The authors argue that incentives in the public schools inhibit the utilization of the best instructional technologies for special education students. Incentives in the public schools are Contrasted with incentives in business while discussing several issues, including family choice, mainstreaming, the use of instructional technologies such as mediated instruction, and the types of changes that public schools have incentives to accept. The solution to the problem of applying desirable technology in public education is to have a new incentive structure for the public schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChinR.BenneK.D.General strategies for effective changes in human systems. In BennisW.G.BenneK.D.ChinRCoreyK.E. (Eds.). The Planning of Change. 3rd Ed., New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976.
2.
CohenD.K.Reforming school politics. Howard Educational Review, November 1978, 48, 431.
3.
CoughlinA.V.Jr.Technology of school practice: Implications for evaluation. Social Work in Education, April 1980, 2, 27–37.
4.
FlygareT. J.Recent court decisions could greatly increase cost for special education programs. Phi Delta Kappan, November 1980, 62, 210–211.
5.
GallantC.B.New use of skills for public law 94–142. Social Work in Education, October 1978, 1, 29–37.
6.
GerberE.R.Jr.LockeD.C.Multimodel education: A model with promise. Phi Delta Kappan, November 1980, 62, 214–215.
7.
GuberE.G.SnyderC.A.Instructional television for the classroom teacher. AV Communications Review, 1965, 13.
8.
HeinichR.Technology and the management of instruction, Monograph 4 for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Washington, D.C.: National Educational Association, 1970.
9.
KaufmanB.Son rise. New York: Warner Books, 1976.
10.
KotinL.EagerN.B.Due process in special education: A legal analysis. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Research Institute for Educational Problems. Inc., 1977, 24.
11.
LaNoueG.R.Educational vouchers: Concepts and controversies. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972, 142.
12.
LindelowJ.Educational vouchers, Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1980, 48–49.
13.
McDermottE.J.Family Choice in Education. America. November 1979, 141, 250–251.
14.
Newfront: Chicago abandons IQ test for placement in special education classes. Phi Delta Kappan. September 1981, 63, 4.
15.
PincusJ.Incentives for innovation in the public schools, Review of Educational Research, Winter 1974, 44, 129.
16.
PophamJ.LindheimE.Implications of a landmark ruling on Florida's minimum competency test. Phi Delta Kappan. September 1981, 63, 18–19.
17.
PullinD.Minimum competency testing and the demand for accountability. Phi Delta Kappan. September 1981, 63, 20–22.
18.
SeldonD.McFarlandS.Testimony on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association before the House Committee on Education and Labor. Washington. D.C.: April 2, 1971.
19.
StroudM.B.Do students sink or swim in the mainstream?Phi Delta Kappan. December, 1978, 316.
20.
VeblinT.The engineers and the price systems: Reprint of 1921 edition. New York: A.M. Kelley, 1965.
21.
WeatherleyR.PL 94–142: Social work's role in local implementation, in AndersonR.J.FreemanM.EdwardsR.L., School social work and PL 94–142: The education for all handicapped children act. Washington. D.C.: National Association of Social Workers, 1977, 11.
