing social per-
ceptions of those who are considered members of this group. Although
several classification systems for mental retardation exist in this country,
the one that is most commonly used by schools and adopted, with only
slight modification by P.L. 94-142 is that of the American Association
on Mental Deficiency (AAMD). The AAMD defines mental retardation as
"significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concur-
rently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the devel-
opmental period" (Grossman, 1977:5~. ~ The term "significantly sub-
average" refers to an upper limit of two standard deviations below the
mean score for measured intelligence. The highest category of mental
retardation is "mild," equivalent to the education category EMR, and
covers those whose IQ scores are between 55 and 70. This definition dif-
fers from the previous AAMD definition of mental retardation (1959),
which included the category "borderline retardation," which had IQ score
limits from one to two standard deviations below the mean. With this
change in definition, many children previously considered mentally re-
tarded, although mildly so, were transferred to the normal population.
Not only has the definition of mental retardation changed, but the
boundaries that define eligibility for placement in programs for mentally
retarded students in public schools also vary among states and districts.
For example, a child with an IQ of 75 may be considered EMR in one
state, while the same child would not be eligible for such a placement in
another state.
HA new edition of the AAMD's Manual on Terminology and Classification in Mental Re-
tardation is expected to be published in 1982. It will incorporate modest revisions to the cur-
rent AAMD definition of mental retardation.
OCR for page 25
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
25
Estimates of the prevalence of mental retardation lack precision be-
cause of the absence of a clear categorical definition. For example, when
IQ scores alone are used as evidence of mental retardation, 2 an arbitrary
cutoff of two standard deviations below the mean IQ of 100 would be an
IQ of 70, and the prevalence of all degrees of mental retardation would be
2.28 percent. Studies that examined intelligence alone derived figures
close to this percentage (Birch et al., 1970; Mercer, 1973; Rutter et al.,
1970~. The introduction of additional criteria to the definition, such as
adaptive behavior measures (Mercer, 1973; Tarjan et al., 1973) or the use
of such selective screening mechanisms as nominations by school staff (Birch
et al., 1970), reduce the percentage of children identified as mentally
retarded to between 1.0 and 1.3 percent. The total percentage of students
in EMR classes in 1978 was closer to these values;3 it is estimated from the
OCR school survey to be 1.4 percent.
SOME DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EMR POPULATION4
Different definitions of mental retardation yield discrepant prevalence
rates, and the methods used in a particular study to define mental retar-
dation determine which children are included in the category. There is, none-
theless, some consistency in the characteristics of individuals currently
classified as educable or mildly mentally retarded within our school
systems.
Age
One of the most consistent findings is the marked drop in prevalence rates
of mild mental retardation with age. In a variety of social contexts and
regardless of the specific definition employed, the number of children
identified as mentally retarded reaches a maximum in the elementary and
junior high school years and drops precipitously thereafter (Lapouse and
Weitzner, 19701. About two-thirds of the individuals diagnosed as mildly
mentally retarded may disappear into the normal population during late
adolescence, losing the label once they leave school (Tarjan et al., 1973~.
Since schools have always been the principal identifier of mildly mentally
Theoretically and legally, an IQ test score alone does not define mental retardation. Low IQ
scores may suggest intellectual subnormality, but mental retardation is expressed by both
low IQ and low adaptive behavior scores. Much research, however, defines mentally retarded
populations on the basis of IQ scores alone.
3The vast majority of children considered mentally retarded fall within the mild range (see
the paper by Shonkoff in this volume).
4Much of the information in this section is based on the paper by Shonkoff in this volume.
OCR for page 26
26
REPORT OF THE PANEL
retarded children, and their single most salient characteristic is their fail-
ure to meet the academic standards demanded by schools, these results
are not surprising.
Sex
Boys outnumber girls in EMR classes by a ratio of 7:5. One would expect
some sex differences since boys on the average show a greater degree of
biological vulnerability (e.g., a higher rate of spontaneous abortions and
neonatal deaths, a greater susceptibility to infectious diseases) than do
girls. Yet the evidence from epidemiological studies is inconsistent with
respect to sex differences in the prevalence of mild mental retardation.
Rutter et al. (1970) reported in a British study that, although there is gen-
eral agreement that severe mental retardation is somewhat more common
in boys than in girls, the sex distribution for mild mental retardation as
defined by IQ scores is fairly equal. Data from the Collaborative Perinatal
Project of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative
Disorders and Stroke (unpublished data from S. H. Broman) revealed
that for whites, girls have a slightly higher rate of mild mental retardation
(defined as a score of 50-69 on the WISC-R at age 7) than do boys (1.29
percent versus 1.03 percent) and that for blacks, boys have a higher rate
than do girls (4.99 percent versus 4.24 percent). The greater tendency of
boys to have reading problems and to exhibit disruptive behavior may in
large part account for the greater proportion of boys than girls in special
education classes.
The panel was able to gather only limited data on EMR placements
categorized by sex and race. The OCR does not collect sex-by-race cross
tabulations, and other sources offer little information about sex-by-race
placements. Where such data are available, however, they consistently
indicate that the male-female ratio is larger among black children than
white children.
