The recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel are critiqued from a perspective of broad educational policy and legal influence. The report and the accompanying background papers are endorsed with general acceptance of problem identificaion and formulation. However, the report is challenged for recommendations that are too narrowly conceived, raising questions as to viability of implementation. Specific issues addressed include treating disproportionate placement as a symptom versus problem, legal and professional policy barriers to implementing the report's recommendations, and the role of courts in resolving scientific disputes and programatic concerns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeattieR. (chair) (1985). Special education: A call for quality. (Final Report to Mayor Edward I. Koch of the Commission on Special Education). New York: Office of the Mayor.
2.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
3.
Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified School District, Civ. No. 70–394-S, (S. D. Cal., Filed Feb. 1971).
4.
Diana v. State Board of Education, C. A. N. C-70-37 R. F. P. (N.D. Cal., Filed February 3, 1970).
5.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971).
6.
Guadalupe Organization Inc. v. Tempe School District No. 3, Civ. No. 71–435. (D. Ariz. Filed August 9, 1971).
7.
HallahanD., & KauffmanJ. (1977). Labels, categories, behaviors: E.D., L.D., and E.M.R. reconsidered. Journal of Special Education, 11, 139–149.
8.
HellerK.HoltzmanW., & MessickS. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. (Report of the National Academy of Sciences' Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
HobbsN. (1975). The futures of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (D. D. C. 1967).
11.
Jose Peter v. Ambach, 669 F. 2 D 865 (1982); 557 F. Supp. 1230 (1983).
12.
Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 96 (N. D. Cal. 1979) Aff'r (Ninth Cir. 1984), 1983–84 E.H.L.R. D.E.C. 555:304.
13.
Lora v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 74 F. R. D. 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); 456 F. Supp. 1211 (1978), Remanded, 623 F. 2D 248 (1980); 587 F. Supp. 1572 (1984).
14.
LukeS. and v. NixHans S., U.S.D.C. Civ. No. 81–3331, (E.D. Lou. Filed Aug 17, 1981).
15.
MacMillanD. L.HendrickI., & WatkinsA. V. (In press). Impact of Diana, Larry P., and PL 94–142 on minority students: A reinterpretation. Exceptional Children.
16.
MacMillanD. L., & MeyersC. E. (1980). Larry P.: An educational interpretation. School Psychology Review, 9(2), 136–148.
17.
Marshall. v. Georgia. 775 F.2d 1403 (1985).
18.
MessickS. (1984). Assessment in context: Appraising student performance in relation to instructional quality. Educational Researcher, 13, 3–8.
19.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 384 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
20.
PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 434 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
21.
PatrickJ., & ReschlyD. (1982). Relationship of state educational criteria and demographic variables to school system prevalence of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 351–360.
22.
PrasseD. (1984). School psychology and the law. In YsseldykeJ. E. (Ed.), School psychology: The state of the art, (pp. 245–278). Minneapolis: National School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
23.
ReschlyD. (1984). Beyond IQ test bias: The National Academy panel's analysis of minority overrepresentation. Educational Researcher, 11, 15–19.
24.
Smith v. Robinson, 104. S. Ct. 3457 (1984).
25.
WangM., & ReynoldsM. (1985). Avoiding the “Catch 22” in special education reform. Exceptional Children, 51, 497–502.
