This controversy prompted new initiatives such as cognitive referencing (CR) which have according to Nelson been very influential in special education. CR plays a key role in determining who and what numbers are in special education and what services are necessary for supporting special education. Studies indicate that CR has been vital in distinguishing slow learners with poor performance in school though not classified as needing special education services (Green, 2000). Due to this categorization, there has been a shift to classrooms for the learning disabled which provide minimal hope.
The Larry P. case paved way for installation of more reliable directives to promote the use of non-biased assessment programs for children from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This has been a milestone in special education. Establishment of special education legislation and organizations The Larry P. case had an immense influence in the formulation of the 1975’s Education for All Handicapped Children Act that for the first ever guaranteed federally protected access to free, adequate and appropriate education (FAPE) for children with disabilities. The Larry p.
Riles and the 1971’s PARC v. Pennsylvania cases acted as a platform for the establishment of this Act (Tilly, et al. 1993). This directed emphasis on special education reforms to remedy the disparities furthered by the then discriminatory and racial based education system. Amendments done on the act in the 1990 saw the Acts name changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I. D. E. A). This Act has had a profound impact on special education to this date. I. D. E. A governs the provision of special education and programs for early intervention by the state and public agencies.
The IDEA (1999, 34, C. F. R. Part 300) has substantially focused on the potential challenges related to the use of intelligence tests and other multifaceted tests. The IDEA has facilitated for the review of regulation on special education by abolishing criteria based determination of eligibility for special education. Instead, IDEA stresses on the importance of using multiple means for determining eligibility for special services and this has led to the currently most crucial Individualized Education Systems (IEPs) (Copple & Bredekamp, 1997).
IEPs have transformed special education greatly as they have led to the focus on individualized instruction. For instance, this has led to eligibility determination on true disbality rather than language proficiency. The Larry P Riles case set the stage for later recommendations which required that standardized tests be validated for the particular population they are used with, be tailored to address specific educational needs rather than general intelligence measures, and be administered by personnel specifically trained for such cases.
Enforcement of the Larry P. v. Riles decree has enhanced the effectiveness of the federal statute 20 U. S. C 1418 which advocates for the reforms in special education polices, practices and procedures that have helped in structuring placement in special needs classes and assessment for identification (Affeldt, 2000). The Larry P. v. Riles decree was the basis for the formulation of the 1988’s “Code of Fair Testing Practices” in 1988 by the Joint Committee on Testing Practices (JCTP) of the American Psychological Association.
The code was meant to provide a direction to the practices of test administration and assessment test development. Currently, organizations such as the National Association of Test Directors (NATD), the National Association of School Psychologists (AERA) and the Council of Measurement in Education (NCME) have come up and have had immense impact on special education policy formulation as they work with the federal government in special education matters (National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, 1990).
The work of these organizations is based on the Larry P. case declaration since they advocate for more appropriate means of determining eligibility assessment for special education as well as structuring instruction for individualized cases. References Affeldt, J. (2000). Legal issues in testing African Americans. In W. A. Thomas (Ed. ), Larry P. Revisited: IQ testing of African Americans. San Francisco, CA: California Publishing Co. Association for Childhood Education International. (1991). Position Paper On Standardized Testing. Childhood Education, 67(3), pp. 132-142. Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S. (eds). (1997).
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. FairTest. (1991). Standardized Tests and Our Children: A Guide to Testing Reform. Cambridge, MA: FairTest. Green, R. D. (2000). Racial and ethnic bias in test construction. In A. W. Thomas (Ed. ), Larry P. revisited: IQ testing of African Americans. San Francisco, CA: California Publishing Co. Losen, D. (2001). Minority issues in special education: Disproportionality in identification and placement, and related concerns about zero tolerance.
Presentation to the California Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, CA National Commission on Testing and Public Policy. (1990). From Gatekeepers to Gateway: Transforming Testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Neill, D. M. , & Medina, N. (1990). Fallout from the Testing Explosion: How 100 Million Standardized Exams Undermine Equity and Excellence in America’s Public Schools. (3rd. ed. ). Cambridge: FairTest. Nelson, N. W. (2000).
Basing eligibility on discrepancy criteria: A bad idea whose time has passed. Special Interest Division 1, Language Learning and Education, 7 (8), p. 12 Shepard, A. L. (1994). The challenges of assessing young children appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (3), pp. 206-212. Tilly, D. W. III, Reschly, J. D. & Grimes, J. (1993). Special education system reform: The Iowa story. Communique, 22(1), pp. 125-33. Zappardino, P. , Bursh, P. , Neill, M. , Yohe, M. , Schaeffer, B. , & Thall, C. (1995). Implementing Performance Assessment: A Guide to Classroom, School and System Reform. Cambridge, MA: FairTest.