CALIFOHNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
EDUCATIONAL
CHAR.ACT:ERIS'l'ICS O:F CHILDREN ADOPTED
,,
T}ffiOUGH A PUBLIC AGENCY:
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF
LEARNEfG DISABILI"f'IES
A graduate project Sllbmitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Education
with a specialization in
Learning- Read:Lng Disorders
Department of Special and Hehabilitative Education
by
Susan CAsey D'Amico
and
Barbara Walas Kornblau
!
~
.
i
.January, 1974
r. · - · · -· - - -·- ·"· ·- - - - · - -. - . -·-· - - - - ·. . . - . . . . . . - -· · - . . -· .-.. . . . -··- - - -·- - . .- ·- · - ·- -·- · ·- · ·- . . ·-"·-· - -
··-~
I
i
I
I
j
l
l
l
The graduate project of Susan Casey D'Amico and
Barbara Wolas Kornblau ts approved:
California State University, Northridge
January, 1974
ii
· - - - - - ... <- - - - - - - - - - - " ' " ' " " " ' " " · - - - - - - - - · - · · - - - - - - - • - - - -
-------------·--------~
•••• - - • • -
.... ---------------.
- - . . . . ________________ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - · - - - - - - - - -
'l
I
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LENORE K. CAMPBELL
Deputy Director
MOLLY GINYARD
District Director
San Fernando Valley District Office
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF ADOPTIONS
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Page
..
I ACKNOWLEDGMENT •
I LIST OF TABLES •
iii
v
I
I ABSTRACT.
• vii
I Chapter
I
I
Introduction.
•
Statement of the Problem.
Review of Pertinent Literature.
Importance of the Study .
Definitions and Limitations
Hypothesis.
Summary
II
•
1
..
IV
14
14
15
17
Findings.
33
Discussion.
Study Procedures.
•
Sample Subjects .
Implications for Further Study.
Summary . .
REFERENCES •
2
6
7
13
13
14
Method.
Subjects.
Instrument.
Procedures.
III
1
..
33
34
37
38
39
... ..
APPENDICES.
iv
42
r---··---·----·------·-·· . ------··--· ----·---·-· ......... ---- ·----··-····-···· -······--
LIST OF TABLES
1
i Table
I
I
~
Page
18
Type of School Setting at First Entry . • .
..
. . . .. .
.....
Present School Grades of Adoptive Children
19
3
Most Successful School Subjects of
Adoptive Children. • . . . . . . • .
20
4
Least Successful School Subjects of
Adoptive Children . . . . . . . . .
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
School Grades Repeated by Adoptive
Children . . . . . . • . . . . . .
School Grades Skipped or Accelerated
by Adoptive Children .
. •.•.
Learning Disability (Strauss Syndrome)
Char act erist ics of Adoptive Children
1
21
22
....
....
23
24
Adoptive Children in Forms of Special
Education in Public and Private Schools.
25
Adoptive Children in Educationally
Handicapped Programs . . . . • . • . • • • •
26
Adoptive Children in Educational
Therapy Programs . . . . . . • .
....
26
School Grades of Adoptive Children in
Educationally Handicapped Programs
in Public Schools • . . . . . . .
....
27'
School Grades of Adoptive Children in
Educationally Handicapped Programs
in Private Schools . . . . . . • . .
School Grades of Adoptive Children in
Learning Disability Programs in
Public Schools • . • . . . . . •
28
•.
...
School Grades of Adoptive Children in
Learning Disability Programs in Private
Schools or Learning Disability Clinics .
v
..
29'
30
Page
15
16
School Grades of Adoptive Children in
Gifted Programs in Public Schools . .
31
Comparison of Total School District
Population with Sample Population
within the Geographic Study Area •
32
vi
.., ..
ABSTRACT
EDUC~fiONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN ADOPTED
THROUGH A PUBLIC AGENCY:
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF
LEARNING DISABILITIES
by
Susan Casey D'Amico
and
Barbara Wolas Kornblau
Master of Arts in Education
!
January, 1974
The purpose of this study was to analyze the entire
range of educational characteristics in a specific group
of adoptive children adopted through a public agency.
Limited clinical research studies reported approximately
four times as many adoptive children with learning disabilities as one would expect to find in the population at
large.
In this study, particular attention was given to
the learning disabilities evidenced by the sample population.
Educational and behavioral characteristics of the
!
sample children were obtained by means of questionnaires
answered by parents of adoptive children adopted through
a public agency in the years 1964, 1965, and 1966.
were analyzed and tabulated.
vi.i
Data were significant
Data
l
jregarding the categories gifted,
e~ucat.io-1laiiy""b.andi=·---·------·-1
I
i
;capped, educational therapy, and Strauss Syndrome characi
I
! t erist ics.
Findings indicate 1.4 times more gifted chill
)dren and 3.5 times more educationally handicapped children
I in the sample population than in
l the geographic area under study.
!
i
i
I
the general population of
It was concluded that the findings substantiated
I
'the limited empirical data regarding the educational
characteristics of adoptive children.
In addition, find-
ings of the study provided data not included in previous
clinical research.
Data reveals that further studies
relating to the educational and behavioral characteristics
of adoptive children are indicated.
viii
~-----
------------- ----------
---·--··-----·---·-···~-----·~·--------·-·-·-·-·-
..·--··1
!
j
i
CHAPTER I
lI
l
I
Introduction
Recent clinical investigations have presented data
,!
revealing the disproportionately high incidence of adop-
1·'
1
tive children with learning disabilities relative to the
I general
population of school children.
Clinical
researchers have constantly stated an inability to draw
conclusions regarding findings due to lack of information
from public and private agencies.
i
Information for this study was obtained from
parents of a specific group of children adopted through a
I public
agency.
Whereas prior research studies general-
ized their findings from a specific learning disabled popI
ulation, this descriptive research project utilized a
I general
I
adoptive population and drew specific conclusions
regarding the e11tire range of educational characterist:i.cs.
Statement of the Problem
!
The purpose of this study was to determine the
educational characteristics of children adopted through
a specific adoption agency with particular reference to
the epidemiology of learning disabilities.
This descrip-
i tive research project studied the entire range of
L. . .--..-.. . . . -.. . . . . . . . . . . . .-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. -.. . . . . . . . . .
1
I
I
!
2
r·--------------------. ·------- --..
!educational characteristics in a specific group of
---------~----------------------~--
·-~-------------~----'"----
------,
(
'
I
!adoptive children adopted through the same public agency.
I
!This study differed from previously reported clinical
!
!research in that the latter used an identified learning!
/disabled population.
i
I
Subgroups displaying the presence or absence of
j given conditions (e$g., learning disabilities, special
I
j
educational programs, gifted or behavioral characteris-
j
! tics) were specified and their identifying characteristics
I
.
I were determined~
The incidence of specific conditions
existing in the sample population of adoptive children was
I recorded and related to the educational characteristics
of the nonadaptive school population in the same geographic location.
