Ensuring Content‐Area Learning by Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities

Three factors tied with secondary student success in content‐area reading are demonstrated: (a) validated teacher‐focused and student‐focused interventions, (b) integrated and comprehensive service delivery systems, and (c) well‐designed, data‐based professional developmental programs. Difficult challenges face secondary students with LD and their teachers with regard to these students’ participation and success in required general education classes. Recently, instructional methods and materials have been developed and validated for promoting these students’ success. Some of them focus on how general education teachers plan and teach their content‐area courses; others focus on giving students the strategies they need to respond independently to the demands of their courses. This article describes these instructional methods, a service‐delivery model for implementing these interventions in secondary schools, and professional‐development mechanisms and administrative support that must be in place for the model to be maintained effectively.     

Toward a Programmatic Pragmatism: A Response to Naoko Saito

Naoko Saito has made a good case for emphasising the 'tragic' dimension within Dewey's pragmatism. My response suggests ways in which Saito has not gone far enough. She does not adequately move beyond 'procedural pragmatism' to a 'programmatic pragmatism' which offers substantive articulations about the human good. In addition, her emphasis on 'Emersonian perfectionism' is misguided. Both the language of 'perfectionism' and the figure of Emerson are unsuitable for the project she intends. Speaking more concretely of a 'tragic–comic meliorism' allied to the novelist Hawthorne, it is suggested, provides a more fruitful path.     

Legal Defensibility of Standards: Issues and Policy Perspectives

What legal issues may arise in setting content or performance standards? What precedents are relevant? What practices are defensible?     

A nation at risk: The economic consequences of neglecting career development

Conclusion Computer-based career systems should be the focal point of popular, and effective career development initiatives which are of tremendous benefit to individuals. Such initiatives also have the potential to significantly reduce public expenditures and enhance the nation's competitive position internationally. The key lies in helping people understand that we can no longer afford to neglect the career development needs of Americans.I am most grateful for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you. I encourage you to promote the use of computer-based career systems by defining their benefits in economic terms. However, be sure you can prove your system does more than simply entertain its users, or leave them with extensive computer printouts.Phillip S. Jarvis is Manager, Careerware Research and Product Design, STM Systems Corp., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and the author of CHOICES. This is the text of a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Association of Computer-Based Systems for Career Information ((ACSCI) in St. Louis, Missouri on December 2, 1988.     

A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe'; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 +/- 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe'; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 +/- 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 +/- 18 N, recreational 251 +/- 14 N, non-climbers 256 +/- 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 +/- 14 N, recreational 248 +/- 12 N, non-climbers 243 +/- 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 +/- 12 N, recreational 289 +/- 10 N, non-climbers 307 +/- 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.