Socioeconomic Status, Ethnicity, and Sociocultural Factors
However defined, the prevalence of mild mental retardation is correlated
with the socioeconomic status of the family and the neighborhood in
which a child lives (the lower the status, the higher the rate). As we have
seen, mild mental retardation is also correlated with ethnicity; minority
children have higher rates. The correlation of mild mental retardation
with these factors is especially pronounced when IQ test scores alone are
used as the diagnostic criterion (Lemkau et al., 1941, 1942; Mercer, 1973;
Reschly and Jipson, 1976~.
OCR for page 27
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
27
A recent analysis of data on more than 35,000 seven-year-olds from the
Collaborative Perinatal Project (Broman et al., 1975) investigated the re-
lationship of race (black, white) and socioeconomic status (bottom 25 per-
cent, middle 50 percent, top 25 percent) to the prevalence of mild mental
retardation as defined by IQ scores. Among white children, the rates
ranged from 3.3 percent for the bottom socioeconomic quartile, to 1.3
percent for the middle group, to 0.3 percent for the upper quartile. Rates
for black children were 7.7 percent for the lower group, 3.6 percent for the
middle group, and 1.2 percent for the upper group. The Collaborative
Perinatal Project data also show that sociocultural factors, such as family
structure and amount of formal schooling of parents, are related to men-
tal retardation rates, even within particular ethnic groups (Broman et al.,
1975).
Biosocial Characteristics
In contrast to most of the people who are characterized as more seriously
mentally retarded, the frequency of observable abnormal medical condi-
tions is negligible in most mildly mentally retarded persons. However, the
lack of recognized specific relationships between biological factors and
mental retardation cannot be taken as evidence that biological elements
are not important. Biologically based insults to the brain can affect a child
throughout the developmental period and can result in impaired intellec-
tual functioning later. Many of these biological factors, such as intra-
uterine viruses, malnutrition, and lead intoxication, are more frequently
observed among poor and minority populations. (For a more extensive
treatment of biological factors affecting intellectual performance, see the
paper by Shonkoff in this volume.) While no empirical evidence has yet
been uncovered that causally links such factors to the disproportions
found in EMR programs, it is conceivable that future research might re-
veal such causative relationships.5
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
ORIGINS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
The controversies that surround special education classes concern over
the stigma associated with placement in a special class, questions about
5For cross-cultural variations in the meaning of biological factors in development, see
Werner (1979) and Stewart (1981).
OCR for page 28
28
REPORT OF THE PANEL
the quality of education in separate classes, and the likelihood of return-
ing from special programs to a regular class-have dominated discussions
of special education practices since their inception. Many of these contro-
versies are rooted in the origins of special classes. Separate classes for
those who could not function adequately in the regular academic program
permitted the adjustment of instruction to a level considered appropriate
for these children. In so doing, poor, immigrant, and minority children were
often segregated from those in regular classes. In particular, labeling a
student "mentally retarded" allowed the school system to classify and sep-
arate children on the basis of their intellectual functioning and performance.
Before the introduction of special programs in public schools, the care
and education of mentally retarded individuals were undertaken privately
by families or in institutions. During the 19th century, mental retardation
was considered a physiological condition, caused by the lack of social or-
der and stability that were associated with urbanization and industrializa-
tion. Institutions for the feeble-minded helped the inmates acquire the
necessary habits and values that would lead to eventual adjustment to the
changing environment (Leinhardt et al., in press).
Although administrators of these institutions had hoped to work with
those mentally retarded children who were most likely to benefit from
training, large numbers of the more severe cases were institutionalized
and care became almost entirely custodial rather than therapeutic. Thus,
by the end of the 19th century, those who did not require custodial care
were not being treated in institutions (Lazarson, 1975~.
Excluded from residential institutions, large numbers of mentally re-
tarded children fell under the purview of another institution the public
schools. Two changes in the nature of public schooling, firmly entrenched
by the beginning of the 20th century, caused this shift of responsibility for
the care of mentally retarded individuals: the enforcement of compulsory
attendance laws and an age-graded system of group instruction. Compul-
sory attendance meant that children who formerly would have dropped
out of school or who had never enrolled were now attending in large num-
bers. An age-graded system altered views of individual differences, influ-
encing the expectations of educators concerning children's performance.
Children who could not meet these standards were considered to have
some disability (Levine, 1976~.
For a variety of reasons that were typically not differentiated (e.g., ill-
ness, truancy, language problems), a large percentage of children were
overage for their grade, perceived as unable to profit from regular instruc-
tion, and unlikely to move through the normal grade sequence. In the early
20th century, it was children of various immigrant groups, notably south
OCR for page 29
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
29
em Italians, who were failing in school, scoring lower on IQ tests, and
overrepresented in special education programs.6
The differential achievement of various groups was a subject of research
and led to general hypotheses about the causes of mental retardation. Two
competing theories about the causes of these group differences have re-
mained at the center of current arguments concerning overrepresentation
in special classes: (1) group differences are innate and are unlikely to
change through educational intervention and (2) group differences are
attributable to environmental factors.
Justifications for special classes were economic, educational, and soci-
etal. Of primary importance was the removal of the mentally deficient
child from the regular classroom because he or she impeded the progress
of the normal child and occupied an inordinate amount of the teacher's
time. However, the segregated child was schooled under conditions deemed
beneficial: He or she was instructed in a smaller class, was given more ef-
fective teaching geared to an appropriate level, and was freed from de-
moralizing comparisons with more competent peers. Although these
smaller special classes increased costs, they saved the schools the expenses
associated with children repeating the same grades. Long-range savings
also were envisioned, since mentally retarded children receiving vocational
education in the schools might obtain self-supporting jobs and thus not
become burdens on society (Sarason and Doris, 1979~.
