The Administration's effort to reduce the scope of P.L. 94–142 regulations for the handicapped have been promulgated under the concept of “New Federalism.“ Deregulation on the scale originally proposed by the federal government may have serious implications for the field of special education by potentially increasing litigation, reducing parental involvement in the decision-making process, and fostering greater competition for available funds. Recommendations for improving P.L. 94–142 include encouraging teacher use of functional evaluation procedures, streamlining paperwork and reporting methods, and requiring the use of flow-through dollars to develop and disseminate effective instructional programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Analysis and comment. (1981, October 2). Education for the Handicapped Law Report, Issue 57.
2.
Analysis and comment. (1982, February 19). Education for the Handicapped Law Report, Issue 66.
3.
Barrick, S., & Enell, N. (1980). Paperwork systems in special education: Analysis and critique. Anaheim, CA: American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 184 240)
4.
Bateman, B., & Herr, C. (1981). Law and special education. In J. Kauffman & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 330–360). New York: Prentice-Hall.
5.
Bell, T. H. (1982, October 1). Withdrawal announcement. In Analysis and Comment, Education for the handicapped law report, Supplement 81.
6.
Blaschke, C., Curry, B., Morin, A. & Nethens. S. (1981). P.L. 94–142: A study of the implementation and impact at the state level. (Vol. 1). Falls Church, VA: Education Turnkey Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 151)
7.
Brown, N. (1982). CAMEO: Computer-assisted management of educational objectives. Exceptional Children, 49(2), 151–153.
8.
Carnine, D. (1983). Direct instruction: In search of instructional solutions for educational problems. In Interdisciplinary voices in learning disabilities and remedial education (pp. 1–60). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
9.
Cooper, J. O. (1981). Measuring behavior (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
10.
Evans, A. (1982). Analysis of the proposed regulatory changes to major provisions of the Education of the Handicapped Act—state grant program. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
11.
Evans, A., & Jones, N. (1982). Analysis of the Department of Education's withdrawal of sections of proposed regulations under P.L. 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
12.
Federal register. (1977, August 23). 42474–42518.
13.
Federal register. (1982, August 4). 33836–33860.
14.
Federal register. (1982, November 3). 49871–49872.
15.
Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & White, W. T. (1984). The pursuit of clarity: Direct instruction and applied behavior analysis. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 38–57). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
16.
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1976). Single case experimental designs. New York: Pergamon Press.
17.
Joiner, L., & Sabatino, D. (1981). A policy study of P.L. 94–142. Exceptional Children, 48(1), 24–33.
18.
Jones, N. (1982). Comparison and analysis of present regulations under P.L. 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, and proposed changes. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
19.
Kauffman, J. M. (1981). Historical trends and contemporary issues in special education in the United States. In J. M. Kauffman & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 3–23). New York: Prentice-Hall.
20.
Kirp, D. (1977). Law, politics, and equal educational opportunity: The limits of judicial involvements. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 117–137.
21.
Kirp, D., Kuriloff, P., & Buss, W. (1975). Legal mandates and organizational change. In N. Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in the classification of children (Vol. 2, pp. 319–382). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
LaVor, M. L. (1977). Federal legislation for exceptional children: Implications and a view of the future. In R. D. Kneedler & S. G. Tarver (Eds.), Changing perspectives in special education (pp. 245–270). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
23.
Lovitt, T. C. (1977). In spite of my resistance … I've learned from children. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
24.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972).
25.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (1972).
26.
Public Law 91–230, Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U. S. C. (1970).
27.
Public Law 93–112, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sec. 504, 29 U.S.C. (1973).
28.
Public Law 94–142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. (1975).
29.
Ragghianti, S., & Miller, R. (1982). The microcomputer and special educational management. Exceptional Children, 49(2), 131–135.
30.
Sarason, D., & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. New York: MacMillan.
31.
Second annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94–142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1980).
32.
U.S. Department of Education, State Program Implementation Studies Branch of the Office of Special Education.
33.
Severns, G., & Sains, L. (1981). A comprehensive monitoring system. New York: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 209 837)
34.
Silverstein, R. (1980). A comparison of federal, state and local policies affecting education of handicapped children in Montgomery County public schools. Rockville, MD: Montgomery Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 208 045)
35.
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979).
36.
Stephens, T. M. (1976). Directive teaching of children with learning and behavior handicaps (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
37.
Tawney, J. W. (1984). Empirical verification of instruction: A realistic goal? In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 246–253). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
38.
The Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School v. Rowley, 458, U.S. 176 (1982).
