CHAPTER 2

HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS: AN ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS PERTINENT TO

THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION

JAMES F. GREGORY*, TIMOTHY SHANAHANt and HERBERT WALBERGt

*St. John’s University tuniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Abstract

High school seniors in four handicapping groups - orthopedically handicapped (OH), hearing

impaired (HI), speech disabled (SD), and learning disabled (LD) - were compared to

nonhandicapped seniors on a range of demographic, achievement, and personal

characteristics. Of the four groups, the OH students were the most similar to the nonhandicapped students in terms of the characteristics studied. Based on these similarities, it

was concluded that this group would experience the least number of problems in their transition

from school to an independent life. The other three groups differed significantly from the

nonhandicapped students on almost every characteristic examined. Furthermore, differences were always in a direction that would lead to a prediction of lower success in the transition

process, e.g., lower levels of academic achievement, more externalized locusof control, etc. it

is noted that the HI, SD, and LD groups shared the characteristic of limited proficiency in

English language skill. This finding is discussed in relation to the observation that the job

market in the future will require higher levels of English literacy.

Introduction

Certain common descriptions regarding handicapped youngsters have emerged in the literature over the years. Children with disabilities are frequently seen to be academically behind their nonhandicapped peers (Englert & Palinscar, 1988; Hardman, Drew, & Egan, 1987), too often have a disproportionately high representation of minority and lower socioeconomic status members (Ambert, 1986; Brosnan, 1983; Fein, 1983; Ortiz & Maldonado-Colon, 1986; Wright & Santa Cruz, 1983), and to exhibit a variety of difficulties in the social, motivational, and affective realms (Bryan, Donahue, & Pearl, 1981; Knoblock, 1987; Pullis, 1988).

While the results of these studies are informative, it should be noted that to date the research has reflected certain limitations. Most critically, perhaps, the pools of subjects for much special education research have often been drawn from special facilities for the

489

490 THOMAS E. ALLEN

handicapped, for example, residential programs. However, subsequent to passage of Public Law 94-142 and of a plethora of other federal and state mandates, an increasing number of handicapped young people have been migrating to the public schools and have been receiving the bulk of their education in that setting.

Likewise, the special education literature has frequently focused on elementary school- age children to the exclusion of teenagers and young adults. More data on high school- aged exceptional students are needed. Finally, it is only quite recently that the issue of the transition from school to work and to further higher education has received significant attention in the literature. A good deal must be learned regarding the status of special needs high schoolers in relation to transition issues.

The purpose of the following report, then, lay in refining the portrait of special needs students in public high schools as that picture reflects preparation for the world of work. The data were contained in a large-scale national survey of high school sophomores and seniors. This data base allowed for direct comparisons between the students and their nondisabled peers.

Method

Data Base

The data were drawn from the base-year survey of the massive High School and Beyond (HSB) study, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) under the sponsorship of the National Center for Education Statistics. In the spring of 1980, NORC surveyed and tested high-school sophomores and seniors in public and private schools across the country. The design of the study involved a highly stratified probability sample of over 1,100 secondary institutions. The response rate was 91% for schools and 84% for students. The resulting data base included information from 1,015 high schools on 30,030 tenth- and 28,240 twelfth-graders. Since the focus of the present investigation lay in transition-related issues, this report will restrict the analyses to those involving the seniors only, that is, those students on the cusp of that transition.

The senior-level achievement battery included two mathematics tests (including word problems, graph reading, geometry, and algebra); two vocabulary measures; and one reading test (with literal and inferential questions based upon short passages). Information about a variety of background variables, such as age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, work and school history, and attitudinal and motivational factors, was also collected via a student questionnaire. Altogether, approximately 680 data points were available on each student. Further details about sampling, tests and procedures may be found in Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore (1982), Page and Keith (1981), Peng, Fetters, and Kolstad (1981), and Peng, Owings, and Fetters (1982).

Analyses

Survey data were complete for 26,144 seniors. Of these, 1,584, or 6.06%) responded affirmatively to the questionnaire item: “Do you have any of the following conditions: orthopedic handicap, hearing impairment, speech disorder, or specific learning

Handicapped Youth and their Schooling 491

disability?” Consequently, in the following analyses the dichotomous independent variable was a “yes” versus a “no” response to this query.

