Values rather than science are often unrecognized as an impetus for policy development; a reasonable role of science is to determine how the intent of policy can best be realized. In recent years, the policy of educating all handicapped students has been reevaluated primarily because of two factors: (a) costs associated with providing educational services and (b) disagreement among professionals concerning whether all handicapped students can benefit from an education. A review of the educability litigation reaffirms that equal educational opportunity is still valued, and education can be defined broadly. Rather than questioning the value of equal educational opportunity, we suggest that research and curriculum development should focus on three areas: First, apply the criteria of educational validity (Voeltz & Evans, 1983) to demonstrate that education is appropriate; second, investigate student variance in learning associated with specific student characteristics and interventions; and third, evaluate valid curricular approaches for efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Age v. Bullit County Public Schools, 673 F. 2d 141 (6th Cir. 1982).
2.
A.R.C. in Colorado v. Frazier, No. 80-K-563 (D. Colo. May 20, 1981).
3.
Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities. (1981). 1(1).
4.
Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979), 3 Mental Disability Law Reporter 317.
5.
Ballard-CampbellM.SemmelM. I. (1981). Policy research and special education: Research issues affecting policy formation and implementation. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 59–67.
6.
BaumeisterA. A. (1981). Mental retardation policy and research: The unfulfilled promise. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 449–456.
BergmanJ. (1975). Community homes for the retarded. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
9.
Board of Education of Cleveland Heights v. State, ex rel. Goldman, 47 Oh., App. 417, 191 N.E. 914 (1934).
10.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, U.S.L.W. 4929 (U.S. June 28, 1982).
11.
BraddockD. (1977). A national deinstitutionalization study. State Government, 50(4), Lexington, KY: Council of State Government.
12.
BrickerD. D.DennisonL.BrickerW. A. (1976). A language intervention program for developmentally young children. (Mailman Center for Child Development Monograph Series, No. 1). Miami: University of Miami.
13.
BrickerW. A. (1976). Service of research. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me! (pp. 162–179). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
14.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
15.
BrownL.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS. (1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me! (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
16.
BurgdorfR. J. (1981). The legal rights of handicapped persons: Cases, materials, and texts. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
17.
CloseD. (1977). Community living for severely and profoundly retarded children: A group home study. Education and Training for the Mentally Retarded, 12, 256–262.
18.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
19.
Cuyahoga County Association for Retarded Children and Adults v. Essex, 411 F. Supp. 46 (1976).
20.
FalveyM.BrownLLyonS.BaumgartD.SchroederJ. (1980). Strategies for using cues and correction procedures. In SailorW.WilcoxB.BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 109–134). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
Fialkowski v. Shapp, 405 F. Supp. 946, 958–959 (E.D. Pa. 1975).
22.
FredericksH. D.RiggsC.FureyT.GroveD.MooreW.McDonnellJ.JordanE.HansenW.BaldwinV.WadlowM. (1976). The teaching research curriculum for moderately and severely handicapped. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
23.
Gary B. v. Cronin, No. 79 C 5383 (N.D. Ill. Filed Dec. 21, 1979).
24.
Gladys J. & Laura J. v. Pearland Independent School District, No. G–81–134 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 1981).
25.
GuessD.NoonanM. J. (1982). Curricula and instructional procedures for severely handicapped students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14, 1–12.
26.
GuessD.SailorW.BaerD. (1977). A behavioral-remedial approach to language training for the severely handicapped. In SontagE. (Ed.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 360–377). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
27.
Halderman v. Pennhurst, 445 F. Supp. 1924 (E.D. Pa., 1977).
28.
HalleJ. W.BaerD. M.SpradlinJ. E. (1981). An analysis of teachers' generalized use of delay in helping children: A stimulus control procedure to increase language use in handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 389–409.
29.
HersenM.BarlowD. H. (1976). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon.
30.
Hines v. Pitt County Board of Education, 497 F. Supp. 403 (E.D.N.C. 1980).
31.
IntagliaJ.WilderB.CooleyF. (1979). Cost comparison of institutional and community-based alternatives for mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 17, 154–156.
32.
KerlingerF. N. (1977). The influence of research on education practice. Educational Researcher, 6(8), 5–12.
