Your search found 284022 results.

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Music; Music Education; Special Education; Special Needs Students; Singing; Educational Research; Literature Reviews; Musicians; Administrators; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Academic Accommodations (Disabilities); Student Placement

Abstract:
Despite long-standing antidiscrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which are meant to guarantee equal access, many school and community choirs appear to be populated primarily by students with typical physical, cognitive, and behavioral abilities. The purpose of this article is to review research and professional literature on integration of individuals with significant cognitive, speech/language, physical and/or behavioral challenges into school and community choirs. Because of the small amount of literature specifically pertaining to choirs, this review also includes pertinent literature from other performance ensembles and from elementary general music classrooms. Based on this review of literature, I will identify and describe common features or approaches of successfully integrated general music, instrumental, and choral programs. Finally, I will summarize these findings specifically with regard to their utility in school and community choral settings, with the aim of illustrating how choral directors might better include singers with special needs in their choirs. (Contains 1 note.) 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:
Disabilities; Guidance; Preschool Children; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Aid; Financial Support; Academic Standards; State Standards; Preschool Education; State Departments of Education; School Districts; Nursery Schools; Eligibility; Teacher Qualifications; Parent Participation; Parent School Relationship; Family School Relationship; Transitional Programs; Intervention; Migrant Children; Homeless People; Educational Needs; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation

Abstract:
This guidance is written to assist State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools in understanding and implementing preschool programs supported with funds under Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Although each SEA may consider this guidance in the development of its own guidelines and standards, SEAs are free to identify alternative approaches that are consistent with applicable Federal statutes and regulations. Guidance in this document replaces previous non-regulatory Title I guidance on serving preschool children. It addresses Title I requirements in the ESEA and answers questions raised by SEAs, LEAs, and other officials regarding using Title I funds to serve preschool children. Recipients of Title I funds may refer to this guidance when administering or operating preschool programs supported with Title I funds. Selected Resources to Support High-Quality Early Learning Programs are appended. 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 (665K)

Descriptors:
Financial Support; State Aid; Disabilities; Related Services (Special Education); Technical Assistance; School Districts; Special Education; Special Needs Students; Educational Policy; Educational Finance; Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Federal Regulation; Federal State Relationship; State Programs; Guidelines; Elementary Secondary Education; State Policy; State Regulation

Abstract:
This Quick Reference Document has been prepared by the Regional Resource Center Program Fiscal Priority Team to aid RRCP State liaisons and other Technical Assistance (TA) providers in understanding the general context of State questions surrounding Maintenance of State Financial Support (MFS) and Local Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE). In addition to the regulations cited in this paper, there is additional information about MFS in the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memo 10-05: Maintenance of State Financial Support under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, December 2, 2009 and an additional information about LEA MOE contained in OSEP Letter to Boundy, April 4, 2012. As a "first-stop" for TA providers in investigating MFS and MOE questions on behalf of their States, this document is intentionally brief. For additional clarification or detail on a specific MFS or MOE issue, TA providers are encouraged to contact the member of the Fiscal Priority Team in their respective RRCP region or the Fiscal Convener for additional information and resources. Attached are: (1) OSEP Memorandum, Dec. 2, 2009; and (2) OSEP Letter to Boundy, April 4, 2012. 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 (897K)

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Inclusion; Special Education; Foreign Countries; Comparative Analysis; Legal Problems; Mainstreaming; Regular and Special Education Relationship; Cross Cultural Studies; Cultural Differences; Educational Legislation; Legal Responsibility; Public Schools; Journal Articles; Newspapers; Court Litigation; Educational Philosophy; Student Placement

Abstract:
Japan faces an educational challenge even after the start of a new special education system (Tokubetsushienkyouiku). This article addresses the legal framework of the special education system in Japan and analyzes the issues needed to be addressed to reinforce the inclusion of children with disabilities in public regular school settings. The analysis uses published documents, including journal and newspaper articles, government notifications, government data, and court rulings, available through university library databases in Japan and the United States. Articles and court cases selected for review were those that highlighted legal issues in special education related to inclusion of children with disabilities in public regular school settings as well as the underlying philosophies of the legal decisions. Three Japanese cases involving students placement in regular schools were reviewed for comparative analysis to depict the differences in standards and underpinning philosophies in the two countries. This article argues that the U.S. special education system can provide some implications for the Japanese special education system. (Contains 4 tables.) 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 (243K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Grants; Educational Change; Funding Formulas; School Districts; Poverty; Academic Achievement; Special Education; National Competency Tests; Graduation Rate; Enrollment; Suburban Schools; Rural Schools; Urban Schools

Abstract:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided an unprecedented level of funding designed to "stimulate the economy in the short-term and invest wisely, using these funds to improve schools, raise achievement, drive reforms and produce better results for children and young people for the long-term health of our nation." The distribution of Recovery Act funds was intended to reflect these multiple goals. Nearly $97.4 billion were allocated to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), of which $70.6 billion were awarded by ED for primary and secondary (K-12) education through existing and new federal programs. These funds were distributed to states and districts using formulas based primarily on population and student poverty and through competitive grants. Consistent with its emphasis on transparency, the Recovery Act also included extensive reporting requirements for the receipt and use of Recovery Act funds. This report brings together publicly available information about Recovery Act education grants--all awarded by September 30, 2010--and the sub-grants made by grant recipients as of December 31, 2010. It examines (1) how much states and districts received from the Recovery Act and its different programs; and (2) whether and how the distribution of funds varied by selected characteristics of the recipient states and districts. This information lays the groundwork for ED's multi-year evaluation, "Charting the Progress of Education Reform: An Evaluation of the Recovery Act's Role." The evaluation examines the implementation of K-12 education reforms promoted by the Act across states, school districts, and schools. Key findings from this examination reveal that: (1) the Recovery Act provided an average of $1,396 per pupil for K-12 programs; (2) the Recovery Act K-12 funding to individual states ranged from $1,063 to $3,632 per pupil; (3) on average, 81 percent of Recovery Act K-12 funding was awarded to local education agencies (LEAs), either through sub-grants from states or through direct grants from ED. In total, 93 percent of all school districts in the nation received Recovery Act funds from at least one program; and (4) high-need school districts--defined as those with the highest rates of child poverty as well as those with the lowest student achievement--received considerably more funding per pupil than did districts with less need. Appended are: (1) Data Sources; (2) Methods; and (3) Supplementary Data Tables. (Contains 15 figures, 13 tables, and 45 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 (1088K)

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Special Education; Civil Rights; Statistical Analysis; Policy Analysis; Federal Government; State Policy; Court Litigation; Compliance (Legal); Government Role; Educational History; Special Needs Students; Educational Policy; Qualitative Research; State Programs; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation

Abstract:
The purpose of this policy analysis was to examine the responses of selected states to the special education monitoring requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) with particular attention paid to the years after this most recent reauthorization. This study examined the legislative and litigative history of students with disabilities including the gradually increasing role of the federal government in both general and special education. The various approaches used by the selected states to monitor special education procedures and student outcomes were identified as well as the procedures used by these states in order to remediate non-compliance issues. Information was reviewed in order to determine the extent that selected states met or failed to meet state indicator targets. Once the non-compliance issues and due process issues had been associated with their respective priority areas, an analysis was made of the relationship between these two variables. It was determined that a correlation was found to exist between due process proceedings and identified areas of non-compliance. Through the use of qualitative and quantitative research methods, the results obtained from this study indicated that the selected states use similar methods for monitoring special education as well as for remediating non-compliance. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] 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:
Teacher Effectiveness; Elementary Secondary Education; Disabilities; Accountability; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Student Evaluation; Student Development; Administrator Effectiveness; Academic Achievement; Data Collection; College Readiness; Careers; Charter Schools; Special Education

Abstract:
This paper presents the recommendations by the Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc. (CASE) for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). CASE is a non-profit professional organization which provides leadership and support to approximately 5,000 members by influencing policies and practices to improve the quality of education. CASE believes it is extremely important that the goals and provisions of the ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are carefully aligned to promote success for ALL students. CASE continues to believe it is important for these two very significant laws to send consistent messages in terms of expectations as they relate to assessment and accountability measures of student growth and administrator and teacher effectiveness. 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 (631K)

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Compliance (Legal); Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Court Litigation; Equal Opportunities (Jobs); Equal Education; Definitions; Federal Aid; Adult Education; Higher Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Academic Accommodations (Disabilities)

Abstract:
This article provides an overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 2008 amendments to the act (ADAAA) as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The article describes the major sections of the ADA, addresses the changes brought about to the ADA and Section 504 as a result of the ADAAA, reviews the outcome of initial court cases and settlement agreements filed under the ADAAA, and concludes with a discussion of implications for recruiters, hiring managers, department heads, and adult and higher education. 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:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Finance; Disadvantaged Youth; Disabilities; Program Effectiveness; School Districts; Educational Change; State Departments of Education; Stimuli; Economic Factors; Federal Legislation; Federal Aid; Financial Support; Public Schools; Postsecondary Education; Budgeting; Grants

Abstract:
To blunt the effects of the economic downturn that began in 2008, President Obama called for, and on February 13, 2009 the Congress passed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This federal economic stimulus package had three primary goals: to save and create jobs, to cultivate economic activity and long-term growth, and to increase accountability and transparency in government spending. Federal appropriations for the ARRA eventually totaled approximately $840 billion and were directed toward tax cuts, funding for entitlement programs, and investments in infrastructure, health, energy, education, and other programs. In the area of education, the Act provided economic stimulus funds to states for both K-12 public schools (the focus of this report) and postsecondary education institutions. ARRA also included additional fiscal year (FY) 2009 funding for the Title I program for disadvantaged children and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 2010, states and school districts received an additional $10 billion to save or create educators' jobs through the Education Jobs Fund legislation. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University has tracked the use of ARRA and Education Jobs funds and the implementation of ARRA-related reforms since these laws were enacted. Between December 2009 and February 2012, CEP released six reports looking at the effects of the ARRA on K-12 education across the United States, all available at www.cep-dc.org. These six reports were based on survey responses of state and local officials charged with implementing the ARRA and Education Jobs programs. In particular, CEP surveyed state education agency (SEA) officials and governors' staff and conducted nationally representative surveys of school district officials, including superintendents, chief financial officers, and program directors. Responses to all of the surveys were kept anonymous to encourage frank answers. This summary report synthesizes findings across all six reports and distills themes and conclusions based on a retrospective look at the effects of ARRA on K-12 education. Several main conclusions can be drawn from CEP's surveys of officials on the front lines of implementing ARRA. First, ARRA funding helped to blunt the effects of the budget cuts in K-12 education faced by most school districts and many states. Second, the ARRA largely met its primary purpose of saving or creating K-12 teaching jobs and other education-related jobs. Third, in addition to saving jobs, ARRA has encouraged states to pursue a common reform agenda centered on the four assurances tied to the receipt of ARRA funds--namely, adopting rigorous standards and assessments, implementing statewide student data systems, enhancing teacher effectiveness, and improving low-performing schools. States and districts have used stimulus funding to implement these priorities and have made progress in carrying out many aspects of these four reforms. Even so, key activities related to the reforms have not yet been implemented, and in some cases budget cuts have led states and districts to slow or postpone action on the reforms. Fourth, the funding benefits of ARRA appear, to a large extent, to have bypassed state education agencies, which play a crucial role in implementing the ARRA and state reform agendas. Many SEAs report having experienced funding cuts and staffing reductions over the past few years, which have affected their capacity to improve K-12 education. The remainder of this report provides background on the ARRA and Education Jobs programs and highlights findings and themes about the impact of these programs. 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 (452K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Equal Education; Poverty; Racial Segregation; Disadvantaged Schools; Educational Quality; School Choice; Educational Equity (Finance); Federal Aid; Compliance (Legal)

Abstract:
Today, public schoolchildren are more racially isolated than at any time in the past four decades. And, racially isolated schools are overwhelmingly high-poverty schools: indeed nine out of ten of highly segregated schools serving African-American and Latino students are schools of concentrated poverty. With rare exception, racially isolated, high-poverty schools remain unequal--by any measure--and fail to provide students with the skills necessary to participate in the economy and society. To close the achievement gap and prepare students to participate meaningfully in the democracy and global economy, all students must learn to live and work together across race and class lines. Reflecting the high importance that schools and communities have placed on efforts to unlock concentrated disadvantage and segregation in schools, the United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged that promoting diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling interests that schools can and should pursue. Accordingly, the reauthorization process must take account of the fact that race and class still matter deeply in the education schoolchildren receive, and efforts to address the impact of concentrated poverty and racial isolation in schools can and should be of paramount importance. 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 (69K)