The dependent variables were arrived at by a process of examination. That is, prior to analysis, two of the present authors devised a list of categories of questionnaire items - e.g., those dealing with further demographic characteristics and with work/school-related personal and attitudinal variables - which have been shown via extensive quantitative synthesis to be highly related to school achievement (Walberg, 1982). Extensive factor analyses, correlational analyses, and reliability calculations were performed to assure that interrelated variables combined appropriately into scales. Examples of such composite scores include: peer environment, adjustment, number of academic courses taken, and school problems. Two further composite scores - locus of control and work orientation - were generated in the original I-ISB analyses. Descriptions of representative items for each of these composite scores will be found in the appropriate areas of the ‘Results’ section, below.

The general linear model was used to test for the effects of reported handicapping condition on the other factors as dependent variables. Sex and socioeconomic status were statistically controlled since they have known associations to school performance and other pertinent variables. For each dependent variable, the general linear model yielded a metric regression weight with an associated t-test for significance. The general linear model was considered especially appropriate since sex, socioeconomic status, and handicap status were colinear and the general linear model places the burden of proof for significance on at1 variables entering the equation controlling for one another. In all analyses, the p-value considered necessary for rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant differences between group means was set at .Ol.

Results

Table 2.1 presents the group means and the obtained probabilities from the analyses for the demographic characteristics of age and ethnic background. While the students reporting orthopedic handicaps did not differ significantly in age from the nonhandicapped twelfth-graders, those students reporting hearing impairment, speech disorders, and learning disabilities were all significantly older than their nondisabled peers. The results concerning ethnicity are somewhat mixed. White, Hispanic and Asian youngsters reported orthopedic conditions in essentially the same proportion as their representation in the overall sample would predict. However, there appeared to be an underrepresentation of black students among the orthopedic group. Among the other three special needs categories, it is notable that there was an underrepresentation of white students in the speech impaired and learning disabled groups as well as an underrepresentation of black students in the auditorily impaired cohort. However, black twelfth-graders were overrepresented in the learning disabled classification and - quite strikingly - Hispanic and Asian pupils were overrepresented in all three groups, hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled.

Results of the HSB-administered academic achievement tests on reading, math, and vocabulary are found in Table 2.2. The findings here are rather clear-cut. While those students identifying themselves as orthopedica~ly involved did not differ significantly in

492 THOMAS E. ALLEN

Table 2.1 Age and Ethnic Background of Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Subgroups

OH HI SD LD Non-OH Non-HI Non-SD Non-LD

P P P P

Mean Age (in years) 17.55 17.57 17.78 17.68 17.47 17.47 17.47 17.47 0.02 <O.Ol <O.Ol ‘Co.01

Ethnic Background (in proportions responding affirmatively) White 0.84 0.79 0.67 0.69

0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.04 0.46 <O.Ol <O.Ol

Black 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12

<O.Ol t0.01 0.19 <O.Ol Hispanic 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.10

0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.01 <O.Ol <O.Ol

Asian 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.02 <O.Ol 0.04

ns: Orthopedically handicapped = 353 Hearing impaired = 514 Speech disabled = 278 Learning disabled = 439

OH = Orthopedically handicapped non-OH = Nonorthopedically-handicapped HI = Hearing impaired non-HI = Nonhearing-impaired SD = Speech disabled non-SD = Nonspeech-disabled LD = Learning disabled non-LD = Nonlearning-disabled

Nonorthopedically-handicapped = 25,789 Nonhearing-impaired = 25,632 Nonspeech-disabled = 25.866 Nonlearning-disabled = 25.708

performance from their nonhandicapped peers, those reporting the other three disabilities scored significiantly lower than their classmates on all five tests.

