The authors review recent findings with respect to minority representation in educable-mentally-retarded programs. Two procedures outlined in federal regulations to ensure nonbiased assessment of such children are reviewed. Multidisciplinary teams, a long-standing resource in some states, do not appear to have been effective in curtailing large representation of minority students. Further, a review of monitoring efforts indicates serious lapses on the part of evaluation team members in collecting and reporting adaptive-behavior data. Implications are discussed and alternatives proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Budoff, M., Meskin, J., & Harrison, R.H.Educational test of the learning potential hypothesis . American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1971 , 76(2), 159-169.
2.
Cleary, T.A., Humphreys, L.G., Kendrick, S.A., & Wesman, A.Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 15-41.
3.
Cole, M., & Bruner, J.Cultural differences and inferences about psychological processes . American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 867-876.
4.
Comptroller General.Disparities still exist in who gets special education . Gaithersburg, Md.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1981.
5.
Coulter, W.A.Adaptive behavior and professional disfavor: Controversies and trends for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 1980, 9(1), 67-74.
6.
Diana vs. California State Board of Education. United States District Court, Northern District of California, C-70 37 RFP, 1969.
7.
Doll, E.A.The essentials of an inconclusive concept of mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1941, 46, 214-219.
8.
Doll, E.E.Historical survey of research and management of mental retardation in the United States. In E.P. Trapp & P. Hinelstein (Eds.), Readings on the exceptional child. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1962.
9.
Feuerstein, R.The dynamic assessment of retarded performers, the learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore : University Park Press, 1979.
10.
Flaugher, R.L.The many definitions of test bias. American Psychologist , 1978, 33, 671-679.
11.
Gerry, M.Cultural myopia: The need for a corrective lens. Journal of School Psychology, 1973, 11(4), 307-315.
12.
Grossman, H. J. (Ed.). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Washington, D. C . : American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1973 (Special publication series No. 2).
13.
Heber, R.F.A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation (2nd ed.). American Journal of Mental Deficiency , 1962. (Monograph Supplement 64).
14.
Hobson V Hanson. United States District Court, District of Columbia, 269F, Supp. 401 (D.O.C. 1967).
15.
Hyman, I., Carroll, R., Duffy, J., Manni, J., & Winikur, D.Patterns of interprofessional conflict resolution on school child study teams . Journal of School Psychology, 1973, 11, 187-195.
16.
Kagan, J., & Klein, R.E.Cross-cultural perspectives on early development. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 947-961.
17.
Kaufman, A.S.Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley, 1979.
18.
Lambert, N.M.School psychology training for the decade ahead, or rivers, streams and creeks-currents and tributaries to the sea. The School Psychology Review, 1981, 10(2), 194-205.
19.
Larry P vs. Wilson Riles, No. C-71-2270 RFP, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, October 16, 1979.
20.
Lora vs. Board of Education of the City of New York. No. 75-C-917, U.S. District Court Ed., New York, June 2, 1978.
21.
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M.A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance, 1920-1957. Psychological Bulletin , 1958, 55, 337-372.
22.
Lorge, I., & Solomon, H.Two models of group behavior in the solution of Eurekatype problems . Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 139-148.
23.
Manni, J.L., Winikur, D.W., & Keller, M.The status of minority group representation in special education programs in the state of New Jersey. Trenton: New Jersey State Department of Education, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 203575.)
24.
Massachusetts Advocacy Center .Double jeopardy: The plight of minority students in special education. Boston: Author , 1978.
25.
Mattie T. et al., vs. Charles E. Holladay et al. United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, and Action No. DC-75-31-S, 1979.
26.
Mercer, J.R.Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
27.
Mercer, J.R.SOMPA system of multicultural pluralistic assessment technical manual . New York: The Psychological Corporation , 1979.
28.
Mercer, J. R., & Ysseldyke, J.Designing diagnostic-intervention programs . In T. Oakland (Ed.), Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977 .
29.
New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 6, Subtitle F, Chapter 28, 1978.
30.
New Jersey Department of Education. A guide for evaluation of special education programs and related pupil personnel services. Trenton; Author, n.d. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 060).
31.
Oakland, T. (Ed.). Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York: Brunner/Mazel , 1977.
32.
Oakland, T.Research on the adaptive behavior inventory for children and the estimated learning potential. School Psychology Digest, 1979, 8(1), 63-70.
33.
Oakland, T., & Laosa, L.M.Professional, legislative, and judicial influences on psychoeducational assessment practices in schools. In T. Oakland (Ed.), Psychological and educational assessment of minority children . New York: Brunner/Mazel , 1977.
34.
Parents in Action on Special Education (PASE) v. Joseph P. Hannon et al., No. 74C3586, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 1980.
35.
Ramirez, M., III, & Castaneda, A.Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
36.
Reschly, D. J.Nonbiased assessment. In G. Phye & D. J. Reschly (Eds.), School psychology: Perspectives and issues. New York: Academic Press , 1979.
37.
Shaw, M.E.Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
38.
Talley, R.C.Evaluating the effects of implementing the system of multicultural pluralistic assessment: A qualitative perpectiveSchool Psychology Digest, 1979, 8(1), 71-78.
39.
Thomas, B.K.Collaboration of pupil services and instructional personnel. Journal of School Psychology, 1972, 10, 83-87.
40.
Trachtman, G.M.On such a full sea. School Psychology Review, 1981, 10(2), 138—186.
41.
Tucker, J.A.Operationalize the diagnostic-intervention process InT. Oakland (Eds), Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York; Brunner/Mazel, 1977.
42.
Tucker, J.A.Ethnic proportions in classes for the learning disabled: Issues in non-biased assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 1980, 14(1), 93-105.(a)
43.
Tucker, J.A.Nineteen steps for assuring nonbiased placement of students in special educationERIC Exceptional Child Education Report. Reston Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1980.(b)
44.
Tuckman, J. & Lorge, I.Individual ability as a determinant of group superiority. In I. Steiner & M. Fishbein, (Eds.),Current studies in socail psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
45.
Wesman, A.G.Intelligent testing. American Psychologist, 1968, 23(4), 267-274.
46.
Yoshida, R.K., Fenston, K.S., Maxwell , J.P., & Kaufman , M.J., Group decision making in the planning team process: Myth or reality?Journal of School Psychology, 1978, 16, 237-294. (a)
47.
Yoshida, R.K.,Fenston, K.S., Maxwell , J.P., & Kaufman , M.J., Ripple, M.J.effect: Communication of planning team decisions to program implementers. Journal of School Psychology, 1978, 16(171-183. (b)
48.
Yoshida, R.K., Fenton, K.S., Maxwell, J., & Martin, J.K.Availability and helpfulness of appraisal information for making special education programming decisions. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Divisions 16 and 33 , Washington, D.C., September 1976.
49.
New Jersey State Department of Education. Source of information is the Branch of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services.
