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.

This article presents the author's perspective on the future of school psychology as an applied field of psychology. In so doing, the author first reacts to Bardon 's proposals with respect to the National Association of School Psychologists/American Psychological Association (NASP/APA) "dilemma." This is followed by thoughts regarding school psychology's current status and model of functioning within the schools. Finally, a new conceptualization of school psychology is offered. This new model calls for a broader domain than just the schools for the provision of psychological services and for a new orientation of the field.Psychology, the scientific study of behavior, has undergone tremendous changes during the past 15 years. Although it would be presumptuous to identify ourselves as a mature science, we have certainly stepped smartly out of infancy, through childhood, and into our early adolescent phase. The applied field of school psychology, likewise, has experienced tremendous shifts during this period. Besides the scientific and technological advances provided in such areas as social learning theory, cognitive behavior modification, psychometrics, neurophysiological psychology, advances in multivariate analysis, and so forth, the field of school psychology has itself been the subject of significant changes resulting from a variety of forces. We have been greatly influenced by the actions of the courts (Bersoff, 1980) and the federal legislature (see e.g., P.L. 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975, and P.L. 92-180, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974). The introduction of the mental health consultation movement into the schools (Meyers, Martin, & Hymah, 1977) and the press for a variety of functions beyond traditional psychoeducational diagnostics, including such roles as child advocacy, involvement in preschool programs, group and/or individual therapy, involvement in vocational programs, program development and evaluation, to name just a few, have made this an exciting and dynamic period for school psychology.During this time we have seen develop an independent professional association, The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), which has stimulated much discussion and constructive development in our profession. It has made available to all school psychologists the opportunity for full participation in a professional association representing their interests and views. Although any such period of change and growth is not without its pains and difficulties, I feel most of us would, after glancing backward, nod in the affirmative with respect to what we, as school psychologists, have accomplished as a profession and for the schools of this country.A Look Toward the Future Although backward glances can be self-serving, they are most useful in placing the present in perspective and in giving impetus to the future. So much is currently happening in school psychology and in education that it is difficult to gain perspective and plan comfortably.

No abstract

Recognizing that issues associated with the disproportionate representation in special education programs of culturally and linguistically different children will remain of vital concern to school psychologists and special educators in the decade ahead, a three-tiered response model is proposed. The intent of the model is to organize a variety of strategies along dimensions of the focus of implementation. Level one relates to the individual practitioner, level two to the educational process, and level three refers to a larger scaled systematic response to the issues. Effective practical suggestions are offered by the authors.