The data on personal characteristics (Table 2.3) also show a general pattern. Orthopedically handicapped seniors manifested difficulties in only one of the four measures; that is, they exhibited a more externalized locus of control, as determined by the HSB-generated composite scale score for responses to the items “How do you feel about each of the following statements?: (a) Good luck is more important than hard work for success; (b) every time I try to get ahead, something or somebody stops me; (c) planning only makes a person unhappy, since plans hardly ever work out anyway; and (d) people who accept their conditions in life are happier than those who try to change things”. The hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled youngsters shared the lower- than-average scores of their orthopedically handicapped counterparts in control locus and they also had less flattering descriptions of the school-related attitudes and grades of their immediate friends (‘peer environment’) and more reported adjustment difficulties (as measured by a weighted composite of responses to the items, “I’m satisfied with myself”, and “During the past month, have you felt so sad, or had so many problems, that you

~~ndic~p~d Youth and their Schooling 493

Table 2.2 Means, Academic Achievement Scaled Scores for Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Subgroups

Number OH HI SD LD of Non-OH Non-HI Non-SD Non-LD

Items P P P P

Reading 20 49.94 47.28 43.21 43.31 50.30 50.00 50.01 50.04

0.50 <O.Ol <O.Ol <O.Ol

Vocab, I 1.5 49.87 47.X8 44.46 44.56 50.67 49.92 49.93 49.96

0.12 <O.Ol <0.01 <O.Ol

Vocab, 2 12 49.93 48.32 45.08 44.74 49.93 49.97 49.98 50.01

0.99 <O.Ol <o.ot <O.Ol

Math. 1 25 49.88 46.75 44.35 43.04 49.02 49.93 49.92 49.97

0.10 <co.01 <O.Ol <o.t11

Math, 2 8 49.86 47.80 47.64 46.47 49.69 49.90 49.88 49.91

0.75 <o.ot to.01 <O.Ol

wondered if anything was worthwhile?“). The only area in which these three subgroups had higher scores than their nonhandicapped classmates represents a dubious achievement, indeed-hearing impaired, speech disordered and learning disabled seniors reported higher than expected brushes with the law.

Data related to the worlds of work and school are displayed in Table 2.4, and they are somewhat more mixed. In terms of the orthopedically handicapped it is notable that these youngsters did not differ significantly from their nondisabled peers relative to the number of academic courses (i.e., in areas such as English, mathematics, modern languages,

Table 2.3 Means, Personal Characteristics for Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Subgroups

Number OH HI SD LD of Non-OH Non-HI Non-SD Non-LD

Items P P P P

Peer Environment (scaled)

Adjustment (scaled)

Locus of Control (scaled)

Law Trouble (yes/no item)

4 6.95 6.80 6.72 6.79 7.05 7.05 7.05 7.05 0.10 co.01 <O.Ol co.01

2 0.88 0.90 0.12

6 -0.10 -0.01 to.01

0.83 0.90

co.01

-0.17 -0.01 <O.Ol

0.12 0.04

co.01

0.85 0.84 0.90 0.90

<O.Ol <O.Ol

1 0.05 0.04 0.25

-0.31 -0.01 <O.Ol

0.09 0.04

to.01

-0.36 -0.00 (0.01

0.08 0.04

co.01

4Y4 THOMAS E. ALLEN

history and science) they had taken, the amount of television that they watched, and their ultimate ‘job aspirations’, which was a composite score representing a three-tiered occupational breakdown into ‘blue collar’, ‘clerical/management’, and ‘professional’ arenas. These orthopedically impaired young people, however, did indicate having a higher-than-average frequency of school problems (incidences of having been disciplined, having been suspended, and having cut classes), doing less homework, and having a lower work orientation-a composite score based upon expressed attitudes towards having a lot of money, finding a steady job, and being successful -than did their noninvolved peers. The three remaining special groups shared the orthopedically handicapped students’ ratings vis ri vis school problems, amount of homework completed, and reduced work orientation. However, these young people also indicated that they had taken fewer than average standard academic courses. Moreover, the speech impaired pupils reported watching significantly more television than the others, and the speech impaired and the learning disabled exhibited lowered job aspirations.

