The proposed deregulation of P.L. 94–142 represented a major challenge to the rights of handicapped students. However, a strong federal regulatory policy does not translate directly to effective education. The resources allocated to the implementation of P.L. 94–142 should be directed toward building local capacity and not in enforcing technical compliance. Assertions that deregulation would result in less money and less effective education are not supported by the current research base, and strong regulatory and compliance policies should not be blindly supported as the only strategy for improving special education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1982). Strategic choice in federal education policy: The compliance-assistance tradeoff. In A. Lieberman & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Policy making in education (pp. 159–194). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Farrar, E., DeSanctis, J. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1980). Views from below: Implementation research in education. Teacher's College Record, 82, 77–99.
3.
Hargrove, E. C., Graham, S. G., Ward., L. E., Abernethy, V., Cunningham, J., & Vaughn, W. K. (1981). Regulations and schools: The implementation of equal education for handicapped children. Nashville, TN: Institute for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University.
4.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Chapter 1: Financial Assistance to Meet Special Educational Needs of Disadvantaged Children), Sec. 522–558., 20 U.S.C., Sec. 3801 (1981).
5.
Public Law 94–142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Sec. 2–8, 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1401 (1975).
6.
Weatherly, R. (1979). Reforming special education: Policy implementation from state level to street level. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administration Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