INTELLIGENCE TESTING FOR PLACEMENT OF MENTALLY RETARDED
STUDENTS
The origins of the IQ test are well known. At the turn of the century,
Alfred Binet was asked by the French minister of education to develop a
means of identifying those children in public schools who could not meet
the demands imposed by the regular classroom and who needed special
programs. The purpose of Binet's test was, therefore, to provide guidance
for educational planning; it was not, in Binet's view, a measure of innate
potential or fixed capacity.
The Binet-Simon scales were quickly adapted for use both in Europe
and the United States. Although the establishment of special classes
preceded the use of IQ tests in American public schools, the two soon
became closely linked. The scientific development of intelligence testing
6Because black students were at that time largely excluded from the schools operated for
native and foreign white students, their overrepresentation in special education was not yet
recognized as a significant issue (Sarason and Doris, 1979).
OCR for page 30
30
REPORT OF THE PANEL
provided a rationale for the labeling and separation of mentally retarded
children.
National standardization of the Stanford-Binet intelligence test in 1916
influenced conceptions of intelligence for generations to come. A child's
mental age was defined on a normative basis using samples of children at
selected ages for standardizing a large number of short tests or items com-
prising the final version of the instrument. Dividing the mental age by the
chronological age and multiplying the ratio by 100 yielded the intelligence
quotient the IQ. Subnormality was identified with IQs below 70,
embracing about 3 percent of the total population.7
Large-scale IQ testing highlighted the number of subnormal children in
the public schools, leading to public pressure for the control and regula-
tion of socially deviant children. Intelligence testing was quickly adopted
by the education system as an objective, expedient, and efficient method
of identifying children deemed unsuitable for advanced academic studies
as well as those children thought to have the greatest potential for rapid
advancement (Lazarson, 19751.
The increased use of IQ tests contributed to the expansion of the special
education system, especially in urban schools. In 1914, 10,890 children
were counted as enrolled in special classes for the mentally subnormal; in
1922, this figure had increased to 23,252. Only 10 years later, the count
was an astounding 75,099 (Leinhardt et al., in press; Sarason and Doris,
19791. By then, the AAMD had succeeded in refining the traditional
classification system to include a milder type of feeble-mindedness, the
"moron," which was defined in terms of mental age. Thousands of in-
dividuals previously unrecognized were now categorized and labeled as
mentally retarded because their IQ scores fell below 70. While the more
severely retarded the "imbecile" and the "idiot" could be identified
without the assistance of an IQ score, intelligence testing led to the defini-
tion and acceptance of a new category.
Intelligence tests met the needs of an education system that valued effi-
ciency, categorization, prediction, science, and the careful use of limited
resources based on scientifically accepted procedures. Empirical studies
of intelligence provided scientific evidence on a number of critical issues
that were the focus of public attention. Such studies bolstered the belief
that low intelligence was a cause of social deviance and legitimized the
practice of differential treatment for different groups. These early studies
of IQ tests were viewed as supporting the idea that intelligence was largely
7More current scoring practices derive an ~Q measure as a composite of multiple sublests
usually scaled to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (or 16) in a large nor-
mative sample.
OCR for page 31
Historical Developments arid Current Procedures
31
inherited and unmodifiable and that it predicted (or even caused) later
school achievement as well as future adaptation to social and occupational
demands (Lazarson, 1975; Levine, 1976; Sarason and Doris, 1979~.
Even in their heyday between the two world wars, IQ tests did not re-
ceive untempered acclaim. Many questioned the assumptions underlying
the tests and criticized the consequences of large-scale application of in-
telligence testing, including placement in special classes. But most of the
challenges raised by critics of the tests were largely overlooked. Intelli-
gence tests were accepted by the public schools as efficient sorters of indi-
viduals with different abilities and different future roles in society.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION SYSTEM
The emerging special education system was influenced by other forces in
the later decades of the 20th century. The number of children entering
special education programs rose dramatically. States began the process of
defining new categories of and treatments for mentally handicapped
children, based on the model of physical handicaps. The courts became
increasingly involved in the conflicts surrounding placement, treatment,
and outcome in special education. In response to these forces, federal sup-
port for special education programs grew rapidly.
After World War II, the baby boom flooded the schools with children.
The number of children requiring special attention grew even faster as
medical technology enabled more children with debilitating health prob-
lems to survive than ever before. In addition, as a result of school desegre-
gation and large migrations of Hispanic populations, schools were faced
with serving a more diverse group of children. The growing concern of
parents over the type of education provided to their children by public
schools was a powerful force for upgrading and maintaining quality serv-
ices, not only in the regular school program but also in special programs
for the handicapped. Advocacy groups assumed an increasingly important
role in this period, although their themes varied. Parent and advocacy
groups for the handicapped, dominated primarily by the middle class,
were demanding an expansion of the scope of special education and an in-
crease in the quality of services provided by the public schools for handi-
capped children. Groups representing blacks and other minorities were
pressing not for separate special education services but for an expanded
integration of the public school systems.8
These two themes persisted in later years. Actions brought by middle- and upper-income
white parents have almost exclusively dominated the appeals process that is guaranteed by
OCR for page 32
32
REPORT OF THE PANEL
State after state instituted funding provisions to support programs for
special students. State definitions of handicaps and methods of funding
special services were adjusted in recognition of the increased number of
children needing these services and the expanding variety of settings in
which they could be provided. At the federal level, the years 1957-1966
saw the creation and initial development of national special education
programs for which the political presence and influence of parent groups
was at least partially responsible (Reynolds and Birch, 1977~.
