Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted to prohibit the discrimination of those with disabilities. An individual with a disability is described as one having a) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities b) A record of such an impairment, or c) A person who is perceived to others as having an impairment.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines the parameters of the act into five Titles. These five Titles ensure that those individuals with disabilities are protected from discrimination in every aspect of their life and surroundings. The five Titles within the ADA are as follows:

Employment (Title I) Title I states that; businesses must provide reasonable accommodations to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. Possible changes may include restructuring jobs, altering the layout of workstations, or modifying equipment.

Public Services (Title II) Title II states that; public services, which include state and local government services, cannot deny services to people with disabilities participation in programs or activities which are available to people without disabilities. In addition, public transportation systems, such as public transit buses, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Title II is the most important for education and will be further looked at later in this paper.

Public Accommodations (Title III) Title III of ADA states that; all new construction and modifications of public accommodations must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Examples of public accommodations include facilities such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc., as well as privately owned transportation systems.

Telecommunications (Title IV) Title IV of the ADA states that; telecommunication companies offering telephone service to the general public must have telephone relay service to individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf or similar devices.

Miscellaneous (Title V) Title V of the ADA includes a provision prohibiting either (a) coercing or threatening or (b) retaliating against the disabled or those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA.

It is important to note that in August 2008 that ADA Amendments Act of 2008, was enacted. It officially went into effect on January 1, 2009. The purpose of the Act essentially broadens the coverage of individuals with disabilities and does not allow for such extensive analysis as the prior regulations.

For the purpose of this course and as educators it is imperative to focus on Title II of the ADA. Under Title II, school districts are required to make their programs, facilities, and services accessible to people with disabilities. These requirements cover facility design as well as other services. The initial intent the public school portion of Title II of the ADA was to entitle all children to a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE).

As time has passed and new mandates, federal, state, and local laws have come into play, the ADA has brought about new terms in education. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was originally passed and geared toward providing job opportunities and training disabled adults, the Act also addressed the failure of the public schools to educate disabled students. It is this failure that forced Section 504 to come along. Section 504 focused on non-discrimination. 504 prohibits children with any type of disability from being denied participation or enjoyment of the benefits offered by public school programs. Due to fact that Section 504 was not the “cure all” for the problem that still existed within schools an additional effort resulted in the form of another acronym labeled IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Under IDEA children ages 3-21 are provided an education through federal financial assistance. IDEA requires the development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) document with specific content and a required number of specific participants at an IEP meeting.

As educators it is crucial to stay current on the latest literature that surrounds special education laws. These laws almost always directly affect our instruction and day to day routine. The time line in this brief paper outline how the government has made changes to benefit those with disabilities. Hopefully, as technologies continue to advance and education remains a driving force in our ever changing society we will continue to make amendments to these laws and regulations for the disabled.

Resources

http://www.ada.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Feature Issue.Preview . By: Lakin, Charlie; And Others.

IMPACT, v5 n4 Win 1992-93. 1993 22 pp. (ED357545)

National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). naesp@naesp.org; Web site:

http://www.naesp.org: Section 504: An Update.

State Control Over Education

State Control Over Education

Amendment X (The Tenth Amendment) of the United States, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution’s principle of Federalism by providing that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” There are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly, even though Congress has the power to regulate or implement these programs. One advantage is that state implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy. Another advantage is that implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. (Wikipedia)

For these reasons, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by encouraging or offering the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards, a system known as Cooperative Federalism. One example of this device’s exercise was the allocation of federal funding conditionally made where certain state laws don’t conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. (Individuals with Disabilities Act) (Wikipedia)

Although there is no specific provision made for education in the United States Constitution, the Constitution does instruct that …”The powers not delegated to the United States Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (The Tenth Amendment)

If education is reserved to the states, or to the people, why do we have a cabinet level United States Department of Education (US DOE)? Doesn’t this violate the United States Constitution? Apparently, US DOE was created during the Carter Administration as a political payoff to the teacher unions for their support of Jimmy Carter for president. Further inquiry reveals that the US DOE was established to help and support states in the area of education. Others feel that the US DOE was created to move control of education from the state level to the federal level in direct violation of the 10th Amendment. (Stuter, L., 2003).