II Review of Pertinent
I
I
I
Literature
Literature pertinent to learning-disabled adoptive
children is extremely limited.
I Baldwin,
i
'
In vest igat ions by Kenny,
and Mackie (1967), Silver (1970), and Saltzman
(1972) revealed a disproport:ionately high incidence of
adoptive children with
lea1~ing
disabilities and these
studies constituted the extent of available research.
Their findings indicated that there were approximately
four times as many adoptive children with learning dis-
abilities than one would expect to find in a normal
population.
r-~~--------
....
---~············-····---····--
.
Kenny, Baldwin) and Mackte found, in a review of
1
!12 years
of case records of children in their Clinic for
!
!Exceptional Children, Department of Pediatrics, University
!
l of Maryland School of Medicine,
I1 tive children in their clinical
,_!
!
injured subjects.
a high incidence of adop-.
sample of minimal brain-
As a result of this information,
researchers assembled 1,000 records of children selected
at random from files of patients who paid full clinic
fees.
Thirty-nine were found to be adoptive children.
According to census figures for the State of Maryland,
the researchers expected to find approximately 10 adopt lve
children in a random sample of 1,000 children; however,
they found four times the expected number.
In no case
were there symptoms evident which related to known brain
/trauma arising from mechanical injury or viral attack that
j. occurred after adoption.
I
Further, all the children had
received complete physical examinations before adoption
and no abnormalities were found.
Kenny, Baldwin, and Mackie concluded that circum...
stances of prenatal life, birth and early neonatal life
before adoption, probably contributed to the minimal
Il
1
i
I
brain-injury of these children.
However, the researchers
recognized that due to lack of information regarding the
children prior to adoption they based their conclusions
on logical rather than empirical evidence.
4
r···----"---·------·
............. ·-" --·- .... ··----------- ....... ............ ......._ . -"·
---- .............................
1
_ Silver studied family characteristics of 560 chil-~-------'-
l
I dren with a neurological learning disability syndrome.
In
I
I collecting
the data, frequency of adoption in the sample
~'i was noted.
Silver subsequently designed a study specif-
I
'Ii
ically to document the frequency of adoption and to
explore the possible explanations for any dtsproportionate
i
.
! frequency through the examination of preadoption histories
I
I including
I Adoption
information on the parents and the pregnancy.
agency policies prevented the collection of data
II
I
I necessary
I
I for
to explore fully the latter issues of the study.
Silver's study was conducted at the Willis School
Educational Therapy, Plainfield, New Jersey which had
a program for children with the neurological learning dis.I
1
ability syndrome.
For a child to have qualified for the
I full day academic program, he must have been at least of
I average
i
j
l
neurologically-based learning and/or language disabilities.
j. were
!
l1
intelligence and, on testing, shown evidence of
The sample consisted of 80 children, 10 of whom
adopted.
Based on the United States Bureau of the Census
national statistics for 1965, the national incidence of
adoption was one child for every 2(i live births.
On this
basis it was expected that three adoptive children would
be present in the random sample of 80 children.
Incidence
of adoption in these children with neurological learning
disability syndrome was more than three times the national
5
,........ - ----·-···--······-------·- ........................,... ··-·-· ····-··--· ---·-······ ---·---------·-· -- --·- -- ---·:--··· ... ·: ------ •... - ..................... ---.........--:---:·-----.,...... """'"'j
leA~ectation.
For New Jersey, the 1nc1dence of adopL1on
I
!I was one child for every 37 live births.
l sample
I
I find
of 80 children in New
JersE:~y,
Thus, in a
I
one would expect to
two adoptive children; however, the tncidence of
I adoption
I expected.
!
l
random :
in this study population was four times more than
i
II
I
~--
!
1
1
Several questions raised by the disproportionate
Ifindings
I of
were related to the possible effect on the child
certain pre-, peri-, and postnatal conditions.
Silver
was unable to draw conclusions on the significance of the
I1
I
I
!
findings due to unavailability of adoption agency records.
Further studies were suggested to provide more data on the
evidence of learning disabilities in adoptive children.
Saltzman described a minimal brain damaged (MBD)
population to determine the incidence of adoptiveness and
to identify related patterns.
Her population consisted of
30 percent (N=l30) of the children in a private school for
learning disorders in the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles
County.
Data were collected from the school's case study
files for the years 1967 to 1971.
Of the 130 subjects, 76 were identified as MBD and
10 of these were adopted.
The incidence of adoptiveness
in the sample :MBD population was considerably higher than
expected; one of every 7.6 subjects was adopted.
In
1960, the census year best reflecting the age of the sub-
I
I
I jects, one of every 40 live births in the nation was
I
I
I
L.. ----···-·----------···------------------ ....... ----·---·--·-- ~---·--·--·-. .··----......_. _ _ ............... --------------·--------.. . - · ·----------------------·-- -------------------- ·-----...........J
..
6
l
~----····------·-·-
-- -··········--·----····--·-····--···- --~-------·----·------------· ··------· -·--··--··--·-..·------..-····--------·-····-------- ....~ .. ··--·--~-····---····l
adopted.
Therefore, according to Saltzman, there were
II
I over five times a.s many adoptive children in the MBD popu- ,
I'
I
I
i
i lation as one would expect to find in a normal population. '
I
I
I
Anoxia-producing prenatal complications were fre-
~~uent in the nonadoptive MBD group.
l
l
No prenatal informa-
ltion was available for the adoptive group.
I. recommended
Saltzman
that prenatal studies be made to determine
Iwhether anoxia-producing prenatal complications might
!
II
II
I
I
I account for the disproportionate number of adoptive chil-
l dren
among the neurologically handicapped.
She concluded
that further study was indicated, that hyperactivity
appeared to be more common among adoptive than nonadoptive
children, and that in a total learning-disordered popula·tion, those with MBD tended to have less discrepancy
between apparent ability and achievement.
1
Importance of the Study
Information derived from.the study provided
invaluable data for the public adoption agency utilized
in the study.
With the data provided on the incidence of
educational characteristics and learning disabilities,
the agency was in a position to expand its role in
counseling for natural parents regarding pre- and perinatal care.
Further, as a result of the information pro-
vided, the . agency could educate adopt ;i ve parents regarding !
probable educational characteristics involved in the
I adoption
L...... --.... . ·-····--·--· ·-·
of the specific child.
The agency would have an
7
assist adoptive parents in the early
identification of children with learning disabilities and
to aid them in finding available avenues for diagnosis and
correction.
Data would enable the agency to assist parents of
adoptive children with learning disabilities through postadoption counseling and by educating the parents as to the
need for approprtate educational experiences, special
educational techniques, and special learning and home
environments.
With :the information provided the agency could
institute measures for modification of existing legislation and/or existing agency policies regarding access to
files of adoptive children and their natural parents.
Provided with data, the agency could enable future
researchers access to the files to investigate etiology,
inherited genetic familial patterns, pre- and perinatal
factors, st i 11 insuring anonymity for natural and adop·.tive parents and adoptive children.