Discussion

The finding that orthopedically handicapped seniors were of the same age as their classmates whereas the hearing impaired, speech disordered and learning disabled were all significantly older than their fellow twelfth-graders is consistent with many of the later findings. That is, given their history of school-related difficulties and their lower tested

Table 2.4 Means. School and Work Scaled Scores for Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Subgroups

Number OH HI SD LD of Non-OH Non-HI Non-SD Non-LD

Items I’ P I’ i’

Number of Academic Courses

School Problems

Amount of TV

Amount of Homework

Work Orientation

Job Aspirations

I 0 4.75 4.81 0. I5

3 0.83 0.71

to.01

I 4.52 4.41 0.22

1 4.18 4.40

<O.Ol

3 -0.13 0.00

<O.Ol

1 2.19 2.11 0.08

4.s7 4.45 3.49 4.82 4.82 4.82

<O.Ol <O.Ol <O.Ol

O.Y4 0.85 0.94 0.70 0.71 0.70

<O.Ol <O.Ol <O.Ol

4.41 4.42 O.YO

4.51 4.14 0.21

4.09 4.40

<O.Ol

-0.20 0.00

<O.Ol

1.70 1.58 0.55

4.78 4.41

<0.05

3.Y3 4.40

<O.Ol

-0.36 0.00

<O.Ol

1.90 2.12

to.01

3.01 4.40

<O.Ol

-0.18 0.00

10.01

1 .Y6 2.12

<O.Ol

Handicapped Youth and their Schooling 495

academic achievement, members of these three latter groups may simply have been held back at various junctures over the years more often.

The mixed findings regarding the prevalence of the four handicapping conditions among

black and white students in the sample are inconclusive. It is possible that the black students among the public school hearing impaired cohort are underrepresented due to their lower level of general academic integration with normally-hearing students, as has been found by others (e.g., Wolk, Karchmer, & Schildroth, 1982). It is noteworthy, however, that a clear pattern emerges regarding Hispanic and Asian respondents. That is, while these minority groups are represented in the expected numbers under the rubric ‘orthopedically handicapped’, both Hispanic and Asian pupils report significantly higher rates of hearing impairment, speech disorder and learning disability. The high incidence of reported hearing impairment is perhaps the most problematic in that identification involves the rather measurable and reasonably objective parameters of audiometrics. However, assessment of a speech dysfunction involves a high degree of subjective judgment, even when done by trained clinicians. It is certainly possible that the data here are confounded by the reliance upon self-identification. That is, these two groups constitute linguistic minorities and consequently might perceive themselves as having more speech-related problems in English. Likewise, given that these students are attempting to speak in a language that they are often new to, it is possible that their ‘ESL’ errors are misinterpreted by others as pathological (Maldonado-Colon, 1986; Willig, 1986).

Likewise, the Hispanic and Asian students were joined by the other minority group, black respondents, in more often reporting a learning disability. Again, assuming that this finding in fact represents a truly higher prevalence of actual learning dysfunction may be premature. A learning disability must be inferred and at best this diagnostic challenge is fraught with difficulties. With minority children, linguistic/cultural patterns at variance with the test instruments and perhaps the testing and school personnel - and indeed the whole school system - may well exacerbate these difficulties (Bernal, 1983; DeFilippis & Derby, 1980; Smith & Brewer, 1983). Indeed, there is reason to believe that the learning disability classification has replaced the mentally retarded rubric as a catch basin for children who are not from the dominant culture (Fradd & Hallman, 1983; Tucker, 1980). Thus, it should remain for future research to determine whether the high rate of such minority children among the diagnosed learning disabled is artifactual or not.

The tested academic performance of the students requires little comment. Whereas the orthopedically involved pupils perform on a par with their nonimpaired peers, the three ‘other’ groups are significantly behind in all areas. Regrettably, as indicated earlier, this finding is consonant with a number of previous studies.

The findings regarding personal characteristics are perhaps also not surprising. The orthopedically impaired youngsters fare relatively well on measures of peer environment, personal adjustment, and history of trouble with the law.

With regard to the other three categories of exceptional learners here (hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled) the findings are perhaps also rather easily interpreted. Given their apparent difficulty in performing well in the major enterprise of their lives to date-school-it is not surprising to find a generally lower self- image. Particularly disturbing, perhaps, is the significantly higher reported incidence of brushes with the law by these three groups. However, one must be particularly cautious when interpreting this seemingly more objective measure. It is not clear whether

496 THOMAS E. ALLEN

handicapped youngsters indeed engage in more illegal activities or whether they simply are more likely than the other teenagers to get caught and/or to be adjudicated (Keilitz, Zaremba, & Broder, 1979).

