JAASEP SPRING/SUMMER 2006 Part 1 of 7
All series
- ADHD Series
- Assessment in Special Education Series
- Autism Spectrum Disorders Series
- Bullying of Children
- Classroom Management Series
- Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders Series
- Discipline of Students in Special Education Series
- Early Intervention Series
- Genetics in Special Education Series
- How To Series
- IEP Components
- Inclusion Series
- JAASEP – Research Based Journal in Special Education
- LD Report
- Lesser Known Disorders
- NASET News Alert
- NASET Q & A Corner
- NASET Survival Guides
- Parent Teacher Conference Handouts
- Resolving Disputes with Parents Series
- RTI Roundtable
- Severe Disabilities Series
- Special Education: What Do the Latest Numbers Tell Us?
- Special Educator e-Journal – Latest and Archived Issues
- The Practical Teacher
- Treatment and Support for IEP Students with Disabilities
- Working with Paraprofessionals in Your School
Abstract
Researchers have long been disconcerted with the lack of a clear definition and objective criteria in identifying students with behavior problems (Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, 1999; Forness & Kavale, 2000). As a safeguard, federal and state laws mandate the use of multidisciplinary teams to reduce the inappropriate and discriminatory referral and placement of students into special education (Knotek, 2003, p. 2). It is this team that makes the decisions throughout the formal identification process; no single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining whether a student is a student with an exceptionality (Louisiana Department of Education, 2000, p. 23). However, the safeguard is not fail-safe. Tensions may arise when there are opposing viewpoints, divergent interpretations of events or circumstances, and, in particular, competing philosophical orientations among team members.