This article examines the impact of modifications in the identification of EMR students and in programming for them, following Diana, Larry P., and P.L. 94–142. These policy changes were designed to afford greater educational equity; but evidence has shown that minority children are not well served as a result. Further, the subsequent movement toward educational excellence in the schools appears to have imposed on marginally achieving students standards that almost ensure school failure. Continued vigilance is proposed on behalf of minority EMR and marginally achieving students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramowiczH. K., & RichardsonS. A. (1975). Epidemiology of severe mental retardation in children: Community studies. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 18–39.
2.
BradyP. M.ManniJ. L., & WinikurD. W. (1983). Implications of ethnic disproportion in programs for the educable mentally retarded. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 295–302.
3.
Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
4.
California State Department of Education, Office of Program Evaluation and Research. (1983). A manual for determination of a severe discrepancy. Sacramento: State Department of Education.
5.
Diana v. State Board of Education. Civil Action No. C-70-37 (N. D. Cal. 1970).
6.
FinnJ. D. (1982). Patterns in special education placement as revealed by OCR surveys. In HellerK. A.HoltzmanW. & MessickS. (1982), Placing children in special education: A study for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
FisherT. H. (1978). Florida's approach to competency testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 599–602.
8.
FlynnT. M. (1984). I.Q. tests and placement. Integrated Education, 21, 124–126.
9.
FornessS. R. (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California's impact on MR, LD, and ED categories. Remedial and Special Education, 6(3), 36–43.
10.
FornessS. R., & KavaleK. A. (1984). Education of the mentally retarded: A note on policy. Education and training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 239–245.
11.
GerberM. M. (1984). The Department of Education's sixth annual report to Congress on P.L. 94–142: Is Congress getting the full story?Exceptional Children, 51, 209–224.
12.
GlassG. V. (1978). Minimum competence and incompetence in Florida. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 602–605.
13.
GottliebJ. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the Promise?American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115–126.
14.
GottliebJ.AgardJ. A.KaufmanM. J., & SemmelM. I. (1976). Retarded children mainstreamed: A study of practices as they affect minority group children. In JonesR. L. (Ed.), Mainstreaming and the minority child. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Leadership Training Institute/Special Education, pp. 195–214.
15.
GrossmanH. J., (Ed.), (1973; rev. 1977, 1983). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
16.
HaneyW., & MadausG. (1978). Making sense of the competency testing movement. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 462–484.
17.
HentoffN. (1982). Profile: The integrationist. The New Yorker Magazine, 58, 38–73.
18.
Incidence of racial isolation in California schools: Office of Intergroup Relations report. (1983). Sacramento: California State Department of Education.
LambertN. M. (1981). Psychological evidence in Larry P. v Wilson Riles: An evaluation by a witness for the defense. American Psychologist, 36, 937–952.
21.
Larry P. v. Wilson Riles, Civil Action No. 71–2270 (N.D. Cal. 1971).
22.
MacMillanD. L., & BorthwickS. (1980). The new EMR population: Can they be mainstreamed?Mental Retardation, 18, 155–158.
23.
MacMillanD. L., & MeyersC. E. (1980). Larry P.: An educational interpretation. School Psychology Review, 9(2), 136–148.
24.
MeyenE. L., & MoranM. R. (1979). A perspective on the unserved mildly handicapped. Exceptional Children, 45, 526–530.
25.
MeyersC. E.MacMillanD. L., & YoshidaR. K. (November 1975). Correlates of success in transition of MR to regular class. Final Report. Grant OEG-0-73-5263. The Neuropsychiatric Institute, Pacific State Hospital Research Group.
26.
PollowayE. A.EpsteinM. H.PattonJ. R.CullinanD., & LuebkeJ. (1985). Demographic, social and behavioral characteristics of students with educable mental retardation. Unpublished manuscript.
27.
PollowayE. A., & SmithJ. D. (in press). Current status of the mild mental retardation constuct: Identification, placement and programs. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C., & WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
28.
Public Law 94–142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act, November 29, 1975.
29.
PullinD. (1982). Minimum competency testing, the denied diploma and the pursuit of educational opportunity and educational adequacy. Report. Grant NIE CSE-R-180. Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA.
30.
ReschlyD. J. (1985, August). Myths and realities in minority special education overrepresentation. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Los Angeles.
31.
SerowR. C. (1984). Effects of minimum competency testing for minority students: A review of expectations and outcomes. The Urban Review, 16(2), 67–75.
32.
SmithG. R. (1984). Desegregation and assignment of children to classes for the mildly retarded and learning disabled. Integrated Education, 21, 208–211.
33.
SmithJ. E.PollowayE. A., & SmithJ. D. (1978). The continuing dilemma of the mildly handicapped. Special Children, 4(2), 52–63.
34.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). Fifth annual report to Congress on implementation of Public Law 94–142. The education for all handicapped children act. Washington, DC: Special Education Program.