On April 16, 2007 a group of men introduced a bill to the Committee on Education and Labor. In Section 1, the bill was to restore state sovereignty over public elementary and secondary education. This was called the “Local Control of Education Act of 2007.” In Section 2, Congress’s finding was that the creation, support, funding, operation, maintenance and all other aspects of secondary and elementary education are “residual core sovereign functions” reserved to the control of the States under the United States Constitution, as expressed in the 10th Amendment. In Section 3, the Rule of Construction states that “this Act shall be liberally construed and shall be vigorously and promptly enforced so as to ensure the preservation of the State’s core sovereign authority over all aspects of elementary and secondary education under the United States Constitution, as expressed in the 10th Amendment. In Section 4, the Restoration of State Sovereignty with respect to certain Federal Education Funds states the following:
(a) “Funding to States-
(1) IN GENERAL – With respect to any program under which Federal funds may be provided to a State under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), unless the legislature of the State has by law expressly and specifically authorized operation of the program and, in doing so, has waived the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Federal Government as a condition of receiving Federal funds under the program-
(A) the Secretary of Education may not provide any funds to the State pursuant to the program;
(B) no officer, employee, or other authority of the Federal Government shall enforce against an authority of the State, nor shall any authority of the State have any obligation to obey, any requirement of the program; and
(C) the program shall not operate within the State.
(2) TERM OF AUTHORIZATION – If a State enacts (and does not repeal or otherwise terminate (a law authorizing operation of an education program described in paragraph (1), such authorization shall have effect for purposes of paragraph (1) until the later of-
(A) the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the law; or
(B) the end of any regular legislative session of the State that begins during the last year of such 5-year period and is ongoing at the end of such period.
(b) Funding to Local Governmental Entities – With respect to any program under which Federal funds may be provided to a local governmental entity (including any local educational agency, public kindergarten, public elementary school, or public secondary school) under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Secretary of Education may not provide any funds to the local governmental entity under such program unless the chief law enforcement officer of the State involved certifies that participation by the entity in the program is consistent with any applicable requirements under the law of the State.” (http://www.theorator.com/bills110/text/hr1847.html)

In conclusion, States have control over all educational issues and concerns, except when our national government determines that they need to intervene. An excellent example of this intervention occurred in 1954 with the Brown versus the Board of Education. The federal government found it necessary to send in military troops in order to protect students and citizens. Basically, the government “played their trump card” and overrode the tenth amendment with the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause.” The segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. “Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” The federal government can and will intervene, only if necessary, and you can be assured the intervention will be justified legally in a court of law. (http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html)

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Curriculum Evaluation
Summer 2009
Dr. Dugan

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

By definition, an unfunded mandate is when a new piece of federal legislation would require another government agency, or the private sector, to perform functions for which it has no funds. For the most part, states, local government and the private sector have complied with federal conditions as the "small price to pay" to receive federal funding. In recent years however, that funding is decreasing and the mandates are becoming more and more intrusive and expensive. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) uses the phrase "federally induced costs", which is a nice umbrella term that refers to all unfunded costs that the government imposes on states, local governments and the private sector. State and local governments have had to re-arrange priorities in order to comply with federal mandates. Some states have even complained of being in a "forced trade off" between funding federal mandates and funding local necessities such as increased education spending.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing such unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments and the private sector. It was a response to the outcry of concern from many in regards to the costs put upon them by mandates. UMRA was a tough fought battle that stretched on for fifteen days and forced forty-four roll call votes. The House of Representatives debated a companion bill and disposed of thirty amendments before reaching passage. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton on March 22, 1995.

In summary, UMRA requires committees in Congress, when writing new legislation that would impose new requirements, duties or costs onto states, local government and the private sector, to first get an estimate of those additional costs from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO must then publish a report of the estimates to Congress. Under this act, any mandate that would cost state or local government more than $50 million dollars a year or the private sector more than $100 million dollars a year (adjusted annually), would then be in violation of UMRA. Congress must then decide to either change the bill or to fund it further. According to the CBO, of the almost 5,000 bill proposals reviewed by them from 1996-2004, only 12% contained mandates and therefore were not in compliance with UMRA.

Certain types of federal requirements and programs do not fall under UMRA’s definition of an unfunded mandate; in particular, federal grants. Two often mentioned examples close to the hearts of educators would be the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act. These laws require school districts to design and implement statewide achievement tests and to prepare individualized education plans (IEP’s) for disabled children. These acts were very expensive to implement and therefore spurred quite a few lawsuits. Two of the most well known lawsuits are Pontiac v. Spellings and Connecticut v. The State Department of Education. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs lost. According to the highest court in our country, the reason why these acts are not considered unfunded mandates is because states can always choose not to accept the funding. The only way lawmakers can make up those costs is by raising taxes and cutting back on services.