There was also a growing recognition of a group of children, distinct
from the mentally retarded population, who had specific learning and
perceptual problems. Rooted initially in neuropsychological research on
people who had experienced traumatic brain damage, the term "specific
learning disability" gained widespread public recognition when promoted
by parent advocacy organizations. The category of learning disabled (LD)
was defined to encompass children who exhibited a markedly uneven
development of mental abilities compared with mentally retarded chil-
dren, who demonstrated a more general deficiency. Typical would be the
LD child who had severe problems learning to read (dyslexia) or doing
simple arithmetic but who was otherwise normal in measured intelligence.
Originally, LD children were considered members of a relatively small and
well-defined population; however, as schools began to use the term "learning
disabled" to identify larger numbers of children, the lines that separated
EMR from LD groups were frequently difficult to discern (Grossman,
1977~.
Parents and education researchers alike began to raise questions about
the quality of special education classes and even the validity of the special
education system itself. In part a reflection of broader social concerns
such as the civil rights movement, much of the public debate centered on
the appropriateness of placing poor and minority children in special classes
for mildly mentally retarded students (Dunn, 1968~. The overrepresenta-
tion of poor and minority children in special education classes was appar-
ent as the system grew. At the same time there was increasing concern
about the educational value of placement of handicapped children in sep-
arate classes. Studies comparing the efficacy of regular versus separate
class placements, although of generally poor quality, highlighted the fail-
ure of special classes to improve the educational functioning of mildly
mentally handicapped children. In the subsequent years, these two themes-
P.~. 94-142, by demanding more specialized and expensive treatments than are offered by
public schools. Minority groups have been more concerned about the overrepresentation of
minority children in special programs and the segregative aspects of these programs.
OCR for page 33
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
33
discrimination in placement and the questionable quality of instruc-
tion dominated most discussions of special education.
DISPROPORTIONATE PLACEMENT OF MINORITIES AND COURT DECISIONS
Most of the arguments raised for or against certain special education
practices were not new, but with the rising concern for civil rights, these
debates were increasingly shifted to the courts.
The basis for claims against the segregation of minority children in
special classes lies in the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) that school segregation was a violation of constitutional
guarantees. As a result of that decision, public schools were required to
treat children equally, regardless of race.
Previously segregated white school districts, faced with including large
numbers of minority students in their schools, often implemented prac-
tices designed to exclude blacks and other minorities. One device to screen
out minority students, which relied heavily on intelligence tests, may have
been special education, especially classes for mildly mentally retarded stu-
dents. For example, the repeal of the law in California excluding Mexican-
Americans from white schools coincided with the legislative creation of
programs for EMR students (Mercer and Richardson, 1975~. A dispro-
portionately high enrollment of minority students in the new EMR pro-
grams accompanied their increased enrollment in the state's public
schools.
The debate over disproportionate special class placements first ques-
tioned why those children were considered to be in need of special services.
As the use of standardized intelligence tests became universal, they were
increasingly blamed as the mechanism of identification and placement.
Minority children, their advocates argued, were disproportionately over-
represented in special classes, especially classes for EMR children, be-
cause the tests used to place them failed to properly measure their mental
ability.
Other charges were raised against the use of intelligence tests: that they
are biased against poor minority children because of differences in cul-
ture, language, values, experience, or method of administration and there-
fore are not appropriate measures by which to evaluate minority students.
In 1969 the Association of Black Psychologists called for a moratorium on
the use of mental ability tests standardized on white populations as the
basis for placing black children in special education classes (Williams,
1972~. In Diana v. State Board of Education (1970), the use of stan-
dardized intelligence tests for placement of Mexican-American children in
EMR classes was challenged on the grounds that the tests had been stan
OCR for page 34
34
REPORT OF THE PANEL
dardized only on majority-group children and thus were culturally biased
against minorities. As a result of this kind of litigation, states began to re-
consider testing and evaluation procedures. The state of California, after
Diana, suggested that districts test children in the language they were
most familiar with and that they use multiple measures for evaluating
children suspected of being mentally handicapped (Bersoff, in press).
In 1972 a group of black children in EMR classes in the San Prancisco
school system sued the district and the state, again challenging the use of
standardized intelligence tests as a placement tool for minority children.
As in Diana, it was claimed that the children's minority group blacks-
was overrepresented in EMR classes. An attempt was made to prove that a
reason for that overrepresentation was misclassification. By 1975, as a
result of this ligitation (Larry P. v. Riles, 1972, 1974), California had
removed the controversial IQ tests from the list of approved instruments
for evaluation and placement of children in EMR classes.
The Larry P. case became the focus of national attention. Between
1972, when the original complaint was filed, and 1979, when the decision
was issued (Larry P. v. Riles, 1979), federal and state laws governing
special education had changed considerably, and the relationship between
racial and minority segregation and special education placement had
become a subject of increasing national debate.