Definitions and Limitations
The scope of the study required careful definition
of terms and precise delineation of limitations.
Adoption.
Adoption was defined as the legal act
whereby the child of one set of parents becomes -che legal
child of another set of parents. . Adoption is not guardianship which, as defined by the California Probate, is
I
!. ..
8
fr~,~--·~·.• ·~••"''~'"''~~~·~
1 that
. •· -
,=~-, -·---·~ -·-~~--~·~·--~~ ·~·_,..,_.,.,,~~~- ''"-""··~-
~·~·-~•·•··
"' ·-~~.~·- •-· •
-•~~-- "'•-~· •-~--~••• ·~·~ .y•·.·-• -~·-- ~•·•~~ '••~-·~----~·~• ·--"'"•-•'-••·· ~-• •-·•~-
1
legal act whereby the superior court of the county in :
I
j
which a minor resides or is temporarily domiciled or in
!i which
a nonresident minor has estate, may appoint a guard-
;
I ian
for that minor's person and estate.
I
!may be related or nonrelated.
Icourt
I
The petitioner
The minor may petition the
if he is 14 years of age to secure a guardian.
Guardianship grants the guardian the right to:
(1) be responsible for the securing of a driver's license
i; by
the minor (as would be the case with natural and adop-
I tive
111
parents), (2) the right to consent to marriage by
the minor,
(3) the right to enter military service, and
1
I (4) the right for
I as appropriate.
the minor to enter school, college~ etc.
I
I
i
Adoption is not foster care which is the provision
,
for substitute parenting by a nonrelated person(s) as provided for in the foster care licensing code of the State
of California.
This is a service to the minor which does
not entail legal obligation or responsibility upon the
part of the foster parent(s) toward the minor.
The legal ,
obligation and responsibility for the minor remain vested
with the child placing agency or the placing parents.
Foster parenting is generally of two kinds:
(1)
short tenn care is that wherein the minor is returned to
the natural parents or is placed with foster parents
within a relatively short period of time and (2) long term
care is that wherein the minor may remain with foster
I
9
r.......... "···--··---"·-- ......................................................_
1parents for many years or until he reaches adulthood.
Public adoption agency.
The function of the Los
Educational characteristics.
school information:
This was defined as
success or lack of success in school
! subjects, accelerated or delayed performance in school,
II and
academic adjustment.
1
1
I abiliti::a:::::u::s:::::::::·we:: :::::e: ::
1
!
::::::n:i:~s-
tinguishing educational and behavioral characteristics
which inhibit their optimal functioning in a normal school
setting.
The learning disorders may be associated with
neurological dysfunction, minimal brain damage, and/or
emotional disturbance, but are not attributable to mental
retardation.
Behavioral characteristics of children
exhibiting Strauss Syndrome were defined as:
hyperactiv-
ity, increased motor activity disproportionate to the
stimulus; disorders of attention such as distractability,
short attention span; inappropriate behavior on mild
10
r::::~:::::~~:::~~::::::~::~::~:-::o:;b:::t:~n:::::::ent
I
I thinking;
specific learning defects particularly language
faults; and awkwardness and consistently poor motor performance.
Learning disabilities are also known as minimal
brain injury and minimal brain dysfunction.
Educationally
handicapp~
minors.
Minors who by
reason of marked learning or behavior disorders, or both,
could not benefit from the regular educational program,
required special educational programs authorized by the
state education·code.
Such learning or behavior disorders.
are associated with a neurological handicap or emotional
disturbance and are not attributable to mental retardation.
as determined by individual psychological examination,
were incapable of being educated efficiently and profitably through ordinary classroom instruction.
Mentally gifted minors.
Mentally gifted minors
I
were defined as students enrolled in public primary or
I
secondary schools in the State of California who demonstrated such general intellectual capacity as to place
them within the top 2 percent of all students having
achieved their school grade throughout the state, or who
otherwise were identified as having such general
11
intellectual capacity but fer reasons associated
cultural disadvantages has underachieved scholastically.
Speech disorders.
Minors with speech disorders or
defects were defined as students who may be admitted to
school for individual or small group instruction of four
pupils or less for the purpose of remedying such speech
disorders or defects.
Educational therapy.
Educational therapy was
defined as an individual participating in a public or
i
private educational program designed to diagnose, prescribe, and remediate learning disabilities.
Educational
therapy was to be tailored to the specific needs of the
particular child and was to be in addition to the normal
';
!
i
It.
i
I
daily classroom experience of the child.
_special day classes.
Educationally handicapped
pupils unable to function in a regular class were
assigned to a special day class.
The special day class
was maintained for not less than the minimum school day.
In this program, fundamental school subjects were
I emphasized as prescribed
·
I
by the State Board of Education.
Learning disability groups.
In this group, the
pupil remained in his regular class but was scheduled
for individual or small group instruction given by a
special teacher.
The pupil was provided special educa-
tion in conjunction with the regular program of instruction, enabling the pupil to participate effectively in
12
_. . . . . . . . _. . . . . . :··--··-··-.... _._................................ ·------· "-· .................... -., :
f. the total school program.
Physically handicapped minors.
Minors who by
reason of physical impairment could not receive the full
benefit of ordinary education facilities were considered
physically handicapped individuals.
Such minors included
the following as defined by the State Board of Education:
the deaf or hard of hearing; the blind or partiaily
sighted; orthopedic or health impaired; the aphasic; the
speech handicapped; other minors with physical illnesses
or physical conditions which made attendance in regular
day classes impossible or inadvisable; minors with
physical impairments so severe as to require instruction
in remedial physical education; and the multihandicapped.
·
Clinic.
Clinic was defined as a learning environ-
~ ment where a child receives educational assessment and
lI remediation by a learning disability specialist. InstrucI
i
tion was accomplished in a tutorial or small group situa-
Ij
tion.
Instructional programming was specifically planned
1· to remediate the learning disabilities of the particular
!
I
child.
Clinic environments were noted as present in
public schools; usually they are present in private set-
I tings.
The descriptive population under study was limited
to the total population of children adopted in 1964,
1965, and 1966 through a specific office of a public
adoption agency in a particular geographic location.
i
I
I
'-~-
13
r··
;;~:-~-~:~-~-~
-
~-··-----·~-
·-
~------
--·---·-· · --·--··-· · · · · · · · - ·--·- ·-··------··-·····--- ---· -----··--------·-·--·-····-· · ·- ·
-~--·-··- --~
As a descriptive study, this research project did
I
not lend itself to the gen€ration of an a priori statement'
of hypothesis •
I
.suminary
I
This s.tudy was designed to give information regard-:
i,.
ing the educational characteristics of children adopted
l
through a public agency with particular emphasis upon the
epidemiology of learning disabilities.
A thorough search
. of the literature provided little data directly related
to the research project.
Information based on previous
clinical research studies was found to be sparse.
The
findings of Kenny, Baldwin,and Mackie, Silver, and Saltz-
I
I
man regarding incidence of adoptiveness in learning disabled children were inconclusive.