A few of the findings from Table 2.4 regarding the orthopedic group appear somewhat confusing. In particular, it seems problematic that these students-given their generally strong tested academic skills - manifest difficulties vis ri vi.s school problems and completion of homework. In particular, their history of success in school seems to clash with their generally lowered work orientation.

It is interesting that only the speech impaired contingent reported an above-average amount of television viewing. It is also arguable that - given the suppressed academic performance of the hearing impaired and learning disabled seniors-an ‘average’ amount of TV viewing is still excessive, well beyond that found associated with optimal school performance (Williams, Haertel, Haertel, & Walberg, 1980). For these young adults, television may be, in the expression made famous by Schramm (1976), a particularly insipid ‘thief of time’. Of course, the data were collected at the beginning of the decade. It is unlikely that many of the hearing-impaired respondents had yet used closed captioning very extensively. In future, however, the potential of closed captioning to support reading/language development with hearing impaired younger viewers might render television viewing a desirable goal with such students.

One rather evident difference between the orthopedically involved children on the one hand and the other three groups on the other lies in the fact that the latter contingent has historically taken fewer academic courses. Given these students’ history of problems with school, and in particular their lower level of tested academic achievement, it would perhaps be surprising if the situation were otherwise. With such a history it is also perhaps predictable that two of these cohorts at least (speech disordered and learning disabled) also indicate lower ultimate job aspirations.

Conclusions

A variety of conclusions could perhaps be drawn from the various findings here. However, one striking pattern calls particular attention to itself. That is, although there were ostensibly four types of special needs youngsters examined in the report, there appear to be only two groups in a functional sense. On the one hand, the orthopedically impaired seniors seem to function academically and in terms of motivation and most other affective factors on a par with their nonhandicapped classmates. In stark contrast would be the other three groups which, on the whole, seem to function as one. Indeed, these students’ responses and scores are so similar that one could remove the labels from the respective tables and very little information would be lost. Particularly troubling is the fact that the results on these three groups are also overwhelmingly unidirectional. That is, the hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled youngsters were consistently found to be at a disadvantage relative to their nonhandicapped peers.

Why this dichotomy between the orthopedically impaired and the ‘other three’ groups? Perhaps the simplest explanation would lie in the fact that these other three groups - hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled - share the obvious commonality of having conditions with major linguistic underpinnings (Andolina, 1980; Hardman, Drew, & Egan, 1987; Houck, 1984; Friel-Patti & Conti-Ramsden, 1988;

Handicapped Youth and their Schooling 497

Gearheart & Weishahn, 1984; Scholl, 1981). It would seem that a mobility restriction, while it may affect other aspects in one’s life, does not interfere greatly with school and

school-related factors. However, given the verbal component of formal schooling, a language-related handicap may have severe consequences. In terms of the transition from school to work, then, it may be that the seniors in the three language-related categories are at a significantly greater risk than are the orthopedically involved. They appear to be leaving school deficient in a variety of areas generally seen as preconditions for success in the world. In line with this, it should be further noted that the economy and consequently the workplace are changing. Increasingly, the U.S. economy is becoming service/ information oriented. White collar positions are rapidly overtaking blue collar jobs. It would seem that cause for concern regarding the preparation for the world of work for these three language-related groups is truly warranted.

Several of the advantages of using the High School and Beyond data in the present report were delineated earlier. However, certain disadvantages should also be

acknowledged. For example, the original HSB survey was designed to test the American senior-year

high school population as a whole. Consequently, items of particular interest in a study of the handicapped (e.g., exact nature of the disability, history of intervention) were unavailable.

More critical is the problem of identification of the participants. Even when made by trained clinicians, such determinations can be very difficult. This might be especially true with the categories of speech disorder and learning disability, which depend so greatly upon judgment and inference (Epps, Ysseldyke, & McGue, 1984; Davis & Shepard, 1983; Shepard & Smith, 1983; Plisko & Owings, 1982). Often, the individual rubrics are all- encompassing, enclosing wide ranges of manifestations and behavior, and definitions can be quite fluid (Kauffman, 1982; Reid, 1988). Thus, the fact that the present data depended upon subjects’ self-identification may have exacerbated the difficulty in this area. However, it is reassuring that in general the prevalences of reported handicaps here and those offered in the literature seem consistent (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983; Mercer, 1983; Myers & Hammill, 1982; Tucker, Stevens, & Ysseldyke, 1983).