The 1979 decision on the merits in Larry P. looked at the phenomenon
of minority overrepresentation in EMR classes in terms of the appropri-
ateness of the selection criteria and the outcome of placement in an EMR
class. The decision noted that black children were substantially over-
represented in EMR classes compared with the total black enrollment in
California schools. Even as total enrollment in EMR classes declined over
the years, the overrepresentation of blacks in EMR classes remained rela-
tively constant. The history of EMR classes in California, wrote the judge,
indicated that such classes were not primarily intended to help slow
learners acquire the skills necessary to return to a regular program of
instruction. Instead, EMR classes emphasized training to improve social
adjustment and economic usefulness, rather than acquisition of academic
skills and proficiencies. Thus, the judge decided that separate classes for
EMR students were "dead-ends"; the children in these classes fall further
and further behind children in regular programs and generally remain in
separate classes until the end of their school career. As a result, there was
a considerable disadvantage to being placed in the separate classes of an
EMR program, especially for those children who might have had a better
chance to learn in other programs.
Court cases in other parts of the country also raised the problem of mi-
nority overrepresentation in special classes. In most of these cases the
OCR for page 35
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
35
methods used to evaluate and place children suspected of being handicapped
were the focus of keen attention. Sometimes the entire system of identifi-
cation, evaluation, and placement was questioned as, for example, in
Mattie T. v. Holliday, in which black children and advocacy groups pro-
tested much of Mississippi's special education system. In other cases a
particular evaluation method was challenged. For example, in Chicago, a
group of minority students challenged the use of standardized intelligence
tests to place black children in EMR classes, but the result of this litiga-
tion was significantly different from the decision in Larry P. Like the
plaintiffs in Larry P., the black children in Parents in Action for Special
Education v. Hannon (1980) claimed that blacks were substantially over-
represented in EMR classes as a result of the school system's use of what
they considered to be culturally biased IQ tests. They demonstrated that
some black children in those classes were of normal intelligence but had
other learning problems that resulted in school failure. The court ruled
that the tests were not unfair to minorities and that, when used with other
assessment criteria as statutorially mandated, they did not discriminate
against minority children.9
The outcome of this litigation has been a relatively intense scrutiny of
the proper use of intelligence testing and an expanding search for new
methods of assessment.
MAINSTREAMING IN REGULAR CLASSES
While the schools were confronting the relationship of segregation and
special education placement, there was a growing realization that many of
the legal and constitutional questions raised by minorities through the
civil rights movement were also applicable to handicapped people. In-
tegration of handicapped students into regular classes was seen by some
educators as a way to avoid some of the purported ills of special educa-
tion stigmatizing labels, dead-end curricula, and isolation (Dunn,
1968).
In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] v. Penn-
sylvania (1971, 1972) this "mainstreaming" movement for handicapped
children gained legal endorsement. In that case, plaintiffs argued that
mentally retarded children in state institutions were excluded from public
schools without due process. The court in PARC required that educa-
tion placement decisions for these children be made in light of the princi-
ple that placement in regular public school programs is preferable to any
9 Subsequent voluntary action by the Chicago school board has discontinued the use of stand-
ardized intelligence tests for special education placements.
OCR for page 36
36
REPORT OF THE PANEL
other type of placement. It was stated that all handicapped children
should be moved into the mainstream of regular classes to the extent per-
mitted by their handicaps. In a related decision, the right of all handicapped
children to a free public education regardless of handicap or financial
resources of the school district was supported by another court (Mills v.
Board of Education, 1972~.
Controversy over the concept of mainstreaming has continued. Many
educators believe that mainstreaming was forced on them by judicial deci-
sions and political pressure, and they doubt the wisdom of such policy
(Sarason and Doris, 1979~. Resistance to mainstreaming is based on sev-
eral arguments: (1) that the training of regular classroom teachers lags far
behind the special demands that handicapped children place on them, to
the detriment of all students; (2) that handicapped children are not ac-
cepted by many of their peers; (3) that such children may receive less spe-
cial attention and service as a result of their placement in regular classes;
and (4) that their presence takes needed teacher attention from normal
students.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND TUB RIGHTS OF THE HANDICAPPED
The rights of all handicapped persons were advanced appreciably when
Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 of this act
generally prohibits discrimination against "... otherwise qualified handi-
capped individuals ... under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance." The final regulations implementing this legislation
were published in 1977, requiring that a free, appropriate, public educa-
tion must be given to every handicapped child. Specific requirements are
stated for the evaluation and placement process to prevent misclassifica-
tion, unnecessary labeling, and inappropriate placement. In addition, the
regulations of Section 504 require that placement follows the principle of
education in the least restrictive environment.
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (P.L. 94-142), which provides both funding and detailed requirements
for education programs for handicapped children.~° The purpose of the
law was to ensure that handicapped children receive an education ap-
propriate to their specific needs through the public school system. The act
and its implementing regulations focus on the following six aspects of
placement for EMR children:
nonfederal funding of special education programs amounts to not more than 15 percent of the
costs of special education. The remainder is provided by state and local governments (Hart-
man, 1980).
OCR for page 37
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
37
1. Mental retardation is defined in terms of intellectual functioning,
adaptive behavior, and school performance.
2. State and local education agencies are required to develop proce-
dures to ensure that all children who are handicapped and in need of spe-
cial education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated.
