There is growing controversy and dissatisfaction surrounding the pervasive use of psychoeducational testing in special education evaluation and placement. Validity, reliability, cultural bias, and the fostering of a dual system of education—regular and special—are all deficits of this testing, especially in light of the regulations of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This article examines the legal problems associated with standardized testing instruments and their use and the legal imperative for using curriculum-based measures in special education evaluation systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArterJ., & JenkinsJ. (1979). Differential diagnosis—prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.
2.
BellS. (1973–1974). Hearings on SB6 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 93 Congress. 1st & 2nd Session 168. Statement of Senator Bell.
3.
GlassG. (1983). Effectiveness of Special Education. Policy Studies Review, 2, 65–78.
4.
GoldsteinH.ArkellC.AshcroftS.HurleyO., & LillyM. (1975). Schools. In HobbsN. (ed.), Issues in the Classification of Children, Vol. II. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
5.
HellerK.Holtzman, and MessickN. (1982). National Research Council Special Task Force Report, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
HershR., and WalkerH. (1983). Great expectations: Making schools effective for all students. Policies Studies Review, 2, 152–154.
7.
KavaleK., & MattsonP. (1980). One jumped off the balance beam: Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor training. Riverside: School of Education, University of California at Riverside.
8.
MacChiarolaF., and BaileyR. (1983). Special education: The cost of experimentation. Policies Studies Review, 2, 139–40.
9.
MirkinP.DenoS.TindalG., and KuehnleK. (1982). Frequency of measurement and data utilization strategies as factors in standardized behavior assessment of academic skill. Journal of Behavioral Assessment.
10.
National Coalition of Advocates for Students. (1985). Barriers to Excellence: Our Children at Risk.
11.
NewbergerE.K. (1981). Intelligence Tests: To be or not to be under the Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. 76 Northwestern University L.R.
12.
Preliminary Report of the NASP/NCAS Task Force. (1984). Report on School Psychology and Advocacy (Third Working Draft).
13.
SiskinJ.Coping With psychiatric and psychological testimony. (1976). Law and Psychology Press, 2nd Ed.
14.
WinikurD., and WohleR. (1984). Toward program based special education and school psychological services delivery systems (First Working Draft).
15.
YsseldykeJ. (1983). Current Practices in Making Psychoeducational Decisions About Learning Disabled Students.
16.
YsseldykeJ.AlgozzineB.ReganR., and PotterM. (1980). Technical adequacy of tests used by professionals in simulated decision making. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 202–209.
17.
YsseldykeJ.AlgozzineB.ShinnM., and McGueM. (1982). Similarities and differences between underachievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
18.
YsseldykeJ.ReganR.ThurlowM., and SchwartzS. (1981). Current assessment practices: The “cattle-dip” approach. Diagnostique, 6(2), 16–27.
19.
YsseldykeJ.ReynoldsM., & WeinburgR. (1984). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice.
20.
YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.GradenJ.WessonC.DenoS., and AlgozzineB. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision making. Exceptional Educational Quarterly, 4(1), 75–93.
21.
Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F.Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal 1979) aff'd, 83–84 EHLR 555:304 (CA9 1984).
22.
Mattie T. v. Holladay, 3 EHLR 551:109 (N.D. Miss 1979).
23.
Lora v. Board of Education, 456 F.Supp. 1121 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) Vac., 632, F2d 248 (CA2 1980).
24.
Frederick v. Tho, 419 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Penn 1976) aff'd, 557 F2d 373 (CA3, 1977).
25.
PASE v. Hannon, 506 F.Supp. 831 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
26.
Marshall v. McDaniel, Civil No. 482–233 (S.D. Ga. 1984).
27.
Smith v. Robinson,—–US—–, 104 S.Ct. 3457 (1984). Alexander v. Choate, 53 L.W. 4072 (1985).