Therefore, further
investigations necessitated approaching the problem within
I
the framework of a descriptive research design directed
toward adoptive children.
I!·
l
CHAPTER II
Method
i
I
The pu'rpose of this study was to provide data on
educational characteristics of a particular group of
adoptive children placed through a public agency.
The
study used a descriptive research technique to gather
necessary data.
Subjects
Initial contact was made with a public adoption
agency and the feasibility of the study was explored.
The agency was provided with the findings of previous
clinical researchers.
The agency reviewed the literature
i
1 and agency policy, and at a second meeting consented to
l
I
participate in the descriptive population research
I
project.
The researchers then developed the survey
I instrument.
I
!
i
Instrument
The survey instrument was a questionnaire (see
Appendix A) designed to provide school information and
educational characteristics of adoptive children.
The
survey requested information in the following areas:
14
I'
'
15
.............!
! the adoptive child's age (in whole months) when he first !
l
r•J·-~·-·· --~- ~~ ~·
~
·"""-·- .. --.-- -·-~--~-·-· "-~.
Il entered
.
-~ ---'"-~·--------
....... ··- ----..
.
~·--. -·~---
--·-·····.
····----·-····-------~-------
a formal school setting and the type of school
j setting at first entry; the adoptive child's present
il school grade and the satisfaction of the adoptive parents
I
! with
I
the child's school experience; a listtng of the
I school
I
! least
subjects in which the adoptive child was most and
.
successful; whether the child had repeated or had
'
;'
i been accelerated or skipped any grade; behavioral charac-
I'
i teristics manifesttng symptoms of learning disabilities
i
I (Strauss
Syndrome); and child's placement in any form of
I special education and
I attended this form of
,
ll
the total number of months child
special education.
Upon completion of the preliminary draft, a third
meeting wi.th the agency was held.
The descriptive popu-
)
'!lat ion research survey was presented, discussed, and
i·analyzed.
I the
I
survey.
Agency ideas for revi.sion were incorporated in
The introductory letter and the finalized
, questionnaire were presented to the agency for approval.
Iii'
i The researchers then proceeded with the printing of the
letter and quest i.onnaire.
Copies of the cover letter are
( found in Append ices B, C, and D.
i
Procedures
The researchers prepared 1290 surveys for mailing;
this included the entire adoptive population of children
placed through the County of Los Angeles, Department of
San Fernando Valley District Office for the
16
years 1964, 1965, and 1966.
Each survey was stamped with
a.n identification m.unber to enable the agency to retrieve
neeessary data at a future date.
The agency assumed the
responsibility of addressing, recording identification
numbers, and mailing the surveys to adoptive parents.
Thus, the anonymity of the adoptj_ve populat:i.on was
assured and a method for retrieving data wa.s provided.
The questionnaires were completed and returned to
the agency by the adoptive parents.
The agency acted as
a depository for the surveys, recording the identj_fication ·
number of each questionnaire returned again insuring
anonymity and a retrieval system for information.
The
surveys were then returned to the researchers and the data
were analyzed.
Data were treated in a straightforward
manner describing central tendencies and incidence percentages.
I
I
I
I.
!
Ij
I
l
I
I
r- - - - - ·-·- . . . . -----------·· · . . . -· ...... --.. . . . . . . - · - -·-· · . . . -.. - - . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . ·-----·-·--·--· - - ·
I
CHAPTER III
!indings
;
'
The purpose of this study was to survey educational:
characteristics of adoptive children through questionnaires completed by adoptive parents.
The number (N) of
questionnaires mailed via the agency was 1,290 which
included all children adopted through the County of Los
Angeles, Department of Adoptions, San Fernando Valley
District Office during the years 1964, 1965, and 1966.
Due to inability to locate the addressees, 403 (31.240%)
were returned to the agency.
The number of question-
naires that presumably reached the adoptive parents was
867 but only 373 (43.022%) were returned; 494 (56.978%)
questionnaires were not returned.
Three of the question-
1 naires were disregarded due to lack of clarity; 370
I'
1
. li
(42.675%) were deemed usable.
The number of adoptive parents who gave information:
I
I'
regarding age in whole months at first entry into a formal
school setting was 357 (96.486%); 13 (3.514%) adoptive
parents gave no information.
Data indicate that the
adoptive sample's mean (M) age at first entry into a
formal school setting was 50.033 months with a standard
17
18
of school setting at first entry.
The number of parents
who responded was 368 (99.460%); two (0.540%) parents dJd
not respond.
I
TABLE 1
!
I
Type of School Setting at First Entry
======================================================--School Setting
Number
Preschool (public or private)
223
60.270
Public School Kindergarten
122
32.973
17
04.595
Public School First Grade
2
0.541
Private School First Grade
3
0.811
Other (Military School)
1
0.270
No Responses
2
0.540
Private School Kindergarten
I
I
I
Percent
I
I
l
!
I
II
I
Table 2 describes the present school grades of the
sample, number, and percent.
There were 359 (97.028%)
who responded; 11 (2.972%) did not respond.
A total of 360 (97.297%) adoptive parents
responded to the question, "Are you satisfied, in general,
with your child's school experience?"
parents did not respond.
Ten (2.703%)
The findings indicate that 333
(90 .000%) were satisfied with their child's school
19
rn~ ·-~~-,·~--~-~<.·---~-----·-·- ~----~--~~·~-~--~·------~- ·---·~'
~><·•·-·-~---~~--
.....
,~~- ~-
.. ...... - ......
~
··-~--···
,; __
~--
TABLE 2
1
Present School Grades of Adoptive Children
=
School Grade
Number
Percent
Kindergarten
0
o.ooo
First
2
0.541
Second
113
30. 5·il
Third
144
38·. 919
92
24.865
Fifth
7
1.892
Sixth
1
0.270
11
2.972
Fourth
No responses
experience.
Twenty-five (6.756%) were dissatisfied with
their child's school experience.
Two (O .541%) parents
indicated both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with
their child's school experience.
Table 3 lists the frequency of selection and percent of the most successful school subjects of adoptive
children in the sample (N=370).
Parents were instructed
to indicate more than one subject if applicable.
Table 4 shows the frequency of selection and percent of the least successful school subjects of adoptive
children in the sample (N=370).
Parents
WE',
instructed
to indicate more than one subject if applicable.
i.
!
20
r
-~-~----···--
-.......,------ -----
.. ···---·--···-····--·····-·· --·-··- ..... -- . --····"- -····---- . - ...... -- ......... ···---- -.......
I
------------··-----~-----------
..--..... __1
I
I
!
II
TABLE 3
I
Most Successful School Subjects of Adoptive Children
======================~================================
School Subject
Frequency of
Selection
Percent
Arithmetic
211
57.027
Arts and Crafts
202
54.594
Language Skills
154
41.621
Music
146
39.459
Physical Education
205
55.405
Reading
250
67.567
Science
135
36.486
Social Studies
91
24.694
Other (Spelling, Printing,
Handwriting)
27
7.297
I
I
!