3. The education agencies must establish specific procedural safe-
guards to protect the handicapped child's right to a free appropriate
education. These regulations guarantee parents the right to review perti-
nent educational records; to obtain an independent evaluation of the
child; to receive written notice before a public agency initiates the place-
ment process, including a full explanation of procedural safeguards
available to the parent; and to demand a hearing before an impartial of-
ficer if the placement is challenged.
4. The regulations require a full evaluation of a child's educational
needs prior to any placement decision or action. The tests used must be
validated for their intended use, given in the child's native language, and
administered by trained personnel. Assessments must go beyond "single
intelligence quotients" to include measures of "specific areas of educa-
tional need," and no single procedure may be used as the sole criterion for
placing a child. The assessment must be made by a multidisciplinary
team, and the child must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected
disability. The regulations further stipulate that the multiple data sources
to be used in decision making include aptitude and achievement tests,
teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural back-
ground, and adaptive behavior. Reevaluations must be made at least every
three years.
5. A written individual education plan (IEP) must be developed before
a child is placed and must be updated annually. The IEP must contain in-
formation on the child's current performance, annual and short-term
goals, specific services to be provided, and objective criteria to be used in
evaluating progress.
6. Children must be placed in the least restrictive environment com-
patible with their handicap. Education agencies are required to provide a
continuum of alternative placements (e.g., regular classes, special classes
and schools, home instruction, etc.~. Placements are to be close to the
child's home and, if possible, in the school the child would normally at-
tend. Placement must be based on the IEP developed for the child.
There has been some question recently whether the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act will maintain its current form. The Reagan
administration's proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Con-
solidation Act of 1981 would have replaced categorical funding under P.L.
94-142 with block grants that would give broad discretion in the use of
OCR for page 38
38
REPORT OF THE PANEL
funds to local education agencies, would have left substantially monitor-
ing and enforcement activities to the states, and would have repealed the
substantive provisions of the statute. However, the proposed legislation
was not passed, and P.L. 94-142 was not included in the education block
grants, and it remains an independent, categorically funded program.
The regulations implementing the new law, however, are currently under
review, and the future of those provisions is uncertain.
CURRENT PROCEDURES IN EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT
A DESCRIPTION OF THF: PLACEMENT PROCESS
The intricate system of checks and balances mandated by Section 504 and
P.L. 94-142 and their implementing regulations, the emphasis on decision
making by multidisciplinary teams, the requirements of multiple tests and
other assessment procedures, and the thrust toward placement in the least
restrictive environment appear quite compatible in spirit with models of
the placement process proposed by various educators (e.g., Jones, 1979;
Oakland, 1977~. However, the degree of implementation of the law varies
considerably among districts. In some cases, districts have accommodated
their special education system to legal requirements; in others, little
change is apparent. Although research has assessed the degree to which
schools comply with the law, it has yet to demonstrate that adherence to
required policies leads to effective educational practices.
Children enter the placement process in one of two ways. Many are
referred in response to "child find" campaigns conducted by states and
school districts, largely initiated under the impetus of P.L. 94-142.
Children may be referred by parents, teachers, doctors, counselors, social
workers, or others. Most children are referred by their teachers because of
repeatedly poor academic performance or poor social adjustment.
Teachers have always been the single main source of referrals (Birman,
1979; Blaschke, 1979; Stearns et al., 1979; U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1979c), although others, such as school prin-
cipals and social workers, appear to be assuming a larger role since the
implementation of P.L. 94-142. IQ test scores, although significant in a
later stage of the process, are not used as an initial screening device.
Once children are referred, they must be evaluated in order to deter-
mine their special educational needs. P.L. 94-142 and the Section 504
Tithe information in this section is based on the paper by Bicke] in this volume.
OCR for page 39
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
39
regulations are explicit and detailed in their prescriptions regarding
evaluation procedures, who will be involved, and the types of data to be
considered. Several studies have shown that states and school districts are
gradually bringing their policies and practices into line with the law and
its implementing regulations. For example, a longitudinal study of the im-
plementation of P.L. 94-142 in 22 sites (Stearns et al., 1979) revealed a
shift from assessment by a psychologist using a single intelligence test to
procedures involving a wider variety of instruments and specialists, in
which an attempt is made to tailor the assessment battery to the child's
apparent skills and deficiencies.
In spite of these improvements, the altered procedures may not be oper-
ating as intended. A few individuals, usually school administrators or psy-
chologists, tend to dominate the placement meetings in which decisions
are made, and parents and teachers play a relatively passive role (Associa-
tion of State Directors of Education, 1980; Thouvenelle and Hebbeler,
1978~. Occasionally, school personnel meet in advance to iron out dis-
agreements and present a united front to parents (Poland et al., 1979;
Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978~. Although a variety of data are collected
on each student, members of the team still rely heavily on IQ scores and
achievement measures as a basis for labeling a child as mentally retarded
(Poland et al., 1979; Thouvenelle and Hebbeler, 1978~.
Once a child has been evaluated as belonging to the EMR category, deci-
sions must be made concerning his or her placement and method of instruc-
tion. Under the P.L. 94-142 regulations, an IEP must be devised to meet
the child's particular needs. Placement in regular or special classes, full-
or part-time, is determined by the requirements spelled out in the IEP.