In my opinion, the UMRA is a good start toward curbing unfunded mandates but, they will probably never go away. The federal government has states, local government and the private sector between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." Government has its agenda and schools today need the funding that comes with bills like NCLB. There is a saying, "If you always do what you have always done, then you will always get what you have always gotten." The push in education today is in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. We can’t teach "old school’ anymore. Students need computers, the internet, manipulatives, etc. to better understand those subjects and schools have to provide those materials in order for teachers to teach for the future. Teachers will also need professional development in those areas. In this economy, these things may seem like wants but they are really necessities. States need funding to make this a reality. Non-compliance is not an option. Curriculum and instruction in the future will have to be more precise and uniform. Curriculum evaluation will need to be more finely tuned. I think that the best we can hope for is some sort of compromise when NCLB is re-authorized. The government will need to work more closely with states to better understand their needs and concerns and education will need to re-invent itself to better prepare our students for the future.

References

Further information about the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 can be found at:

http://www.cbo.gov/pubs.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/lawregs/lawsumra.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill
http://www.useconomy.about.com
http://www.ed.gov

Blog Link: Tracking

http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2009/06/tracking-makes-you-feel-like-youre-not-smart.html

Brown v Board of Education – Assignment # 1-June 30th, 2009
By: Peris Oribabor
The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case was a landmark decision of the United Sates Supreme Court that dismantled the racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. The case overturned earlier rulings by going back to Plessey v. Ferguson (1896), declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. However, when people think of the case, they remember a little girl whose parents sued so that she could attend an all-white school in her neighborhood while as the story of Brown v. Board is far more complex.
In 1950, in Topeka, Kansas, a black third grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks from her house. Her father had tried numerous times to enroll her in the all white school, but the principal of the school refused. Mr. Oliver Brown went to NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ask for help, the organization was eager to assist the Browns by challenging the segregation in public schools. In 1951, the NAACP requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka’s public schools.
The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas from June 25th to 26th in 1951. The NAACP argued that segregated schools sent the message to black children that they were inferior to whites. The Topeka Board of Education defense was that, because segregation in Topeka and anywhere else in United States pervaded many other aspects of life, segregated schools simply prepared black children for the type of life they would encounter during adulthood, and therefore, segregated schools were not necessarily harmful to black children. The school broad gave an example of successful African American such as Fredrick Douglas, Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver that they were able to overcome segregated schools systems.
The court was put in a difficult position as they tried to reach their decision, but on the other hand the judges who participated in this case agreed with expert witnesses and they wrote that: “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children…. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn”.

Even though the judges wrote about the effects of segregation to black children, when it came down to deciding about the case, Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in 1896, allowed separate but equal school systems for blacks and whites because no Supreme Court ruling had overturned Plessy v, Ferguson in all those years.
(Plessy v. Ferguson- 1896- The U.S. Supreme Court in Louisiana law had mandated separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional).

No-one had tried to challenge the Pressy case before 1951, and therefore, the courts used Plessy v. Ferguson case to overturn the Brown v. Board of Education, the court felt compelled to rule in favor of the Board of Education.
Brown and the NAACP appealed to the Supreme Court in October 1, 1951. This time, the case was combined with other schools which wanted to challenged segregation; the appeal included schools in South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. The Supreme Court heard the case on December 9, 1952, but failed to reach a decision. Again, it was appealed and heard again in December 7-8, 1953 and based onU.S. Constitution 14th Amendment the courts came to a conclusion that desegregated schools deprived black children of equal protection of the law. Therefore, on May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren read a unanimous Court decision with a vote of 9-0 stating that:
“We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]

The Supreme Court used the “Separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson for public education, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff and this required the desegregation of schools across America. However, the ruling did not require desegregation by a specific time, but, as of May 17th, 1954 segregation was declared unconstitutional, and this was a giant step towards complete desegregation of public schools at the time.

What Brown v. Board of Education Accomplished:
1. It dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public places
2. Discrimination based on racial segregation violates the 14th amendment – which
guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws
3.Brown v. Board of Education was not about children and education; it laid foundations for shaping modern
day national and international policies regarding human rights
4. Protection of people’s natural rights, which are recognized in the Declaration of
the Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Brown decision initiated educational and social reform throughout the United States and was a
catalyst in launching the modern Civil Rights Movement.