I
I
l
!
21
'"·------···----·-···-····-··· ·--··-···----·-··---- -···-·------........... ·---·-·--·-·--· ......- ---- .-···--· ...- ··-·-----·----------·-···------------·------------,
1
-·
•..
!
I
I
'
I
TABLE 4
I!-
I
Least Successful School Subjects of Adoptive Children
1
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
l
!
~======================================================!
Frequency of
Percent
School Subject
Selection
Arithmetic
88
23,783
Arts and Crafts
54
14,594
Language Skills
37
10,000
Music
43
11.622
Physical Education
35
9.459
Reading
63
17,027
Science
28
7,567
Social Studies
28
7,567
Other (Spelling, Printing,
Handwriting)
12
3.243
22
'----~-·--·-----------·---------~-----·-------···---··-
.. ·--···--j
Parents who responded to the question, "Has your
child repeated any grade?" totaled 367 (99 .199%).
(0.810%) parents did not respond.
·
Three
Findings indicate that
347 (94.550%) of the sample population had not repeated
any school grade; 20 (5.450%) had repeated a single grade
in school.
Table 5 describes the number and percent of
grades repeated in school by the sample.
TABLE 5
School Grades Repeated by Adoptive Children .
I
I
School Grade
I
I
I
II
l
Percent
Preschool
0
o.ooo
Kindergarten
5
1.362
First
6
1.635
Second
7
1.907
Third
1
0.273
Fourth
1
0.273
Fifth
0
0.000
Sixth
0
o.ooo
J
I
Number
I
I
!
i
)
I
!
'
The number of parents who responded to the question, "Has your child skipped or accelerated any grade?"
was 361 (97.568%).
to the question.
Nine (2.432%) parents did not respond
Findings indicate that 348 (96.399%)
had not skipped or accelerated any grade.
Thirteen
(3.601%) had skipped or accelerated a single grade in
23
r-~-~-h~-~-1-~-----~T~b-i;--6·--d~t-;.ii~----t b.~ -~~~b~~ -~~d-p-~-~~;nt of grades
l
skipped or accelerated by sample students.
TABLE 6
School Grades Skipped or Accelerated
by Adoptive Children
;
I
I
i
I
I
I
Table 7 shows the frequency of select ion and per1
cent of learning disability (Strauss Syndrome) character~
j'
ist~cs
of adoptive children in the sample population
I (N=370) •
Parents were instructed to indicate multiple
behavioral characteristics if applicable.
I
All parents (N=370) responded to the question,
"Has your child been placed in any form of special education (gifted, retarded, educational therapy, physically
handicapped, educationally handicapped, other) in either
public or private school?"
In the sample 293 (79.190%)
24
r···~~~------·-:-----
. . -- .- .. - - · . ---------------------- . . . . - - - TABLE 7
Learning Disability (Strauss Syndrome) Characteristics
of Adoptive Children
1
Characteristic
I
I
Frequency of
Selection
Percent
24
6.486
I Hearing impai.rments
11
2.972
Vision impairments
19
5.135
Faulty perception
30
8.108
Poor handwriting
34
9.189
Problems remembering
17
4.594
I Hyperactive behavior
36
9.729
/ Impatient behavior
44
11.891
/ Immature behavior
52
14.054
I
Difficulty in concentrating
67
18.108
Problems in understanding ideas
19
5.135
Poor coordination, clumsiness
14
3.783
0
o.ooo
17
4.594
4
1.081
10
2. 702
Excessive need for attentton
26
7.027
Excessive need for reassurance
31
8.378
Difficult to stimulate
10
2.702
6
1. ()21
I
J
Speech defects
.I
II
I
Lapses in consciousness
Excessive shyness or withdrawal
Tendency to destructive
behavior
I
! Untruthfulness
I
Chronic infractions of school
rules
25
,----·-·······--------·--· .......
··········(~::::~:d)
'1i
. . . -··--- -....... ------·-1
========================
Frequency of
Selection
Characteristic
Bizarre behavior
Other
Percent
4
1.081
17
4.594
had not been placed in any form of special education.
Seventy-seven (20.810%) children had been placed in some
form of special education.
The mean length of time in
whole months of the sample in special education was
12.432 (SD=ll.876).
Table 8 indicates the number and
percent of the sample population in each form of special
education.
TABLE 8
Adoptive Children in Forms of Special Education
in Public and Private Schools
Form of Special Education
Gifted
Number
Percent
37
10.000
0
o.ooo
31
8.378
Physically Handicapped
3
0.810
Speech
4
1.081
Other (Posture Therapy)
2
0.540
Retarded
Educationally Handicapped
and/or Educational Therapy
i
I
!i
26
.~
---·---·-·--_.... -... -..................... ·- ...........................
f
·
!
~:I percent
......-. ......
.-
-----.
.. .
.... . ... . ............... ..
Findings reported in Table 8 indicate that 8.378
of the sample population was in educationally
. handicapped (EH) programs and/or educational therapy (ET)
·programs.
~ programs
Ten (2.703%) of the sample students were in EH
in public and private schools.
Twenty·-one
(5.675%) of the sample population were receiving ET in
I
· public or private schools.
Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12
I
I
f
l
i
indicate the number, percent, and grade levels of children
in EH and ET programs.
TABLE 9
Adoptive Children in Educationally
Handicapped Programs
Number
School
Percent
Public
6
1.622
Private
4
1.081
TABLE 10
Adoptive Children in Educational
Therapy Programs
School
Public
Private (or Clinic)
Number
Percent
7
1.892
14
3.783
27
~-
· --·- . . ·-----· - - - -,. . - - -.
-~--. ~
.
-----~·
--·-·-··-.. .
·-~-l
l
l
!
i
I
i
I
I
TABLE 11
School Grades of Adoptive Children in Educationally
Handicapped Programs in Public Schoolsl
School Grade
!
I
Number
Percent
Kindergarten
0
0.000
First
0
o.ooo
Second
2
40.000
Third
1
20.000
Fourth
2
40.000
Fifth
0
Sixth
0
o.ooo
o.ooo
I
I
I
!
lI group.
I
I
I
I
1 sample consisted of six (1.622%) of the total
Five (83.333%) parents responded, one (16.667%)
did not.
!
28
_,~._,.
,__, • ._ __
><~-·.-··-•-•1~~
....
~--~,.-~- -~~··~·-,.~--
····-~~~-~· ""~··-~~~--·-,.•
u_,.~,.-
.. ...,.....~.V~•
•• ,
-... ·-- .......
----···-----~---------·---·····--···-··--···-··--·-"•--··!
i
!
I
I
I
I
TABLE 12
School Grades of Adoptive Children in Educationally
Handicapped Programs in Private Schoolsl
1 sample consisted of four (1.081%) of the total
group. Four {100%) parents responded.
j
i .
lI
I
29
r-~-·--·
1
..................----··-· ...........
............... __ ....... ...................... .....
.............. -- ..................._.............................................
