This article questions the appropriateness of having self appointed specialists (the plaintiffs dictate to others (the school system) how to conduct their responsibilities, particularly with respect to providing children with the option of choosing to enroll in special educable mentally retarded programs. (CTM)

This article presents the background, the history, and the implications of the Larry P. v Riles decisions in 1972 and in 1979 in which a federal district court enjoined California from using any standardized intelligence tests to assess Black children for eligibility for classes of educable mentally retarded. (Author/CTM)

The analysis in this article is directed to the basic issues: Are IQ tests biased against Black children? And are IQ tests valid for the placement of Black children in special programs? The research evidence on these major issues is ambiguous and contradictory. (Author/CTM)

The Larry P. decision is criticized with reference to: (1) predictive tests and the standard curriculum; (2) the court's portrayal of special classes; (3) the effects of the 1972 decision on special class enrollment; (4) semantic confusion; and (5) the impact on Black children who experience academic difficulty. (Author/CTM)

This article addresses the question of why intelligence tests were put on trial. The courts had to weigh the validity of intelligence tests once California chose to rely upon intelligence tests to justify the large numbers of Black children in classes for the educable mentally retarded. (Author/CTM)