States have made considerable progress in adopting policies to ensure
that IEPs are in fact written (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 1979b). Several implementation studies suggest, however, that
despite conformity to the letter of the law the intent of the federal regula-
tions is often not met in practice. Writing IEPs is a time-consuming task,
provoking resistance by some teachers and administrators that leads to
shortcuts. Often, a single brief meeting is held to classify the child, to set-
tle on a placement, and to write a plan. Plans are often written prior to the
meeting with little or no parental involvement. The content of IEPs often
falls short of the ideal envisioned in the federal regulations; important de-
tails are omitted, goals are ambiguous, and the procedures for evaluating
achievement of goals are not specified. The plans themselves may be pro
forma and may not be followed in fact (Alper, 1978; Blaschke, 1979;
Marver and David, 1978; Schenk and Levy, 1979; U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979c). Most important, the type of
OCR for page 40
40
REPORT OF THE PANEL
placement recommended and the nature of the IEP often are determined
by the types of classes and resources available, not by the needs of the
child (Stearns et al., 19791.
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PLACEMENT PROCESS
One salient, consistent finding of research on the implementation of P.L.
94-142 is the extreme variability in practice from district to district and
from state to state. Several factors can be identified at the state, district,
and school levels that encourage this diversification of practice. One such
cause of diversity, mentioned previously, is that the definition of educable
mental retardation varies among states (see, for example, U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1981~. States differ primarily in their choice of IQ cut-
off scores- whether such scores are specified and what they are and re-
quirements concerning measures of adaptive behavior.
Policies regarding the dispensation of funds for special education also
may influence the placement process. At a very basic level, the amount of
money a school district can spend is a limiting factor influencing the
quality and coverage of its special education programs. The availability of
resources has a pervasive effect on referrals, evaluation, and placements.
Referral rates are highest where services are plentiful. Rates of referral for
specific types of problems tend to mirror the particular programs
available. The amount of resources allocated to other programs, such as
compensatory education classes, also may affect EMR referrals and sub-
sequent placements, although such factors have not been specifically
documented.
The financing formulas that states use to transfer funds to local school
districts influence various aspects of the placement process. Fiscal policies
may influence a district's decisions concerning other factors that affect the
placement of children the numbers of children classified as mentally
(and physically) handicapped, the types of handicaps identified, the
placement of children in mainstreamed settings, the quality and type of
programs and services provided, and the size of classes. The incentives
created by one such financing formula, the child-based formula, illustrate
this point. States using child-based funding formulas reimburse local jur-
isdictions for each child identified as handicapped; the more children so
identified, the more state money received. In general, such formulas may
provide a strong incentive to identify previously unserved children, at least
in some categories. For those jurisdictions in which certain categories
(usually the more severely handicapped) are reimbursed more generously
than others, the incentive would be to classify more children in those cate-
gories. In other versions of this formula, in which reimbursement is con
OCR for page 41
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
41
stant across categories, the incentive would be to classify more children as
mildly mentally handicapped, since services for these problems are less
costly per child than services for the severely handicapped. Child-based
formulas provide an apparent incentive to increase class sizes and case
loads as a means of maximizing reimbursement while minimizing costs to
the local jurisdiction. Mainstreaming would also be encouraged, since full
reimbursement may be provided despite less costly services.
A final factor that may affect the placement process is the discretion ex-
ercised by various participants in the system (see, for example, U.S.
General Accounting Office, 19811. Even finely detailed regulations cannot
eliminate the power of individuals to shape the system. Disproportionate
representation of minorites in EMR classes could well arise from racial
discrimination on the part of individual decision makers in the placement
process, a possibility that could only be checked by monitoring a district
on a case-by-case basis.
THE EFFECTS OF THE PLACEMENT PROCESS ON MINORITY STUDENTS
In what ways does the placement process affect minority and white
students differentially? Minority children might conceivably have ex-
periences that vary from those of white students in any or all of the steps in
the placement process. They might be referred for evaluation more often
than whites for both academic and behavior problems. Once referred,
they might have a higher likelihood of being classified as EMR. Once
labeled as EMR, they might be more likely than white children to end up
in special programs or separate classes, rather than in regular classrooms.
The bewildering variety of patterns suggests that conflicting claims about
the effects of the placement process on minority students cannot be resolved
easily. Nevertheless, on the basis of research to date, some procedural fac-
tors that may affect the proportions of minorities enrolled in EMR pro-
grams can be highlighted.
Does the level of disproportion at the referral stage mirror the patterns
found in actual enrollments in EMR programs, or are they higher, as
some have suggested? Only limited data are available on this issue. The
scattered evidence that documents the generally higher disproportion in
referral rates cannot be easily generalized across districts because of the
great variability in enrollment patterns and practices across the nation.
A commonly held perception is that teachers more often refer black
children because of disciplinary problems. Only one report was noted that
investigated this hypothesis. A study of 355 students referred for psycho-
logical services in an urban school system found that more minority
children were referred, but the proportions of white and minority students
OCR for page 42
42
REPORT OF THE PANEL
referred for academic as opposed to disciplinary problems did not differ
(Tomlinson et al., 1977~.