Table 1: A Comparison of Brown v. Board of Education to NCLB

Brown v. Board of Education
1.Gave every student in America a seat in
2. U.S. Supreme court Landmark ruling (1954)
3. Came out of the struggle for racial equality
and civil rights in America, and to improve the social economic of African Americans and other minorities
4. It’s not based on a broad policy with roots in any social justice movement.
5.Achievements: Life Achievement
6. Law of the Land

NCLB
1.Guarantees each student an education
2. A bi-partisan landamrk education reform law designed to close achivement gap (2002). Supposed to offer the parents more options and teaching students what they are supposed to know by grade level
3. It's not based on broad policy with roots in any social justice movement
4. Achivements: Based on Test Scores
5. States Accountability


*********************************************************

Outsourcing

Outsourcing

Outsourcing is the process that “involves the transfer of the management and/or day-to-day execution of an entire business function to an external service provider.” This external service provider could be another company in or out of the United States. In 2004, the issue of outsourcing was brought to the forefront of political discourse due to then presidential candidate John Kerry’s remarks, criticizing U.S. firms that outsource jobs abroad or that incorporate overseas in tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. Some of the advantages of outsourcing are:

• Cost savings. The lowering of the overall cost of the service to the business. This will involve reducing the scope, defining quality levels, re-pricing, re-negotiation, cost re-structuring.
• Increased efficiency. An outside provider's cost structure and economy of scale can give an important competitive advantage.
• Reduced labor costs. Outsourcing allows for more cost-effective hiring for short-term or peripheral projects.
• Operational expertise. Access to operational best practice that would be too difficult or time consuming to develop in-house.
• Catalyst for change. An organization can use an outsourcing agreement as a catalyst for major step change that can not be achieved alone.
• Enhanced capacity for innovation. Companies increasingly use external knowledge service providers to supplement limited in-house capacity for product innovation.

Outsourcing, however, does have many drawbacks, which include:

• Loss of managerial control. Outsourcing means it will be harder to manage a service provider than it is to manage one’s own company.
• Security threat. If a company is outsourcing sensitive material, for example payroll records, than it is at a greater risk to be compromised.
• Hidden costs. Anything not covered in the contract will be the basis for additional charges.
• Quality problems. The outsourcing company does not share the same philosophy as the business, creating a reduction in quality.
• Bad publicity. Outsourcing means a lot of different things to different people.

In summary, many businesses promote outsourcing due to an ability to gain access to high-quality services at a cost-effective price.

In terms of its relationship to education, we must be aware that outsourcing and offshoring are taking place and must be prepared to act accordingly. Many colleges and universities are now offering courses that deal with the impact of outsourcing, especially in the technical fields. On the other hand, one could argue that education is adding to the problem by outsourcing their products. The growth of online schooling bears witness to that fact.


Resources

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management-hiring/1084-1.html

http://www.softwareprojects.org/disadvantages-outsourcing.htm

-Roberto Lugo

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Dana Veneziani
Dr. Jay Dugan
Curriculum Evaluation

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

In 1989, a coalition of state governors concerned about the ailing state of America's public schools proposed a solution, "The Goals 2000: Educate America Act." This program would set educational goals for the nation's public schools to be achieved by the year 2000, create a framework for implementing the goals, and provide incentives for the states to cooperate in meeting the goals.

"The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227)" was signed into law on March 31, 1994 by President Bill Clinton and was amended in 1996. The Act provided resources to states and communities to ensure that all students reach their full potential. It was based on the premise of outcome-based education (OBE) that students will reach higher levels of achievement when more is expected of them. OBE is a recurring education reform model. It is a student-centered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance, which are called outcomes.

Congress appropriated $105 million for fiscal year 1994. First-year funds became available to states July 1, 1994. In the first year, individual states will submit applications describing the process by which the state will develop a school improvement plan, make sub-grants to local schools, as well as grant awards for pre-service and professional development. Many saw this as the predecessor to No Child Left Behind which mandated measurable improvement in student achievement across all groups. Goals 2000 established a framework in which to identify world-class academic standards, to measure student progress, and to provide the support that students may need to meet the standards. The Act codified in law the six original education goals concerning school readiness, school completion, student academic achievement, leadership in math and science, adult literacy, and safe and drug-free schools. It added two new goals encouraging teacher professional development and parental participation.

The goals stated in the Summary of Goals 2000 include:

• All children in America will start school ready to learn.
  
• The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.
  
• All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation's modern economy.
  
• United States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
  Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  
• Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
  
• The nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.
  
• Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.
  

In 1996, President Clinton introduced a competitive grant entitled the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF). The president allocated 2 million dollars to ensure that every child in every school utilize technology to achieve high standards by the dawn of the 21st century. The president urged a variety of stakeholders from the private sector, schools, teachers, students, community groups, state and local governors and the federal government to work in a partnership toward achieving high levels of technology in schools.

In early November 1999, the National Center received a tip that although the House had refused to fund or reauthorize it, Goals 2000 funding was being put back into the 1999 Education/Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. Other contacts on Capitol Hill confirmed this discouraging report. Several congressional offices told the National Center, "Clinton wants Goals 2000. It is his pet project. There is no way we can repeal Goals 2000."

During the years 2000-2005, controversy boiled around the terms "Goals 2000" and "Outcome Based Education." However, few Congressmen and Senators looked beyond the verbiage to discover that Goals 2000 set up a system of state standards (or outcomes) based on attitudes and beliefs, not on academics, and that the resulting state assessments are subjective and often ideological. The teaching of knowledge-based, objective truths found in traditional mathematics, classical literature, original historic documents, etc., was becoming increasingly rare.

With the final language of President George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (H.R. 1) came the withdrawal of all authorization for Goals 2000. However, even though Congress had withdrawn its authorization for Goals 2000, if funding was not also withdrawn, the crippled, but alive Goals 2000 program would stagger on. Then, just before leaving town on December 21, 2001, Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2002 Education Appropriations Conference Committee report which eliminated spending on Goals 2000. The long awaited victory came. Goals 2000 no longer authorized and now no longer funded, was dead.

References:

http://www.hslda.org/
http://www.ncrel.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/

Article Link: NYC Rubber Rooms

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5heYRW9pbqE-Ezt-lidTx-rGzP7IAD98VVBDG0

Patty Quinn Benn

Curriculum Evaluation

Dr. Dugan

1 July 2009

ESEA

“In recognition of the special education needs of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance (Section 201, Elementary and Secondary School Act, 1965).”

The history of American formalized education dates back to the 1640’s with the English colonies. At that time, the Puritans stressed the three “R’s” and strong work ethic. Since then, education has evolved and changed to meet the needs of the current societies and time periods. During the presidency of Harry Truman, leaders began to discuss the need for “competitive technology” with the advent of the Cold War (www.answers.com). Talk of educational improvements continued with the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations as well, and became imperative when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik in 1957. To assure that Americans would remain competitive, President Kennedy proposed a number of educational solutions in which all children received a fair and equal education regardless of religion, race, or class. However, it was not until after his assassination that Kennedy’s ideas came to fruition through President Johnson. Reviewing and revising President Kennedy’s initial ideas about America’s educational system, President Johnson proposed an agenda to help fight what he called the War on Poverty (www.answers.com).

In 1965, under the Johnson administration, Congress derived and passed a bill called the Elementary Secondary Education Act or ESEA. The purpose of said bill was to “meet the needs of educationally deprived children, especially through compensatory programs for the poor” (Schugurensky). Children from low-income homes needed and required more educational services than that of children from more wealthy homes. The goal of ESEA was to “offer new hope to tens of thousands of youngsters who need attention before they ever enroll in first grade, [as well as] help five million children of poor families overcome their greatest barrier to progress: poverty” (Schugurensky). For the first time in American, formalized education, ESEA created a partnership among federal, state, and local governments. It addressed the ever-growing poverty and its effects on poor students and schools (www.ohea.org).

ESEA was broken down into six goals, each of which were described in a separate “title”: (following information from Encyclopedia of American Education, Third Edition)

• Title I – provides funds to local educational agencies, including schools, social service agencies and other organizations for such programs as remedial reading, compensatory math and other special programs.
• Title II – provides funds for school libraries and for textbooks in public and private schools.
• Title III - provides grants and funds for innovative educational programs.
• Title IV – provides funds for educational research and training.
• Title V – provides funds to state educational agencies.
• Title VI – provides funds for ESEA administration.

Over the past forty-four years since the induction of the ESEA, it has undergone a number of changes and rebirths. Since 1965, it has evolved in three phases (following information obtained from the Encyclopedia of American Education, Third Edition) :

· 1965-1980 – ESEA focused on Title I funding and whether it was “truly targeted funding or whether it was cleverly disguised as a general aid to education (today over 90% of school receive Title I funding)” (www.ohea.org).

o 1968 – the act was amended to include bilingual education and include assistance for handicapped and migrant children.

o 1970 – altered the law regarding Title I funds to require state and local governments to match federal funds received.

o 1972 – Congress amended act to ban gender discrimination.

o 1978 – addition of basic skills programs to the act.

· 1980-1990 – ESEA had no real significant increases in funding. During this time, A Nation at Risk (report), was released and education became a forefront and important issue to voters.

· 1990-Present – Today, ESEA is dominated by the federal government’s desire to see tangible results in student achievement and success within education. This has resulted in state-driven tests.

o 1993 – Improving America’s Schools Act (federal aid was linked to developing standards for each state to assure AYP). During this time, the Clinton administration passed Goals 2000 as well.

o 2001 – Under the guidance of President George W. Bush, Congress passed the ten billion dollar No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under NCLB, ESEA imposed testing requirements for all states in which progress from year-to-year was the demand and failure to demonstrate such would result in loss of federal subsidies.

As with any policy or act, ESEA has its supporters as well as it opponents. Over the years, many parents, teachers, and administrators challenged the basis and purpose of ESEA. In 1966, the Coleman Report was published and argued that school improvements had very little impact on student achievement and success. With the introduction and enforcement of NCLB, such sentiments were echoed and continued to be so. Many feel that “NCLB fails to address the needs of the whole child and reduces the guiding purpose of education from the development of effective and contributing citizens to an unending quest for higher scores on tests that cannot assess what we value most in a democratic society – things like critical and creative thinking, problem solving, effective and persuasive communication, cooperation, perseverance, caring, respect, and appreciate for diversity” (McKim, 298). While this may be the feelings of many, as of today, NCLB is not going away. While President Obama has yet to make it clear what he plans to do with NCLB, for now, it is here to stay until we hear otherwise.

Regardless of proponent or opponent, ESEA revolutionized the federal government’s role within American education. Before 1965, state and local governments had sole control over their educational systems. Today, ESEA has a strong hand in public school systems across the U.S. The debate will continue as to whether because of ESEA, the federal government is overly involved in regulating school district affairs as well as the fact of whether ESEA is truly raising student performance. However, due to the economic state of our country, whether supporter or not, thousands of poverty-stricken schools/districts (and non) seek and accept ESEA funds (www.answers.com).

Works Cited

"Elementary and Secondary Education Act." Answers.com. 28 Jun 2009

.

"Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, The: From the War on Poverty to No

Child Left Behind." OEA: Ohio Education Association. 10 Aug 2007. OEA. 28

Jun 2009 .

McKim, Brent. "Point of View: The Road Less Traveled." Phi Delta Kappan. December

2007. Web.28 Jun 2009.

Schugurensky, Daniel. "Selected Moments of the 20th Century." History of Education.

26 May 2002. Dept. of Adult Education. Community Development and

Counseling Psychology. 28 Jun 2009 .

Unger, Harlow. “Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).” Encyclopedia of

American Education, Third Edition. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2007.

American History Online, Facts on File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com.

For More Information:

The education.gov website is full of information on ESEA. Although quite dense, if you can sift through it, you will find it helpful in your understanding of the creation and evolution of the act that changed American public schools forever.

www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/edpicks.jhtml?src= In

Summary of Balanced Leadership Findings for Principals

Hi Everyone-



I thought this Balanced Leadership Chart was really great. I found a link to it online, if anyone wants to print it or save it for a reference. Hope it helps. -Lauren



http://www.aea8.k12.ia.us/documents/filelibrary/connie_johnson/iowa_core_curriculum/module_2_resources/Summary_of_Balanced_Leadership_findings.pdf

Blog Link: Testing the Tests

http://www.publicschoolinsights.org/testing-tests-0

Modifications to No Child Left Behind in the Obama Era

Frank Libbi
Curriculum Evaluation
Dr. Jay Dugan
June 30, 2009

Modifications to No Child Left Behind in the Obama Era

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (enacted January 8, 2002), is a United States Act of Congress that was originally proposed by President George W. Bush immediately after taking office. (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/ overview /intro/factsheet.html) The bill, co-sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), was passed by congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act, introduced as HR 1 during the 107th Congress, was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001, United States Senate on June 14, 2001 and signed into law on January 8, 2002.
All states must bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state tests by the 2013-14 school year. Individual schools must meet state "adequate yearly progress" targets toward this goal (based on a formula spelled out in the law) for both their student populations as a whole and for certain demographic subgroups. If a school receiving federal Title I funding fails to meet the target two years in a row, it must be provided technical assistance and its students must be offered a choice of other public schools to attend. Students in schools that fail to make adequate progress three years in a row must also be offered supplemental educational services, including private tutoring. For continued failures, a school would be subject to outside corrective measures, including possible governance changes. (U.S. Department of Education, 'No Child Left Behind Act' of 2001,")
NCLB is the latest federal legislation that enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.
President Obama is promising to improve the quality of assessments used under NCLB. Even though he has yet to introduce a detailed plan to reauthorize the law, states are at work on doing just that.
From the White House Web site's detailing of the administration's agenda: "Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. They will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner."
From the president's March 10 speech on education: "I'm calling on our nation's governors and state education chiefs to develop standards and assessments that don't simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking and entrepreneurship and creativity."
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the overall goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the right one – ensuring that all children can meet high standards – but the law has significant flaws that need to be addressed. They believe it was wrong to force teachers, principals and schools to accomplish the goals of No Child Left Behind without the necessary resources. “We have failed to provide high-quality teachers in every classroom and failed to support and pay for those teachers” says Barack. Both the President and Vice President understand that NCLB has demoralized our educators, broken its promise to our children and must be changed in a fundamental way. (http://www.barrackObama.com /pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf)
He believes schools instead will need to improve the assessments they currently use to track student progress. They will work to create assessment models that provide educators and students with timely feedback about how to improve student learning, that measure readiness for college and success in an information-age workplace; and that indicate whether individual students are making progress toward reaching high standards. This will include funds for states to implement a broader range of assessments that can evaluate higher-order skills, including students’ abilities to use technology, conduct research, engage in scientific investigation, solve problems, present and defend their ideas. These assessments will provide immediate feedback so that teachers can begin improving student learning right away.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we need an accountability system that supports schools to improve, rather than focuses on punishments. They also believe schools should assess all of our children appropriately – including English language learners and special needs students. Such a system should evaluate continuous progress for students and schools all along the learning continuum and should consider measures beyond reading and math tests. It should also create incentives to keep students in school through graduation, rather than pushing them out to make scores look better.
Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.
The stimulus dollars may help start the process. But it's unlikely that all states will be rewriting their tests until NCLB reauthorization is finished.

Table for July 1 Class

Lowest to highest graduation rates in the nation's 50 largest school districts

Rate	District	Size rank	Rate	District	Size rank	Rate	District	Size rank
21.7	Detroit	11	53.7	New Orleans	48	68.4	Gwinnett County, Ga.	20
38.5	Baltimore City, Md.	30	53.8	Duval County, Fla.	19	68.6	Brevard County, Fla.	42
38.9	New York City	1	54.6	Clark County, Nev.	6	69.3	Fulton County, Ga.	45
43.1	Milwaukee	28	54.8	DeKalb County, Ga.	27	70.0	Hillsborough County, Fla.	10
43.8	Cleveland	44	55.1	Austin	37	70.2	Anne Arundel County, Md.	40
44.2	Los Angeles	2	55.2	Palm Beach County, Fla.	12	70.4	Cobb County, Ga.	26
45.3	Miami-Dade County, Fla.	4	55.5	Philadelphia	8	72.2	Granite, Utah	46
46.3	Dallas	13	56.0	Charlotte	23	75.3	Mesa, Ariz.	39
46.5	Pinellas County, Fla.	22	56.2	Orange County, Fla.	15	75.8	Northside, Tex.	49
46.8	Denver	43	60.1	Polk County, Fla.	34	77.0	Jefferson County, Colo.	33
48.5	Memphis	21	62.2	Jefferson County, Ky.	31	80.2	Jordan, Utah	41
48.7	Broward County, Fla.	5	63.0	San Diego	16	81.3	Cypress-Fairbanks, Tex.	47
48.9	Fort Worth	36	63.1	Fresno	35	81.5	Montgomery County, Md.	17
48.9	Houston	7	63.7	Hawaii (statewide)	9	81.9	Baltimore County, Md.	24
50.4	Nashville	50	66.5	Virginia Beach	38	82.2	Wake County, N.C.	25
52.0	Albuquerque	32	67.3	Prince George's County, Md.	18	82.5	Fairfax County, Va.	14
52.2	Chicago	3	68.1	Long Beach	29

Source: EPE Research Center

Article Link: Reading First 1

http://www.elladvocates.org/nclb/reading.html

Article Link: Reading First 2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901333.html

Article Link: MCREL's 21 Leadership Responsibilities

http://www.aea8.k12.ia.us/documents/filelibrary/connie_johnson/iowa_core_curriculum/module_2_resources/Summary_of_Balanced_Leadership_findings.pdf

Video Link: Quantum Physics Cartoons

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-33,GGLJ:en&q=quantum%20physics&um=1&sa=N&tab=iv#

Video Link: Quantum Physics from MIT

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-33,GGLJ:en&q=quantum%20physics&um=1&sa=N&tab=iv#q=MIT%20quantum%20physics&sitesearch

Article Link: Technology Jobs

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2008/tc20080623_533491.htm

Article Link: Test Results Improve After NCLB

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401322.html

Curriculum Evaluation Course

Summer of 2009

Course Description:

This course will focus on seven main curriculum evaluation subtopics:

1. The underlying reasons that the No Child Left Behind law was enacted.

2. Ongoing modifications to the No Child Left Behind law in the Obama era.

3. The impact that the No Child Left Behind law has on the evaluation of students.

4. Problems and solutions for curriculum evaluation under the No Child Left Behind law.

5. The processes and functions of Curriculum Evaluation (management).

6. Creating a Curriculum Evaluation Tool.

7. Conducting a Curriculum Evaluation.

Students will apply theory to practice while sequentially working through the seven main curriculum evaluation topics listed above..

Course Design:

This course requires the active involvement of the students. While networking amongst one another is not mandatory, it is a strongly recommended strategy for successful day-to-day lesson preparation. Emphasis and time will be devoted to the seven main curriculum evaluation subtopics listed in the Course Description above. Two texts will be used as springboards; one for evaluating students and the other for evaluating curriculum. Topics will be explored as they are applied in real world experiences: in other words, we will explore how curriculum theory is being applied in practice. Students will submit and present three papers on issues that impact the six subtopics. A curriculum evaluation tool will be designed and used to evaluate curriculum guides that are currently in use in school districts. The professor will facilitate discussions, ask questions relevant to the topics, and provide additional insights from field experiences.

Textbooks:

Beverly Nichols, Sue Shidakker, Gene Johnson, and Kevin Singer (2006). Managing Curriculum and Assessment: A Practitioners Guide. Linworth Books.

W. James Popham ((2005). America’s “Failing” Schools. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Other Material Needed:

One district curriculum guide that is currently in use

Course Objectives:

As a result of active engagement in this course, the students will be able to:

1. understand the necessity for the No Child Left Behind law.

2. understand the impact of the global economy, political forces, diversity, and technology on the No Child Left Behind Law and, ultimately, the evaluation of students and the curriculum.

3. understand the reasoning behind the shift from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced testing in public schools.

4. understand the concepts of adequate yearly progress and sanctions.

5. understand the causes of disparities between state and national tests.

6. understand problems and realistic solutions inherent with high stakes assessments.

7. learn the three processes and eleven functions of curriculum evaluation (management).

8. create a curriculum evaluation tool.

9. conduct a curriculum evaluation.

10. work in cooperative learning groups to explore, discuss, build consensus and summarize topics relevant to curriculum fundamentals.

11. make use of the college library and/or Internet resources for independent research on a variety of curriculum evaluation issues.

12. report orally and in writing on issues that impact issues of curriculum evaluation.

13. analyze and critique existing curriculum in terms of design, implementation, and evaluation, especially in light of ever changing technology and mandates.

14. work with key documents such as the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards and a variety of curriculum samples.

Topical Papers and Reports will be graded in five equal components on the ability to address the following questions:

1. Has the main topic been thoroughly explained so that it is understandable to the reader?

2. Is there evidence of sufficient research for the writer’s presentation of views on this topic?

3. Has the writer made his/her personal insights and/or conclusions clear, following up the research on the topic?

4. Does this topic have relevance towards curriculum evaluation?

5. Has the writer successfully presented his/her findings in a brief oral report?

Students are expected to use thorough library and/or Internet research for their topics. Evidence of research should be apparent in the two page topical paper (formal citations are not required), along with the students’ personal insights/conclusions drawn from their researched findings. In some cases, the relevance of their topic towards curriculum evaluation may be a factor in the successful completion of this report. Lastly, the students will summarize their reports with a brief oral presentation to the class.