Pl 94–142
A response to Vernon
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11637979 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Naomi Feldman, Naomi E Feldman (0000-0001-7053-9683, Vanderbilt University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1982 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 112-117 |
| Publication date | 1982-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Peabody Journal of Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0161-956X • E-ISSN: 1532-7930 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01619568209538361 |
| OpenAlex | W2021551229 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 4 |
Inevitably a law as important, pervasive, and radical as the Education of All Handicapped Act of 1975 (PL 94-142) provokes wide controversy and debate. Considering that PL 94-142 is critical to effective education of handicapped children, it is important that we conduct this debate in a reasonable and unsensational manner. In the case of PL 94-142, considered debate should include thoughtful presentation and interpretation of the basic concepts of the Act. Careful and considered objections should not include incomplete or misleading interpretations of the law's features or emotionally charged sensational rhetoric. Some of Veron's (1981) objections to PL 94-142 reflect realistic and sincere disagreements with the manner in which services are provided to handicapped children through PL 94-142. The arguments presented concerning such issues as constitutionality, excessive federal control, cost benefit, and least restrictive alternative are incomplete, however, and occasionally mislead. This paper presents other possible interpretations of issues raised by Vernon
Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Pasture and Agricultural Systems · Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |