Your search found 107258 results.

Descriptors:
Equal Education; African American Students; Racial Segregation; White Students; Public Education; Federal Government; Access to Education; Civil Rights; Court Litigation; Minority Groups; Racial Discrimination; Expenditure per Student; Educational Finance; State Government; Local Government; Measurement Techniques; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; School Districts; Budgets; Resource Allocation

Abstract:
In 1954 the Supreme Court declared that public education is "a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." That landmark decision in "Brown v. Board of Education" stood for the proposition that the federal government would no longer allow states and municipalities to deny equal educational opportunity to a historically oppressed racial minority. Ruling unanimously, the justices overturned the noxious concept that "separate" education could ever be "equal." Yet today, nearly 60 years later, our schools remain separate and unequal. Almost 40 percent of black and Hispanic students attend schools where more than 90 percent of students are nonwhite. The average white student attends a school where 77 percent of his or her peers are also white. Schools today are "as segregated as they were in the 1960s before busing began." We are living in a world in which schools are patently separate. In "Brown" the Court focused on the detrimental impact of legal separation--the fact that official segregation symbolized and reinforced the degraded status of blacks in America. Today's racial separation in schools may not have the formal mandate of local law, but it just as surely reflects and reinforces lingering status differences between whites and nonwhites by enabling a system of public education funding that shortchanges students of color. Separate will always be unequal. But just how unequal is the education we offer our students of color today? This paper answers this question using one small but important measure--per-pupil state and local spending. This fraction of spending is certainly not the only useful measure of educational opportunity. How we spend our money is perhaps more important. But newly released data give us the opportunity to shed new light, specifically on inequity in spending from state and local sources. The new dataset is appended. (Contains 5 tables, 7 figures and 76 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1701K)

Descriptors:
Charter Schools; Educational Change; Educational Policy; Racial Factors; Whites; African Americans; Racial Bias; Racial Discrimination; Urban Areas; Policy Formation; Social Theories; Privatization; Economic Factors; Interviews; Public Schools; State Government; Local Government; Federal Government; Government Role; Entrepreneurship; Natural Disasters

Abstract:
In this article, Kristen L. Buras examines educational policy formation in New Orleans and the racial, economic, and spatial dynamics shaping the city's reconstruction since 2005. More specifically, Buras draws on the critical theories of whiteness as property, accumulation by dispossession, and urban space economy to describe the strategic assault on black communities by education entrepreneurs. Based on data collected from an array of stakeholders on the ground, she argues that policy actors at the federal, state, and local levels have contributed to a process of privatization and an inequitable racial-spatial redistribution of resources while acting under the banner of "conscious capitalism." She challenges the market-based reforms currently offered as a panacea for education in New Orleans, particularly charter schools, and instead offers principles of educational reform rooted in a more democratic and critically conscious tradition. (Contains 8 notes and 3 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Prevention; Safety; Public Health; Alcohol Abuse; Definitions; Clinical Diagnosis; Citations (References); Private Sector; Caregivers; Young Adults; Youth; Drinking; Late Adolescents; Legal Responsibility; Individual Characteristics; Government Role; Federal Government; State Surveys; Law Enforcement; Federal Legislation; Policy Formation; State Government; Local Government; Parent Participation; School Role; Public Sector

Abstract:
In 2010, alcohol was once again the substance of choice among American youth. In fact, a greater proportion of American young people use alcohol than use other drugs or tobacco, and this use of alcohol by youth under the legal drinking age of 21 has profound negative consequences not just for underage drinkers, but also for their families, their communities, and society as a whole. Despite the modest progress made in recent years, underage drinking remains a serious public health and public safety problem. This Report to Congress, like the Reports before it, summarizes the status of the latest scientific research regarding adolescent alcohol use, describes the characteristics and consequences of underage drinking, and outlines the comprehensive efforts of the Federal Government to address the problem. It also updates and expands the individual state reports, which were first introduced in last year's Report. This year, a survey of all 50 States and the District of Columbia was conducted to collect valuable information about State-supported underage prevention and enforcement activities, programs, and policies. These individual State reports, which were mandated by the STOP Act, provide a valuable resource for Federal, State, and local policy makers, community coalitions, and others interested in addressing underage alcohol use. While the Federal Government has an important role to play in addressing underage drinking, it is clear that we as a country will not succeed without a concerted and informed effort by all of the nation's citizens and at all levels of government. The information provided in this Report can serve as an important tool in that effort. By addressing underage drinking in all of the environments in which youth live--family, school, communities, healthcare systems, and religious institutions--the country can change the way that young people and their parents view underage drinking and create an environment in which underage alcohol use is understood as a serious public health and public safety problem, not a culturally ingrained rite of passage. This Report emphasizes that such change requires a national effort involving parents and other caregivers, educational systems, the public and private sector, concerned individuals and organizations throughout the country, and all levels of government. Appended are: (1) Surveys; (2) Definitions of Variables; (3) State Report Citations; (4) ICCPUD Members; (5) Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages; (6) DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence; (7) Abbreviations; and (8) References. (Contains 114 exhibits and 59 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (10845K)

Descriptors:
Federal Programs; Disabilities; Public Agencies; Grants; Federal Government; Transitional Programs; High School Students; Postsecondary Education; At Risk Students; Barriers; Access to Education; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Interviews; State Government; Public Officials; Government Role; Eligibility

Abstract:
The transition out of high school to postsecondary education or the workforce can be a challenging time, especially for students with disabilities. Multiple federal agencies fund programs to support these students during their transition. In 2003, GAO reported that limited coordination among these programs can hinder a successful transition. GAO was asked to provide information on the (1) challenges students with disabilities may face accessing federally funded transition services; and (2) extent to which federal agencies coordinate their transition activities. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency documents from Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA, which administer the key programs that provide transition services. GAO also administered a data collection instrument to gather program information from these agencies. Finally, GAO interviewed various stakeholders, including state and local officials, service providers, parents, and students with disabilities, in five states selected based on the number of federal grants they received to fund transition services. To improve the provision of transition services for students with disabilities, GAO recommends that Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA develop an interagency transition strategy that addresses (1) operating toward common outcome goals for transitioning youth; (2) increasing awareness of available transition services; and (3) assessing the effectiveness of their coordination efforts. All four agencies agreed with the recommendation. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Federal Programs that Provide Transition Services to Youth with Disabilities; (3) Other Federal Coordination Efforts that Address Individuals with Disabilities, Including Students; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; (5) Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services; (6) Comments from the Department of Labor; (7) Comments from the Social Security Administration; and (8) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 6 tables, 4 figures and 64 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1379K)

Descriptors:
Stakeholders; Social Services; Unions; Community Development; Community Leaders; Local Government; Community Resources; Community Schools; School Community Relationship; Partnerships in Education; School Districts; Public Agencies; Community Organizations; Organizational Communication; Sustainability; Capacity Building; Financial Support; Educational Policy; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Educational Change; Family Involvement; Program Descriptions; Interviews; Content Analysis

Abstract:
A community school is a place and a set of partnerships connecting a school, the families of students, and the surrounding community. A community school is distinguished by an integrated focus on academics, youth development, family support, health and social services, and community development. The community school strategy is central to efforts to improve America's public schools. Community schools use partnerships to align school and community resources in order to produce successful students, strong families, and engaged communities. This paper outlines how school and community leaders develop a common vision for a community schools strategy and explores six key strategies that successful community school initiatives use to build effective partnerships with local government agencies, teachers' unions, and other organizations. It begins by describing the elements of a community school strategy, then draws on the experiences of several community school initiatives that use the following strategies to form and maintain key relationships: (1) Ensure that all partners share a common vision; (2) Establish formal relationships and collaborative structures to engage stakeholders; (3) Encourage open dialogue about challenges and solution; (4) Engage partners in the use of data; and (5) Create and empower central-office capacity at the district level to sustain community school work; and (6) Leverage community resources and braid funding streams. (Contains 1 figure and 12 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (487K)

Descriptors:
Government Role; Educational Policy; State Action; Federal State Relationship; Activism; Program Implementation; Educational Change; Change Strategies; Political Power; Federal Government; State Government; Resistance to Change; Interests; Federal Programs; State School District Relationship; Policy Analysis

Abstract:
The evolution of the federal role in education policy has entailed increasing activism in matters traditionally controlled by states and school districts. However, the expanding federal role has not resulted in a zero sum game for states and localities. Focusing on the policy-implementation process, this article examines recent state and local responses to federal activism in education policy. The study demonstrates how states and localities are able to protect their perceived interests by resisting and reshaping federal education policy. (Contains 23 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Civil Rights; Bullying; Incidence; Civil Rights Legislation; School Districts; State Agencies; Legal Responsibility; At Risk Students; Educational Environment; State Government; Federal Government; Public Agencies; Literature Reviews; Educational Policy; Board of Education Policy; Victims; State Legislation; Federal Legislation

Abstract:
In this statement, the author discusses the results of the work that the members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions requested on school bullying. It is estimated that millions of American youths have been bullied by their peers, including physical, verbal, and electronic attacks. The author's statement is based on a report released recently, which addresses the following objectives: (1) What is known about the prevalence of school bullying and its effects on victims?; (2) What approaches are selected states and local school districts taking to combat school bullying?; (3) What legal options do the federal and selected state governments have in place when bullying leads to allegations of discrimination?; and (4) How are key federal agencies coordinating their efforts to combat school bullying? To address these objectives, the author and her colleagues reviewed research on the prevalence and effects on victims; analyzed state bullying laws, and school district bullying policies; interviewed officials from the Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Justice, and a nongeneralizable sample of eight states and six school districts; and reviewed selected relevant federal and state civil rights laws. In summary, with regard to the prevalence and effects of bullying, their findings suggest that reported levels of bullying and related effects are significant. Research shows that bullying can have detrimental outcomes for victims, including adverse psychological and behavioral outcomes. Selected states and school districts are taking various approaches to reducing bullying. The bullying laws in the eight states that they reviewed vary in who is covered and the requirements placed on state agencies and school districts. They also found that while federal and state civil rights laws may offer some protections against bullying in certain circumstances, vulnerable groups may not always be covered. Finally, regarding federal coordination efforts to combat bullying, they found that a variety of efforts are under way, but that a full assessment of legal remedies has not been completed. In conclusion, they found that the nature and extent of protections available to students who are bullied depend on the laws and policies where they live or go to school. (Contains 2 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (56K)

Descriptors:
School Desegregation; Public Schools; Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Policy; Federal Government; Magnet Schools; Financial Support; Federal Aid; Transfer Policy; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Civil Rights; Charter Schools; Housing; Educational Research; Public Agencies; Racial Integration

Abstract:
The November 13, 2009 Conference of the National Coalition on School Diversity brought together more than 300 people from across the nation. This included parents, teachers, school administrators, local and state elected leaders, long time civil rights advocates, community organizers, and government officials. Participants engaged in a substantive, compelling dialogue with representatives from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), the Justice Department, the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), Congressional staff, and the White House Domestic Policy Council. Participants expressed their collective concerns about the slow pace of support for voluntary school integration in the new Administration. This Statement summarizes the most important steps they believe the federal government must take in the next two years to support voluntary school integration in American public schools. It is not intended as an exhaustive recap of all the research and policy proposals presented. (Contains 5 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (83K)

Descriptors:
Child Care; Child Caregivers; Early Childhood Education; Preschool Teachers; Teacher Effectiveness; Federal Government; State Government; Government Role; Public Agencies; Labor Force Development; Improvement Programs; Financial Support; Data Collection; Educational Attainment; Wages; Caregiver Training; Teacher Education

Abstract:
Research shows that well trained and educated early child care and education (ECCE) workers are key to helping children in care reach their full developmental potential. Federal and state governments spend billions of dollars each year to improve ECCE programs, including the quality of its caregivers and teachers. Because of the importance of this workforce and the federal investment in it, US Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined (1) what is known about the composition, education, and income of the ECCE workforce and how these characteristics relate to quality, and (2) what activities are the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education, and the states financing to improve worker quality? GAO surveyed state child care administrators, interviewed HHS, Department of Education (Education), and other federal and state officials; interviewed ECCE experts and researchers; analyzed Census Bureau and Head Start data; conducted a literature search; and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) State Workforce Improvement Activities; (3) Cited Studies in the Report; (4) Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services; (5) Comments from the Department of Education; and (6) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 3 tables, 6 figures and 33 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1013K)

Descriptors:
Governance; Government Role; Public Support; Federal Government; Federal Legislation; State Government; Local Government; Surveys

Abstract:
Until recently, educational governance was left primarily in the hands of locally controlled school boards. In the 1980s, however, states began to reassert their influence in education policy making. More recently, the federal government has expanded its role in education through programs like No Child Left Behind. But as state and federal policy makers continue to increase their involvement in education policy, does the public support such shifts? By examining public opinion from the 1970s to 2010, we find that unlike some policy advocates who see local control of education as obsolete, the public often expresses strong support for and satisfaction with local control. At the same time, the people recognize that the state and federal government can play an important role in education. We find increased support for state and federal involvement when issues of equity are invoked by question wording. List of abbreviations is appended. (Contains 11 tables.The work for this paper was supported in part by the Education Policy Center, Michigan State University. ) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (825K)