Validity of psychologists' identification of EMR students in the perspective of the California decertification experience

Abstract

The Diana (Diana v. State Board of Education, Note 1) and the Larry P. ( Larry P. v. Riles, Note 2) litigations led to decertification of thousands of California EMR students and their return to the regular program. Allegations, including those of biased testing, went largely uncontested in order that change in special education could result from court mandate, but the allegations left the psychologists in a libeled state. A study of cumulative records and psychologists files in 12 representative districts permitted a comparison of the EMR placement of those later decertified (D) with matched nondecertified (EMR). Other than a small mean difference in IQ at placement, nothing was found to support various allegations. Records showed no systematic differences betweeen D and EMR groups in pre-EMR reasons for referral nor in teacher marks, discnfirming beliefs in referral of higher functioning students for deportment rather than for academic failure. Districts permitted a mean of at least two years in regular placement before assessment, attesting to class failure rather than IQ as the initial and necessary basis for EMR identification (no D-EMR difference in this either). The data permit a conclusion that the work of the school psychologists in the EMR placement was professionally competent, given the guidelines in effect at the time.