Another concern centers on numbers. Statistical and practical or theoretical significance are obviously not the same. Given the large ns, one would expect to find a variety of statistically significant differences. However, the noted significant differences - especially in terms of the three language groups - were overwhelmingly unidirectional. Cumulatively, therefore, the results appear of practical and theoretical import. Moreover, since far more comparisons were significant than would be expected by chance, the exploitation of chance due to testing multiple hypotheses is minimal.

Finally, the analyses dealt with group means. While the unidirectional and negative nature of the findings regarding hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled seniors must be acknowledged, it must also be remembered that a number of individual students so labelled are most likely faring quite well in school and in life and are not plagued by the personal and school-related problems delineated in this report.

With these caveats in mind, it is hoped that these data have been informative to the reader interested in transition issues. In particular it is hoped that they might suggest some future directions for research. On a general level, for example, the suppressed tested academic achievement among the language-related categories - hearing impaired, speech disordered, and learning disabled - clearly warrants further investigation.

498 THOMAS E. ALLEN

References

Ambert, A. (1986). Identifying language disorders in Spanish-speakers. In A. Willig 6i H. Greenberg (Eds.), Bilingualism and learning disabilities: Policy and practice for teachers and administrators (pp. 15-33). New York: American Library Publishing Company.

Andolina, C. (1980). Syntactic maturity and vocabulary richness for learning disabled children at four age levels. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13,372-377.

Bernal, E. (1983). Trends in bilingual special education. Learning Disability Qunrferly, 6,424431. Brosnan. F. (1983). Overrepresentation of low-socioeconomic students in special education programs in

California. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 517-525. Bryan, T.. Donahue. M.. & Pearl, R. (1981). Learning disabled children’s peer interactions during a small group

problem-solving task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4. 13-22. Coleman, J., Hoffer, T.. & Kilgore, E. (1982). High school achievemenft Public, Catholic, and private schools

compared. New York: Basic Books. Davis, W.. & Shepard, L. (1983). Specialists’ use of tests and clinical judgment in the diagnosis of learning

disabilities. Learning Disabilify Quarterly, 6. 128138. DeFilippis, N., & Derby, R. (1980). Application of predictive measures of reading disability in a culturally

disadvantaged sample. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13.456458. Englert, C.. & Palinscar, A. (1988). The reading process. In D. Reid (Ed.), Teaching the learning disabled: A

cognitive developmental approach (pp. 162-189). Needham. MA: Allyn and Bacon. Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J., & McGue, M. (1984). “I know one when I see one” -Differentiating LD and non-LD

students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89-101, Fein, D. (1983). The prevalence of speech and language impairments. ASHA, 25.37. Friel-Patti. S., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1988). Intervention tactics for learning disabled children with oral

language impairments. In D. Reid (Ed.), Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach (pp. 14f!-161). Needham, MA; Allyn and Bacon.

Fradd, S., & Hallman, C. (1983). Implications of psychological and educational research for assessment and instruction of culturally and linguistically different students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 468478.

Hardman, M., Drew, C.. & Egan, M. (1987). Human exceptionalify: Society. school. andfamily. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Houck. C. (1984). Learning disabilities: Undersfanding concepts, characteristics. und issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keilitz, I., Zaremba, B., & Broder, P. (1979). The link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency: Some issues and answers. Learning Disabilify Quarterly, 2(2), 2-1 I.

Kirk, S.. & Gallagher, J. (1983). Educafingexcepprional children (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Knoblock, P. (1987). Integrating areas of development: Implications for socioemotional development. In P.

Knoblock (Ed.), Understanding exceptional children and youth. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Assessment: Considerations upon interpreting data of linguistically/culturally

different students referred for disabilities or disorder. In A. Will& & H. Greenberg (Eds.), Bilingualism and learning disabilities: Policy and pracfice for teachers and administrators (pp. 69-77). New York: American Library Publishing Company.

