2019•Unpublished venueRequires access

The Federal Programs for Education of the Handicapped

Nancy G. Deck

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The assertion of federal leadership in expanding educational opportunities for the handicapped began modestly in the 1950s. Although federal appropriations had increased significantly during the Nixon years, the fund represented a fraction of the total investment that would have been required to provide every handicapped child a public education. Education for the Handicapped (BEH) has observed progressive improvements in later General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on education for the handicapped. In the view of BEH, evaluations should be performed by professionals possessing specialized knowledge of educational programs and expertise in behavioral science methodologies. The rationale for training generalists was that good auditing standards and practices equipped the staff to evaluate the results of any federal program. The GAO&s;s evaluation procedures characteristically call for preliminary reviews of federal activities to ascertain whether the programs warrant further resource investment for more detailed, in-depth reviews.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The assertion of federal leadership in expanding educational opportunities for the handicapped began modestly in the 1950s. Although federal appropriations had increased significantly during the Nixon years, the fund represented a fraction of the total investment that would have been required to provide every handicapped child a public education. Education for the Handicapped (BEH) has observed progressive improvements in later General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on education for the handicapped. In the view of BEH, evaluations should be performed by professionals possessing specialized knowledge of educational programs and expertise in behavioral science methodologies. The rationale for training generalists was that good auditing standards and practices equipped the staff to evaluate the results of any federal program. The GAO&s;s evaluation procedures characteristically call for preliminary reviews of federal activities to ascertain whether the programs warrant further resource investment for more detailed, in-depth reviews.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The assertion of federal leadership in expanding educational opportunities for the handicapped began modestly in the 1950s. Although federal appropriations had increased significantly during the Nixon years, the fund represented a fraction of the total investment that would have been required to provide every handicapped child a public education. Education for the Handicapped (BEH) has observed progressive improvements in later General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on education for the handicapped. In the view of BEH, evaluations should be performed by professionals possessing specialized knowledge of educational programs and expertise in behavioral science methodologies. The rationale for training generalists was that good auditing standards and practices equipped the staff to evaluate the results of any federal program. The GAO&s;s evaluation procedures characteristically call for preliminary reviews of federal activities to ascertain whether the programs warrant further resource investment for more detailed, in-depth reviews.

Key concepts: Special education, Mathematics education, Political science, Computer science, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Federal Programs for Education of the Handicapped — Research Paper | ScholarLens