33.
Levine v. New Jersey Department of Institutions, 3 EHLR 552:163.(1980).
34.
LibertyK.WilcoxB. (1981a). Forum: Slowing down learning. Association for the Severely Handicapped Newsletter, 1(2), 1–2.
35.
LibertyK.WilcoxB. (1981b). Forum: Abuse and misuse of systematic instruction and behavior technology: The rabbit test. Association for the Severely Handicapped Newsletter, 7, 1–2.
36.
MartinR. (1981). All handicapped children are educable. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 13–22.
37.
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v. Maryland. Equity No. 100/182/77676 (Cir. Ct., Baltimore County, May 31, 1974). In R. L. Burgdorf, Jr., (1981). The legal rights of handicapped persons: Cases, materials, and tests (pp. 182–187). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
38.
Mason v. Superintendent of Bridgewater State Hospital, 353 Mass. 604, 233 N.E. 2d (1968).
39.
McCormickL.CooperM.GoldmanR. (1979). Training teachers to maximize instructional time provided to severely and profoundly handicapped children. AAESPH Review, 4(3), 301–310.
40.
MenolascinoF. J. (1977). Current challenges in mental retardation: Progressive ideology and services. New York: Human Sciences Press.
41.
Mental Disability Law Reporter. (1982). 6(4).
42.
Mills v. D.C. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972).
43.
NoonanM. J.BrownF.MulliganM.RettigM. (1982). Educability of severely handicapped persons: Both sides of the issue. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(1), 3–12.
44.
OliverC. B.HalleJ. W. (1982). Language training in the everyday environment: Teaching functional sign use to a retarded child. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(3), 50–62.
45.
PeckC. A.SemmelM. I. (1982). Identifying the least restrictive environment (LRE) for children with severe handicaps: Toward an empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(1), 56–63.
46.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971).
47.
Petitioners Motion for Modification, Wyatt v. Hardin, No. 3195–N (M.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 1978). Also reprinted in Law and Psychology Review. (1979). 5, 31–49.
48.
Pinkerton v. Moye, 509 F. Supp. 107 (D.W. Va. 1981).
49.
Plyer v. Doe, 50 U.S.L.W. 4650 (U.S. June 15, 1982).
50.
Rettig v. Kent City School District, No. C76–2234 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 25, 1981).
51.
Riley V. Ampach, No. 79 C 2783 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 1980).
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
55.
SchalockR. L.HarperR. S. (1978). Placement from community-based mental retardation programs: How well do clients do?American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 240–247.
56.
Springdale School District No. 50 v. Grace, No. 80–1777 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 1981).
57.
StolzS. B. (1981). Adoption of innovations from applied behavioral research: “Does anybody care?”Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 491–505.
58.
SwitzkyH.RotatoriH. A. F.MillerT.FreagonS. (1979). The developmental model and its implications for the severely/profoundly handicapped. Mental Retardation, 17, 167–170.
59.
Tatro v. Texas, 481 F. Supp. 1224 (N.D. Tex. 1979).
60.
TribeL. H. (1978). American constitutional law. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.
61.
VincentL. J.SalisburyCWalterG.BrownP.GrueenwaldL. J.PowersM. (1980). Program evaluation and curriculum development in early childhood/special education. In SailorW.WilcoxB.BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 303–328). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
62.
VitelloS. J.AtthoweJ. M.CadwellJ. (1983). Determinants of community placement of institutionalized mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 539–545.
63.
VoeltzL. M.EvansI. M. (1982). The assessment of behavioral interrelationships in child behavior therapy. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 131–165.
64.
VoeltzL. M.EvansI. M. (1983). Educational validity: Procedures to evaluate outcomes in programs for severely handicapped learners. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8(1), 3–15.
65.
Watson v. City of Cambridge, 157 Mass. 561, 32 N.E. 864 (1983).
66.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
67.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement, or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
68.
Wyatt v. Hardin, C.A. 3195-N. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, 1978.
69.
Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F. Supp. 781, 334 F. Supp. 1341 (M.D. Ala. 1971) and 344 F. Supp. 373, 387 (M.D. Ala.).
70.
Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972).