It should be noted that the mean number of months ·
l of
~-----
participation of children in EH programs in public and
1 private schools was 8.000
(SD=5.771).
The mean number of
.!!
months of participation of children in EH programs in
public schools was 7.500 months (SD=6.131).
For children
in EH programs in private schools the mean number of
months of participation was 8.500 (SD=5.512).
I
I
Twenty-one (5.675%) of the 370 sample children were
enrolled in learning disability groups (ET) in publtc or
l
private schools.
I. and
Seven and 14 children attended public
private schools respectively.
detail these data.
TABLE 13
Tables 13 and 14
30
,----------__.·-------·· ---------··-·-· ---·---·------
I
-·-·---------------------------~----l
TABLE 14
School Grades of Adoptive Children in Learning
Disability Programs in Private Schools
or. Learning Disability Clinics
1
============~~====================================!
Number
School Grade
Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------1
Kindergarten
0
0.000
First
2
14.286
Second
2
14.286
Third
5
35.714
Fourth
5
35.714
Fifth
0
Sixth
0
o.ooo
o.ooo
l
I
I
________T_h_e__m_e_a-~n--n
___u_m_b_e_r__o_f__m_o_n_t--hs---o-f__p_a_r_t_i_c_i_p_a_t_i_o_n__o__
f ______ l
children in ET in public and private schools was 9.035
(SD=6.396).
Mean number of months of participation of
I
children in ET in public schools was 10.285 (SD=7.648).
I
Mean number of months of participation of children in ET
I
·in private schools and/or clinic environments was 7.785
l
(SD=5. 479) •
Parents who responded to the number of months of
participation of children in gifted programs totaled 36
(97.297%); one (2.703%) parent did not respond.
The mean
number of months of participation of children in gifted
programs was 14.571 (SD=ll.207).
I
•
given in Table 15.
Additional data are
t..... , ., ,.,.,. --· . . . . ~. . . . """' . . . . . . . . .-.. . . .,_.,,.. . .,_ ---····-··-------····-.----··"·----·--·-·. --.. ·--·--··--·-·----,
31
i --
I
~-~·
----- -·"- --· ------ ------·-···· - .. -·--·----·-
---·-~----- -------------~- -----·-----·-·~----------------1
I
TABLE 15
School Grades of Adoptive Children in Gifted
Programs j_n Public Schools
·
_II
.School Grade .
Number
Percent.
Kindergarten
0
First
0
o.ooo
o.ooo
Second
4
10.811
Third
18
48.648
Fourth
13
35.135
Fifth
1
2. 703
Sixth
0
0.000
No responses
1
2. 703
I
I
I
Table 16 compares the sample population in EH and
·gifted programs with the total school population, kindergarten through sixth, encompassing the same geographic
area as the study which was the San Fernando Valley,
school district areas I, J, K, and L of the Los Angeles
Unified School District.
1
In summary, considerable data were derived from the
.1
I descriptive
population survey instrument.
II educational
characteristics of children adopted through a
I.
1
II
Incidence and
public agency tended to support prior limited research
I studies available.
,
-
......................
1
l1
j
I
[____ _____ -- .............. ------- ..............
I'
____.. - -------- -------·-------------------···------------------------------- ....................................
1
_,)
32
TABLE 16
Comparison of Total School District Population
_with Sample Population within the
Geographic Study Areal
.
School District
Sample Population
Areas I,J,K,L
Special
N=370
(grades K-6) N=99 453
Education
EH
Gifted
'
Percent
Number
Percent
768
0.772
10
2.703
7,267
7.306
37
10.000
Number
1 Total enrollment of the entire Los Angeles Unified
School District, kindergarten through sixth grade was
324,691.
·
Total enrollment of mentally retarded children in
the entire Los Angeles Unified School District, kindergarten through sixth grade was 3,392 (1.044%).
Total enrollment of physically handicapped children in the entire Los Angeles Unified School District,
kindergarten through sixth grade was 2,791 (0.850%).
Total enrollment of children receiving speech
therapy in the entire Los Angeles Unified School Dj_strict,
kindergarten through sixth grade was 12,650 (3.896%).
l
Discussion
This
d~scriptive
study was one of the first
systematic efforts used to investigate the educational
characteristics of children adopted through a public
I agency.
Data provided the information necessary to
describe educational characteristics of the sample population of adoptive children.
previous clinical research.
Findings were supportive of
The authors found the find-
ings significant; however, due to limitations of the study
findings must be regarded as tentative.
Study Procedures
Access to data regarding sample students created
many problems for the investigators.
Well aware of the
limitations of a survey, the questionnaire, however, was
, the only feasible design available to the researchers.
The total number of questionnaires mailed was 1,290;
however 403 questionnaires were returned to the agency
because the addressees could not be located.
This
reduced the number of questionnaires to a possible 867.
Questionnaires completed by the adoptive parents and
returned to the agency were 373 (43.022%); three were not
33
_34
r·---,--·--·· ..............._.._________ .. __, .." ...-
----~--
.. ··-------------··----..
j usable for the study.
·-------·----~------------·-------·-····~-----·-------~------,-~
..
---~
N for the study was 370 ( 42. 675%) .
l
jThe questionnaires that were not returned totaled 494
I(56.978%).
Inferences were thus derived from approxi-
!mately one-half of the possible number of respondents.
l
Possible reasons for nonreturn of the questionnaires
j might have been:
(1) that the adoptive parents felt no
I problems
(2) that problems listed in the ques-
Itionnaire
I adoptive
I (4)
existed,
threatened the adoptive parents, (3) that
parents wanted no communication with the agency,
I
that questions asked were unclear, or (5) that adop-
I
Jtive parents were not interested in responding.
I
Limitations with respect to anonymity of parents
·I
!
prevented direct access to the adoptive child and adoptive parents thus limiting clarification.
1
I
Lack of direct
access to school records prevented determining the
1
[veracity of parents. The inability to perform diagnostic
I
1 tests on the adoptive sample population by qualified
l
I researchers
l
eliminated an important source of verified
I
data for the research project.
. -I
I Sample
Subjects
Thirty-seven (10%) of the sample population were
lI
l
identified as gifted minors as specified in the California i
j State Education Code..
Gifted children from the same geo-
1
l
j graphic population (areas I,J,K,L) were 7.306 percent of
!
!
I the
school population.
There were 1.368 times more gifted
I
!..~-~~-~-~-~-~-~---~-~---~-~~----~~:~-~-~----~~~-~--~-~-~--~-~:. . .~-~~~--~:-~----~:-~~~-------·- ,. - -·
--···-····-··!
35
..
------~·-······--·---·------·-·-----···· ·····--·····"'····---------------·-······-·-····-----------------------~------. --··-------------·-----------··-------~----,
I have expected to find.
I
Data suggest that further studies I'
are needed to determine what factors were present in pre-, .
! peri-,
and postnatal, and pre- and postadoption that con-
tributed to the larger proportion of adoptive children in
I
i
I
I
lI
the gifted child (mentally gifted minor) educational cate-1
gory.