Most of the attention in the controversies surrounding minority stu-
dents and EMR placements has been directed to the evaluation process (see
Chapter 3 for a discussion of the controversy over IQ testing). A number
of studies have considered the kind of information that is most influential
in EMR placement decisions and the importance assigned to various
assessment measures by the decision makers. Using a variety of tech-
niques, such as simulation of assessment decisions and interviews with
participants in placement decisions, these studies have shown that aca-
demic achievement, as measured by standardized tests or as reported by
the teacher, and IQ scores are consistently among the most important consid-
erations, especially for school psychologists (Berk et al., 1981; Matuszek
and Oakland, 1979; Thurlow and Ysseldyke, 1980; Ysseldyke et al.,
1979).
Special education placement decisions other than those involving EMR
classes use additional types of information; for example, decisions con-
cerned with emotional disturbance rely heavily on the teacher's report of
the child's social behavior in the classroom. Placement decisions concern-
ing emotional disturbance or specific learning disabilities tend to be in-
consistent independent experts disagree as to the proper classification of
a given child. EMR decisions are among the most consistent of all, in part
because of heavy reliance on clear-cut indicators such as IQ (Petersen and
Hart, 1978~.
The balance that is struck between IQ and other measures is likely to
have significant consequences for the proportion of minority children
placed in EMR classes, since minority children consistently score lower on
standardized tests of ability than do white children. For blacks the typical
estimate of average IQ across the nation is 85, about one standard devia-
tion below the white mean of 100. The difference has stark consequences
at the upper and lower ends of the distribution. If the cutoff point for the
EMR category is set at 70 (a fairly typical criterion), two standard devia-
tions below the white mean and one standard deviation below the black
mean, then 2.3 percent of the white population will fall into the subnor-
mal category, compared with 15.9 percent of the black population. If IQ
tests were given to all children and IQ scores were applied mechanically as
the sole criterion for EMR placement, the resulting minority overrepre-
sentation would be almost 8 to 1. Actual figures for EMR placement as
reported in OCR's survey data are 1.1 percent for whites and 3.7 percent
for blacks, a disproportion of 3.4 to 1.
Two conclusions follow inescapably from these considerations. First,
the use of IQ scores as placement criteria will tend to maintain a dispro
OCR for page 43
Historical Developments and Current Procedures
43
portionate representation of minority children in EMR classes. IQ testing
may not be the cause of disproportion; conceivably it might even reduce
the high disproportion evident in teacher referrals, as Lambert (1981) has
argued. IQ testing will certainly protect some children from EMR
placement children with IQs above the EMR cutoff who have been re-
ferred as candidates for EMR placement. Nevertheless, given the almost 8
to 1 difference in the proportion of blacks and whites falling in the rele-
vant IQ range, as long as IQ scores play a role in decision making, some
disproportion will undoubtedly remain in EMR placements.
The second conclusion follows from the discrepancy between actual
EMR placement rates and the rates that would theoretically prevail if IQ
alone was the placement criterion. Elements other than testing, which are
part of the chain of referral, evaluation, and placement, must also be
operating to reduce both the overall proportions of children placed in
EMR classes and the disproportion between minority children and whites.
As already noted, federal law and regulations require evaluations to in-
clude several kinds of information in addition to IQ test scores. Available
research suggests that the use of such information, particularly informa-
tion on adaptive behavior outside school, dramatically reduces the propor-
tion of all children placed in EMR classes, although there is a greater
reduction for minority students (Fischer, 1977; Reschly, 19791.
Additional information often available in the child's placement dossier
may include the child's race, socioeconomic status, family situation, and
classroom deportment. Does knowledge of a child's race by the school psy-
chologist bias his or her decision about classification of a child as EMR?
Research on this question is not consistent; some studies indicate that
black children are more often labeled as EMR than are white children,
even when profiles are identical for the two groups (e.g., Pickholtz, 1977~;
some show the reverse pattern (e.g., Amira, et al., 1977~; and others find
no relation at all between race and psychologists' decisions (Berk et al.,
1981~.
In the final step of the process of referral, evaluation, and placement,
there is no evidence that minority children are affected differentially. The
few studies available do not indicate that placement decisions and IEPs
result in the segregation of minority students. Few EMR students are as-
signed to a placement that blocks all contact with the mainstream (Thou-
venelle and Hebbleler, 1978~.~2 While the data are limited, available in
~2Contradictory evidence is provided by MacMillan and Borthwick (1980), who note that the
EMR category in California now includes children who are more seriously disabled than
previous populations of EMR children. Most of the EMR children in their sample did not
receive instruction in integrated settings.
OCR for page 44
44
REPORT OF THE PANEL
formation suggests that minority students are either assigned to special
classes at the same rate as are whites (Ashurst and Meyers, 1973;
Matuszek and Oakland, 1979) or are placed in less restrictive settings
than are white students (Tomlinson et al., 19771.
One element of the placement process that has not been considered is
the role of parent involvement and parental rights to due process. P.L.
94-142 regulations guarantee parents access to full information, prior ap-
proval of evaluation activities, participation in placement decisions and
the writing of IEPs, and the right to appeal unsatisfactory decisions and to
demand independent evaluation of the child. In theory, minority parents
might make use of this right to appeal, contesting EMR placement deci-
sions. Appeals could become a significant factor offsetting disproportion
arising in referral or evaluation. In actual practice, however, due process
hearings have rarely been used by minority parents for this purpose. The
appeals process has been used almost exclusively by middle- and upper-
income white parents who often request more specialized and expensive
treatment e.g., private school placement than education agencies are
prepared to provide.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mental retardation