Ortiz, A., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Reducing inappropriate referrals of language minority students in special education. In A. Willig & H. Greenberg (Eds.), Bilingualism and learning disabilities: Policy and practice for reachers and adminisfrafors (pp. 37-50). New York: American Library Publishing Company.

Page, E., & Keith, T. (1981). Effects of U.S. private schools: A technical analysis of two recent claims. Educational Researcher, 10,7-17.

Peng, S., Fetters, W., & Kolstad, A. (1981). High school and beyond: A national longitudinalstudyforfhe 1480’s -A capsule description ofhigh schoolsfudenfs. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Peng, S., Owings, J., & Fetters, W. (1982). Effecfive high schools: What are their attributes? Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Plisko, V., & Owings, J. (1982). Defining, counting, and choracferizing handicapped students in the nation’s high schools. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 223 036).

Pullis, M. (1988). Affective and motivational aspects of learning disabilities. In D. Reid (Ed.), Teuching /he learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach (pp. 77-96). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Reid, D. (1988). Learning and learning to learn. In D. Reid (Ed.), Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach (pp. S-28). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Scholl, H. (1981). Language disorders related to learning disabilities. In J. Gottlieb & S. Strichart (Eds.), Developmenfal theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 130-168). Baltimore: University Park Press,

Schramm, W. (1976). Television and the test scores. Appendix to On furfher examination: Reporf of the advisory panel on (he Scholasfic Aptitude Test score decline. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado, Learning Disabilify Quarferly, 6. 115-127.

Handicapped Youth and their Schooling 499

Smith. A., & Brewer, L. (1983). Linguistic analysis of the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test and the appropriateness of its use with Black-English speaking children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6,513-516.

Tucker, J. (1980. Ethnic proportions in classes of the learning disabled: Issues in nonbiased assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 14,9>105.

Tucker, J., Stevens, L., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Learning disabilities: The expertsspeak out. JourmdofLearning Disabilities, 16, 6-14.

Walberg, H. (1982). What makes schooling effective? An analysis and critique of three national studies. Conremporary Education Review, 1,102-120.

Williams, P., Haertel, E., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1982). The impact of leisure-time television on school learning: A research synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 19-50.

Willig, A. (1986). Special education and the culturally and linguistically different child: An overview of issues and challenges. In A. Willig and H. Greenberg (Eds.), Bilingualism and learning disabilities: Poficy andpractice for reachers and adminisrrutors (pp. 191-209). New York: American Library Publishing Company.

Walk, S., Karchmer, M., & Schildroth, A. (1982). Purrerns of academic and nonacademic integration among hearing impaired srudenrs in special education (Series R, No. 9). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Wright, P., & Santa Cruz, R. (1983). Ethnic composition of special education programs in California. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 387-394.

Biographies

James F. Gregory received his doctorate from Harvard University (Reading and Human Development, 1981). He has published numerous research articles and essays in scholarly journals and has presented papers at various researcher/practitioner conferences. Dr Gregory has teaching certification in special education (hearing impaired), reading, foreign language instruction, and English-as-a-second-language, and he has approximately 15 years of teaching background both overseas and in the U.S. at the elementary, secondary, and university levels. For the last seven years, Dr Gregory has been a teacher trainer, and he currently teaches methods courses in special education, reading, and English-as-a-second-language at St. John’s University.

Timothy Shanahan is an Associate Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His research interests emphasize the relationships of learning to read and learning to write, literacy assessment, and children’s use of literacy. He is associate editor of The Journal of Reading Behavior and author of Understanding Research in Reading and Writing (Allyn & Bacon, 1985).

Herbert J. Walberg was awarded a Ph.D. degree in educational psychology by the University of Chicago. After teaching at Harvard University, he was appointed Research Professor in education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and now chairs the editorial board of this journal. He has written or edited 35 books and authored over 300 articles on such subjects as educational productivity, teacher effectiveness, and the development of talent. Frequent advisor to the U.S. Department of Education and foreign ministries of education, he has also testified before the United States Congress on educational policy.