There were no children in the sample population in
educational programs for the mentally retarded.
This may
I
[ well be a function of the fact that the adoption agency
/ did not knowingly place
! mental retardation.
any child that exhibited signs of
.
1
lI
There were three adoptive children in the sample
population in physically handicapped programs.
t
In the
I
i
II
absence of subdistrict statistics, data were not con-
i
sidered to have particular significance in relationship
I to
l
the sample populat i'on.
There were four children in the sample population
I who received speech therapy.
!
There was no particular
I
as:
comparative data were not available from the Los Angeles
!
I
I
.
Unified School District for the geographic subdistrict
I
1
areas under study.
The category "other" consisted of two sample chil-
I dren who
1
received posture therapy.
No data were available
from the Los Angeles Unified School District on the number:
l
of chi
0
1~=~ wh~- ~~::~v~~~~st-~:e ::~_r_a:y_._:i~e:~:~-~ -· ·
__
I
_ _]
36
.................. .... ·-·-····-···., -··· ··--····· .... ·- - .... -- .. -- -····-·······!significance was attached to this finding.
r··---~~------·-····---~~--"'--· ····-····--------····-·~· -~---·
~-
~-·
Significant findings appeared in the section of the
questionnaire concerned with incidence of the adoptive
Isample population
!
I data
in forms of special education,
Based on
from the Los Angeles Unified School District, areas
I
/
i
I,J,K, and L, one would have expected to find .772 percent
1
of the sample children to be enrolled in EH or equivalent
classes.
The number of children who attended EH or equiv-.
alent classes in the sample population in both public and
'
! private schools was 10.
I
I many
This represented 3.501 times as
children in this educational category for the sample
I
·j
population.
Data indicate that six children in the sample
I1 population
were enrolled in EH or equivalent classes in
I
1
, public schools. This was 2.101 times more in public
schools alone than was expected to be found in the school
age population at large.
The authors found 3.501 times the normal population in EH and equivalent classes .. Findings supported
I
1
investigations cited earlier in this study.
Silver
i reported three times, Kenny, Baldwin, and Mackie four
times, and Saltzman five times the normal population
exhibiting learning disabilities.
The number of adoptive children in the sample population enrolled in ET programs, exclusive of EH programs, for remediation of learning disabilities was 21.
Findings indicate that seven children were in ET programs
r···--·
-·--·---~
I in
..·----·--·····-····-·-· ..
~----·
............ .........................-.- .....
~
................ .
public schools and 14 in private schools.
No compara-
1
tive data were available from the school dtstrict, thus
the authors were unable to attach any significance to the
findings.
Estimates of the prevalence of children who exhibit
learning disabilities range from 1 to 30 percent of the
school population in the United States depending upon the
criteria used to determine the disabilities.
Most inves-
tigators' estimates on the incidence of children who
;
i
I exhibit
1·10
learning disabilities tend to range between 7 to
percent.
In this research project Strauss Syndrome
I characteristics
that appeared in at least 8 percent of
: the adoptive sample population were determined to be
significant.
Learning disability characteristics that
were present in at least 8 percent of the sample adoptive
population were:
faulty perception, poor handwriting,
hyperactive behavior, impatient behavior, immature
behavior, difficulty in concentrating, and excessive need
for reassurance.
_Implications for Further Study
Data strongly suggest that further studies are
indicated in the following areas:
1.
Epidemiological studies on adoptive children
adopted through other public and private agencies.
2.
Longitudinal studies on children in special
forms of education.
38
············· ....... - . .....
. ......................-..................................... ..
Ir·--e·•·. ·····-·-····-··-····
. 3..-...........Longitudinal
studies on children exhibiting
disability charactertstics.
I
4.
Etiology and pre-, peri-, and postnatal studies
on adoptive children exhibiting Strauss Syndrome characterist ics.
These studies would be of importance to adoption
agencies, adoptive parents, and adoptive children.
They
could contribute to early identification of adoptive children with learning disabilities (Strauss Syndrome) and
they could identify patterns of development in adoptive
children that could cause learning disabilities.
Summary
!
This descriptive research project revealed
II important
I adoptive
findings on the educational characteristics of
children particularly with reference to the
I epidemiology of learning disabilities. Significant
I incidences of adoptive children in forms of special
I education
were found,specifically the categories of
gifted, educationally handicapped, and educational
therapy.
Recommendations for further study were derived
from study data.
1
L.., .,
I
I
·I
I
REFERENCES
I
I!
I-
I
I
I
I
1
39
REFERENCES
D., Jacob, L., & Razavich, A.
Introduction to
research in education. New York: Hol-:r:-Rinehart
&-Wins-ton, 1972.
l
l Craig,
l
E. P~S. your not listening.
Barron, 1972.
New York:
Richard W.
I:Cruickshank,
W. The teacher of brain injured children.
-·---Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1966.
I
1
i
I Frierson,
E. , & Barbe, W. (Eds.) Educating children wi.t h
learning disabilities. New York: -xppleton~----Century-Crofts) 1967.
/
1
I
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. Handbook in research and
evaluation. San Diego: Knapp, 1971.
i
!
.
I
!
D., & Myklebust, H.
I Johnson,Educational
principles
I) Kenny,
1
l
Learning disabilities:
and practices. New York:
Grune & Stratton, 1967.
T., Baldwin, R., & Mackie, J.
Incidence of
minimal brain injury in adopted children. Child
Welfare, 1967, j6, · 24-29.
I Lerner, Houghton
J. Children with learning disabilities.
Mifflin, 1971.
Boston:
I
'
McCarthy, J., & McCarthy, J. Learning disabilities.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971.
l
lI
!
Money, J. Reading disability.
Hopkins Press, 196~t~-··
Baltimore:
The John
Myers, P., &Hammill, D. Methods for learning disorders.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969.
I
I Neff, H.
The child who ·wasn't retarded.
1973, 67, 20-23.
'
PTA Magazine,
Saltzman, L. The relationship between adoptiveness and
minimal brain dysfunction. Unpublished Master's
thesis, California State University, Northridge,
1972.
Silver, L. Frequency of adoption in chtldren with the
neurological learning disability syndrome. Journal
of Learning Disab1lities, 1970, 3, 11-14.
L ..
---··--·-40
-
41
f'..,.,.-n·•----~-.
"-'k
··•~---·-~---~-,-~···•~--··"-'""'"-
-•--~
• • - •-
-
•.. -. ·
•
State of California, California Statistical Abstract,
I
Sacramento, 1970.
1
I State
of California, Education Code . . Sacramento, 1971.
II
! Strauss, A., & Lehtinin, L. Psychopathology and education
j
of the. brain-injured child. New York: Grune &
I
Stratton, 1947.
I Tarnopol,
l
I
.
L. (Ed.) Learntng disabilities: Introduction
to education and medical management. Springfield,
Ill.: . Charles C. Thomas, 1969.
I
I Telford, c., & Sawrey, J. The exceptional individual.
