The Tenth Annual Report to Congress: One More Ride on the Merry-Go-Round?

1989 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Greenburg
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Local School ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Public Education Policy ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Department of Education's Tenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act contains improvements, but most infirmities of previous reports on progress toward meeting the goals of Public Law 94–142. Major criticisms include (a) continued overdependence on reporting numbers of students without descriptions of evolutions in service delivery, and (b) a lack of information about service delivery which includes the perspective of practitioners in local school districts where the service delivery occurs. The report further prompts even more questions about the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitoring findings and reinforces the need for improved communication between local practitioners and those who form national public education policy.

Mainstreaming and the Mathematics Classroom

1984 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-27
Author(s):  
Francis (Skip) Fennell
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Mathematics Classroom ◽  
Educational Programs ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Education For All ◽  
Exceptional Children ◽  
Free Public Education ◽  
Appropriate Education

Federal legislation known as Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was passed in November 1975. This legislation determines regulations and requires actions by school districts and teachers relative to exceptional children. Many have interpreted state legislat ion and PL 94-142 as legislative remedies for some of the schools' past failures to provide an appropriate education for handicapped students. The law's programmatic and budgetary requirements became enforceable in October 1977. Public Law 94-142 mandates that free public education for handicapped students between the age of three and twenty-one begin no later than September 1980. Some exceptions to the mandate do occur, but the implication is that public schools may no longer refuse to admit handicapped students into educational programs.

Equalization of Expenditures and the Demand for Local Public Education: The Case of New Jersey

1983 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Bernstein Megdal
Keyword(s):  
New Jersey ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Local School ◽  
Educational Expenditures

This article focuses on the goal of equalization of educational expenditures up to a minimum. The distribution of expenditures produced by three different aid formulas is examined. The response of local school districts to receipt of aid revenues is discussed, and an aid disbursement formula that could promote compliance with the aforementioned goal is proposed.

The Loophole in Public Law 94-142

1980 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 516-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne Raiser ◽  
Clint Van Nagel
Keyword(s):  
School Districts ◽  
Emotionally Disturbed ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Education For All ◽  
Disturbed Child ◽  
Local School ◽  
Behaviorally Disordered ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Socially Maladjusted

Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, promises that no school aged pupil will be denied a free appropriate public education because of a handicapping condition. The authors propose that by regulatory exclusion, o great population of students with behavior disorders do not have this federally mandated guarantee and will continue to be at the mercy of local school districts, which may or may not choose to accept the responsibility for their education. Public Law 94-142 qualifies “emotionally disturbed” with the word “seriously,” implying no responsibility for the moderately disturbed child. The law further specifically excludes “socially maladjusted” unless they are “seriously emotionally disturbed.” The door is open for school districts to systematically exclude large numbers of behaviorally disordered students from special education classes and from school itself.

Full-Service Utilization through an Exit Orientation: A New Model for Residential Schools

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 199-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.S. Koehler ◽  
M.M. Loftin
Keyword(s):  
School Districts ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Service Utilization ◽  
Residential Schools ◽  
Residential School ◽  
Local School ◽  
New Model ◽  
Student Access

This article describes a new philosophy and model of service delivery initiated by one residential school for the blind. Termed “full-service utilization through an exit orientation,” the model aims to provide each student access to the full array of services that will meet his or her needs at a given time and a change of services as the student's needs change. It also allows for close coordination among the personnel of local school districts, the staff of the residential school, and parents.

The Obama Administration American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Local School Board Politics

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 67-85
Author(s):  
Irina S. Okhremtchouk ◽  
Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Title I ◽  
School Board ◽  
District Leadership ◽  
The State ◽  
Local School ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
Fiscal Stabilization ◽  
The U.S

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 2009 funds were established by the Obama administration to stabilize the U.S. economy and support public education. This case examines how the district leadership in one rural unified school district in California decided to allocate the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds and Title I Part A/ARRA funds provided within ARRA. The case explores how local school board politics and local bureaucracies contribute to the district leadership’s allocation of these funds.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE 19TH CENTURY: EVIDENCE FROM THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL COMPANY

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Russ ◽  
Gary John Previts ◽  
Edward N. Coffman
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Review Committee ◽  
Corporate Governance Structure ◽  
Theoretical Structure ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The U.S

Presenting evidence from a 19th century corporation, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company (C&O), the paper shows that issues of corporate governance have existed since the first corporations were established in the U.S. The C&O used a stockholder review committee to review the annual report of the president and directors. The paper shows how the C&O stockholders used this committee to supplement the corporate governance structure. The corporate governance structure of the C&O is also viewed from a theoretical structure as espoused by Hart [1995].

Whose money matters in public education: A “public” good that parents purchase

2021 ◽  
pp. 147821032110343
Author(s):  
Eunju Kang
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
New York State ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Education Funding ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
State And Local

Instead of asking whether money matters, this paper questions whose money matters in public education. Previous literature on education funding uses an aggregate expenditure per pupil to measure the relationship between education funding and academic performance. Federalism creates mainly three levels of funding sources: federal, state, and local governments. Examining New York State school districts, most equitably funded across school districts among the 50 states, this paper shows that neither federal nor state funds are positively correlated with graduation rates. Only local revenues for school districts indicate a strong positive impact. Parents’ money matters. This finding contributes to a contentious discourse on education funding policy in the governments, courts, and academia with respect to education funding and inequality in American public schools.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document