Public Law 94–142 (The 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act) contains a compliance monitoring mechanism to assure a free, appropriate education to handicapped children. Federal agencies monitor states, and states are required to monitor local agencies. Parent participation is suggested in the federal regulations but, as shown by analysis of state monitor plans, is little used. The status of such efforts is reported here, and issues are discussed related to compliance monitoring in the face of efforts to repeal or deregulate the law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbesonA., & ZettelJ.The end of the quiet revolution: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Exceptional Children, 1977, 44, 114–128.
2.
Assessing state information capabilities under P.L. 94–142. Final report. Washington DC: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, September 30, 1977.
3.
BallardJ. & ZettelJ. J.Public Law 94–142 and section 504: What they say about rights and protection. Exceptional Children, 1977, 44, 177–184.
4.
BallardJ., & ZettelJ.Fiscal arrangements of Public Law 94–142. Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, 333–337. (a).
5.
BallardJ., & ZettelJ.The managerial aspects of Public Law 94–142. Exceptional Children, March, 1978, 44, 457–462. (b).
6.
BlumK., & CarricoS.A critical review of SEA monitoring efforts (or how appropriate is a free appropriate public education?) Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky, 1979.
7.
BoyerE. L.Priorities of the U.S. Office of Education. Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, 570–574.
8.
BudoffM.OrensteinA., & AbramsonJ.Due process hearings: Appeals for appropriate public school programs. Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 180–182.
9.
BullockL. M., & RiggW. C.Jr.Relationship of individualized instruction to placement of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 1980, 47, 224–225.
10.
BurkeP., & SaettlerH.Washington Report—the Division of Personnel Preparation: How federal priorities are established and a personal assessment of the impact of P.L. 94–142. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1976, 11, 361–365.
11.
DunstC. J.Program evaluation and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Exceptional Children, 1979, 46, 24–31.
12.
Federal Register, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 23, 1977.
13.
Final report to the Secretary of the Task Force on Equal Educational Opportunity for Handicapped Children. October 15, 1980.
14.
FrithG. H.“Advocate” vs. “professional employee”: A question of priorities for special educators. Exceptional Children, 1981, 47, 486–492.
GoldsteinS.StricklandB.TurnbullA., & CurryL.An observational analysis of the IEP conference. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 278–286.
17.
HarveyJ.Legislative interest and progress. Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, 234–237.
18.
HayesJ., & HigginsS. T.Issues regarding the IEP: Teachers on the front lines. Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, 267–273.
19.
HelgeD. I.Problems in implementing comprehensive special education programming in rural areas. Exceptional Children, 1981, 47, 514–520.
20.
HollandR. P.An analysis of the decision making process in special education. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 551–553.
21.
IrvinT.Implementation of Public Law 94–142. Exceptional Children, 1976, 43, 135–139.
22.
JoinerL. M., & SabatinoD. A.A policy study of P.L. 94–142. Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 24–33.
23.
LippmanL., & GoldbergI.Right to education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1973.
24.
LusthausC. S.LusthausE. V., & GibbsH.Parent's role in the decision process. Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 256–257.
25.
MaherC. A.Training special service teams to develop IEP's. Exceptional Children, 1980, 47, 206–211.
26.
MarionR. L.Communicating with parents of culturally diverse exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 616–623.
27.
McLaughlinJ. A. & LondonS. B.Surrogate parenting: The extent to which state education agencies have begun to comply. Exceptional Children, 1979, 46, 211–216.
28.
NadlerB.MerronM., & FriedelW. K.Public Law 94–142: One response to the personnel development mandate. Exceptional Children, 1981, 47, 463–464.
29.
PolifkaJ. C.Compliance with Public Law 94–142 and consumer satisfaction. Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 250–253.
30.
PrehmH. J., & McDonaldJ. E.The yet to be served—A perspective. Exceptional Children, 1979, 45, 502–506.
RaiserL., & Van NagelC.The loophole in Public Law 94–142. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 516–520.
33.
Report by the Education Advocates Coalition on Federal Compliance Activities to Implement the Education for All Handicapped Act (P.L. 94–142). April 16, 1980.
34.
SaundersM. K., & SultanaQ.Professionals' knowledge of educational due process rights. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 559–561.
35.
ScanlonC. A.ArickJ., & PhelpsN.Participation in the development of the IEP: Parents' perspective. Exceptional Children, 1981, 47, 373–374.
36.
SmithT.Status of due process hearings. Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 232–236.
37.
TawneyJ. W.A training program to prepare parents to evaluate their children's individual education plans and programs. (Project Next Step) unpublished project proposal, Department of Education Grant No. G 00-81-2009, 1981.
38.
Testimony of the Education Advocates Coalition before the House Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, November 20, 1980.
39.
ThomasonJ., & ArkellC.Educating the severely/profoundly handicapped in the public schools: A side by side approach. Exceptional Children, 1980, 47, 114–122.
40.
TringoJ. & KaufmanM.State practices and progress in monitoring P.L. 94–142. Thresholds in Education, 1979, 4, 1–3.
41.
TurnbullA. P.StricklandB., & TurnbullH. R.Due process hearing officers: Characteristics, needs, and appointment criteria. Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 48–54.