(2nd ed.) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
II
I
I
I
i
I
I
I-
APPENDICES
f
i ,..
r
~- ~,
,
•. •
42
r. . - - - -·-·- · · -·- - - - - ·- . _
. . . . . . . . _- - ·- . . - - --- . . . .". . . . . . ---· - -·- - - - - - - APPENDIX A
CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD LEARNING SURVEY
School Information
1
Your adoptive child's age (in whole months) when he first
) entered a for~al school setting
l Type
l
I
!
---
of school setting at first entry:
Public or private nursery school (preschool)
Public school kindergarten
--Private kindergarten__~__-----Public school first grade
---Private school first grade
Other (specify)
----
I
,It
I
Your adoptive child's present school grade
----
Are you satisfied, in general, with your child's school
experience?
Yes
No
--~-
In the following list of school subjects, circle those in
which your child is most successful:
Arithmetic
Language Skills
Physical Education______
Science
Other (specify)
Art or Craft
Music
Reading
Social Studies
---
In the list above, place a check (x) beside the subjects
in which your child is LEAST successful.
Has your child repeated any grade?
Yes
----
If yes, which grade? (circle)
Nursery
Kindergarten
1
2
3
No
----
4
Has your child skipped or accelerated any grade?
Yes
No
----
If yes, which grade?
(circle)
Nursery
Kindergarten
1
2
3
4
Have any schools expressed concern to you for your child
regarding any of the following problems? (circle
which apply.)
43
I'I
l
I
1
44
r ..- . .
··"---·--·---·-···--····~
. '"......... -.. . . . --·-
····-~----
....
---~--
. . . . . . . ,. . . ·- ................. -
. . . . . . . ,. . . . . . .. _.....____. __. . . . . . . . .___________ .
·~
! Speech defects
Hearing impairments
impairment
Faulty perception
! Poor handwriting
Problems remembering
Hyperactive behavior
Impatient behavi_o_r__
! Immature behavior
Difficulty in concentrating
Problems in understanding ideas _____
Poor coordination, clumsiness_____
. Lapses in consciousness
I Excessive shyness or wi~t~h~d-r-awal____
j Tendency to destructive behavior____
1 Untruthfulness
l Excessive need~f-o-r-attention
I Excessive need for reassuran_c_e___
1 Difficult to stimulate
I Chronic infractions of __s_c~h-ool rules
I Bizarre behavior .
---i Other (specify)
I Vision
I
I
1
'
1
1•
1
I
'
I
--~-------------------------
1
I
I
Has your child been placed in any form of special education in either public or private school?
Yes
No
-----
If yes, circle if public OR check (x) if private:
Classes for gifted
Classes for retard-e~d~-Educationally therapy __~Classes for physically handicapped __~­
Classes for educationally handicapped
Other (specify) ___________________________
---
Total number of months to date your child has attended
any form of special education
-----
I
I
I
I
I
I'
J
Place a check (x) beside any circled problems which you
feel have persisted.
1
i
j
h...-~.--
...
~~---·----~~~~-~-·--··-·~·--·-·-
_,~ ~-~-·---·~·-· -~~
... ,.._.
---~?.-~
!
--- -·
... ,·---
-,··~·--
' ... - ..... -
·--··~·-··--'
y~~~---··-·-----·----~--.~~-h~-~-·-· -~-·"
....---..
~,.,.,.,
APPEND IX B
I
I
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF ADOPTIONS
Walter A. Heath, Director
Lenore K. Campbell, Deputy Director
8155 Van Nuys Boulevard
Panorama City, California 91402
Telephone ,(213) 787-1850
Dear Adoptive Parents:
As adoptive parents, we believe that you feel a
, special commitment to your adopted child's welfare as well
l as all other adopted children.
Like you, the Los Angeles
of Adoptions has a continuing interest
I County Department
in all the children it has placed.
I
I
i
'
I
II
I
!
The Valley Office of the Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions in cooperation with California State
University, Northridge, has developed a significant
research project. The project is an attempt to see if
there are particular factors in adoption which can be
linked to patterns of development and school achievement.
We would appreciate it if you could take time from
your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire
for your adopted child born in 1964. We realize the survey is long, but its importance to adopted children every-,
where makes it worthwhile. All information will be
·
treated confidentially. The Department of Adoptions alone
is aware of your identity.
In completing the questionnaire, be certain that your child's name does not appear
at any time.
We hope that you will return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided on or before September
25' 1973. On behalf of adopted children everywhere we
thank you for your help and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
Lenore K. Campbell
Deputy Director
45.
.
········-~-····-··---·····-·-·---·--···--··--·--···----
. -·-·-·. ··--··l
APPENDIX C
I
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF ADOPTIONS
I
Walter A. Heath, Director
Lenore K. Campbell, Deputy Director
I
I.
8155 Van Nuys Boulevard
Panorama City, California 91402
Telephone (213) 787-1850
Dear Adoptive Parents:
As adoptive parents, we believe that you feel a
special commitment to your adopted child's welfare as well
as all other adopted children. Like you, the Los Angeles
County Department of Adoptions has a continuing interest
in all the children it has placed.
The Valley Office of the Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions in cooperation with California State
University, Northridge, has developed a significant
research project. The project is an attempt to see if
there are particular factors in adoption which can be
linked to patterns of development and school achievement.
We would appreciate it if you could take time from
your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire
for your adopted child born in 1965. We realize the survey is long, but its importance to adopted children every-:
where makes it worthwhile. All information will be
.
treated confidentially. The Department of Adoptions alone
is aware of your identity.
In completing the questionnaire, be certain that your child's name does not appear
at any time.
We hope that you will return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided on or before September
On behalf of adopted children everywhere we
25' 1973.
thank you for your help and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
Lenore K. Campbell
Deputy Director
46
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
OF ADOPTIONS
DEPART~£NT
Walter A. Heath, Director
·Lenore K. Campbell, Deputy Director
I
I .
I
I
8155 Van Nuys Boulevard
I
Panorama City, California 91402
Telephone .(213) 787-1850
II
1
Dear Adoptive Parents:
As adoptive parents, we believe that you feel a
I
I
special commitment to your adopted child's welfare as well
as all other adopted children. Like you, the Los Angeles
County Department of Adoptions has a continuing interest
in all the children it has placed.
The Valley Office of the Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions in cooperation with California State
University, Northridge, has developed a significant
research project. The project is an attempt to see if
there are particular factors in adoption which can be
linked to patterns of development and school achievement.
We would appreciate it if you could take time from
your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire
for your adopted child born in 1966. We realize the survey is long, but its importance to adopted children every-,
where makes it worthwhile. All information will be
'
treated confidentially. The Department of Adoptions alone
is aware of your identity. In completing the questionnaire, be certain that your child's name does not appear
at any time.
We hope that you will return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided on or hefore September
25' 1973. On behalf of adopted children everywhere we
thank you for your help and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
Lenore K. Campbell
Deputy Director
47