An individualized profile of benefits is needed to describe what advantages, profits, and new opportunities are offered by individualized education plans based on concepts of student intelligence. Currently, it is unclear what concepts of intelligence contribute to student benefits and what adjustments are needed to bring equity to benefits received by all participants in special education. A shift of public policy giving priority to student benefits can make it explicit that such benefits are expected from tax-supported education programs addressing intelligence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bishop, C.E.National long term care insurance. Waltham, Mass. : University Health Policy Consortium, Brandeis University , 1979.
2.
Cronbach, L.J.Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper, 1970.
3.
Farber, B., Harvey, D.L., & Lewis, M.Conclusion: The perils of technical emphasis in educational innovation. Community, kinship and competence. Final report of research and development program on pre-school disadvantaged children (Vol. III). Urbana: Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1969.
4.
Farber, B., & Lewis, M.Compensatory education and social justice. Peabody Journal of Education, 1972, 49, 83-96.
Gallaway, C., & Lecours, R.Try Another Way in California: Final report of the California project . Urbana, Ill.: Marc Gold & Associates, 1978.
7.
Gangnes, A.G.New environments for retarded people: A monograph of architectural exhibits presented at the Fourth World Congress, International League of Societies for the Mentally Handicapped. Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1975.
8.
Gold, M.Try Another Way training manual. Urbana, Ill.: Marc Gold and Associates, n.d.
9.
Gunzburg, H.C.Social competence and mental handicap: An introduction to social education . London: Bailliere, Tindall, Cassell , 1968.
10.
Haywood, H. C. (Ed.). Social-cultural aspects of mental retardation: Proceedings of the Peabody-NIMH Conference. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.
11.
Heiny, R.W.Resident-environment analysis by levels (REAL) scales manual for use: Experimental edition (Rev. ed.). Nashville, Tenn.: Center for Community Studies, George Peabody College, 1977 .
12.
Heiny, R. W., & Cunningham, J.J.Field teaching: A social history. Peabody Journal of Education, 1972, 49, 97-103.
13.
Heiny, R.W., Cunningham, J.J., Stachowiak, R., & Lukenbill, R.Field teaching training program: A report of one year of planning and prototype activities. Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College, 1975.
14.
Heiny, R.W., Stachowiak, R., & Shreiner, S.Resident-environment analysis by levels (REAL) scales manual supplement: Experimental edition. Nashville, Tenn.: Center for Community Studies, George Peabody College, 1975 .
15.
Hively, W., & Reynolds, M. C. (Eds.). Domain-referenced testing in special education . Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1975.
16.
Hoska, J.Identification of known retarded people in a rural county: A people search case study. Unpublished educational
17.
specialist dissertation, George Peabody College of Teachers, 1975.
18.
Jones, R. L. (Ed.). Mainstreaming and the minority child. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1976.
19.
Jones, R.L.Protection in evaluation procedures: Criteria and recommendations . Berkeley: University of California , 1978.
20.
Jordan, J. B. On the educability of intelligence and related issues: A conversation with Burton Blatt. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1973, 8, 219-229.
21.
Kahn, A.J., & Kamerman, S.B.Social services in international perspective: The emerging sixth system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
22.
MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Meyers, C. E. Mainstreaming the mildly retarded: Some questions, cautions and guidelines. Mental Retardation , 1976, 14, 3-10.
23.
Mercer, J.R.Socialcultural factors in the educational evaluation of Black and Chicano children. In Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, Environment, intelligence and scholastic achievement: A compilation of testimony . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
24.
Mercer, J.R.Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
25.
Morris, R.Alternative forms of care for the disabled: Developing community services . Waltham, Mass.: Levinson Policy Institute, Brandeis University, 1976.
26.
Mosley, J. L. Integration: The need for a systematic evaluation of the socio-adaptive aspect. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1978, 13, 4-8.
27.
Ostroff, E.Humanizing environments: A primer - the most facilitating environments for children, their teachers and families. Cambridge, Mass. : The World Guild, 1978.
28.
Page, E.B.Tests and decisions for the handicapped. Storrs : University of Connecticut, 1978 .
29.
Pauly, M. V. The economics of moral hazard, American Economic Review, 1968, 85, 531-537.
30.
Reymert, M.L., & Hinton, R.T.The effect of a change to a relatively superior environment upon the I.Q.s of 100 children. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), Intelligence: Its nature and nurture (Vol. 39, Part III). Bloomington, Ill.: National Society for the Study of Education, 1940.
31.
Sattler, J.M.Assessment of children's intelligence. Philadelphia : Saunders, 1974.
32.
Taylor, J.R.A comparison of adaptive behavior of retarded individuals successfully and non-successfully placed in group living homes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1973.
33.
Weinberg, R. A., & Wood, F. H. (Eds.): Observations of pupils and teachers in mainstream and special education settings: Alternative strategies. Minneapolis: Leadership Training Institute/Special Education, 1975.
34.
Cook, B.Field teacher activities in the rural south. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Convention of The Council for Exceptional ChildreChicago, April 1970.
