Search results1 – 10 of 216
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit schools from discriminating against otherwise qualified individuals with…
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit schools from discriminating against otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities because of their impairments. The major difference between the two statutes is that the former applies only to recipients of federal funds, whereas the latter extends protections to those in the private sector. Otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities are those who have physical or mental impairments, which substantially limit one or more of their major life activities, a record of such impairments, or are regarded as having such impairments but who are capable of meeting all of a program's requirements in spite of their disabilities. In this chapter, the authors review the statutes' various requirements as they apply to both students and employees in the school setting. Specifically, using numerous court cases as examples, the chapter outlines the reasonable accommodations schools must provide to extend the benefits of their programs to individuals with disabilities in terms of providing services or employment. Furthermore, the chapter discusses the limitations on the types of accommodations schools must provide when doing so would place an excessive financial or administrative burden on the school board.
Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has shown little interest in hearing and resolving school desegregation issues. In recent years, this pattern has also trickled down to the lower courts limiting judicial action in educational equity and opportunity issues. This chapter provides an update on litigation pertaining to school desegregation. It pays particular attention to cases since 1990
This chapter addresses changes in the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB Act…
This chapter addresses changes in the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB Act increases both federal involvement in K-12 education and funding for this purpose. The Act targets poor students and academically weak schools by shifting funding formulas, requiring annual testing of students in grades three through eight; and makes school systems accountable by tracking test results, reporting to parents, and disaggregate tests results by sub-group factors. The goal is to eliminate the achievement gap between minority and white students. We discuss the process and the achievement of this goal.
Kevin P. Brady is currently an associate professor in the Department of Leadership, Policy, Adult, and Higher Education at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. Previously, Dr. Brady was an assistant professor in the Department of Educational and Community Programs at the City University of New York-Queens College. His current research interests include legal and educational policy issues involving student discipline, including zero tolerance discipline policies and the viability of school–police partnerships. Additionally, Dr. Brady's recent scholarship has examined issues relating to student and teacher free speech and expression, special education law, school finance, and educational technology issues involving today's school leaders. Dr. Brady's peer-reviewed scholarship appears in a wide array of leading educational law, policy, and technology-based journals including, the Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Children's Legal Rights Journal, Distance Education, Education and the Law, Education and Urban Society, Journal of Education Finance, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Journal of School Leadership, International Journal of Educational Reform, NASSP Bulletin, Review of Research in Education, and West's Education Law Reporter.
Tawannah G. Allen, EdD has a Bachelor's of Science degree in Psychology and a Masters of Education in Communication Disorders, both from North Carolina Central University, in Durham, North Carolina. Tawannah practiced as a speech-language pathologist for 10 years after having student taught and taught Kindergarten in Durham Public Schools. Her degree in School Administration was obtained from Fayetteville State University, in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Ms. Allen earned her Doctorate in Education in Educational Leadership from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests include resiliency and the African American male and African American women in leadership. She continues to conduct research in the area of African American males and academic success, while also presenting at conferences and professional development trainings. Currently, Dr. Allen is employed with Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) as the Director of Elementary Programming and Professional Development. In this position, she is responsible for the articulation, implementation, and monitoring of the elementary instructional programming for nine elementary schools, while also identifying and providing quality professional development for the teachers, principals, and other administrators within the CHCCS district. Dr. Allen's professional goals include becoming an assistant superintendent in a small urban district and then ultimately becoming a superintendent.
This volume of the International Perspectives on Education and Society series investigates the spread and development of two-year and community college institutions…
This volume of the International Perspectives on Education and Society series investigates the spread and development of two-year and community college institutions worldwide. While these institutions may be called by different names and may not all be structured the same in all international contexts, their core mission remains surprisingly consistent: to respond to the needs of their local community. Following the example of the German Volkshochschule, this model has spread to the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, India, South Africa, Thailand, and other nations worldwide. While the community college “label” is debatable and possibly controversial in and of itself, what these institutions all have in common is that they seek to serve the needs of their local communities by bridging the gap between academia and technical training with learning that is open and accessible. The students that these institutions serve come from various socioeconomic backgrounds, ages, races, cultures, and genders. Whether they provide these students with technical training, the ability to transfer to four-year higher education institutions, remedial education, or lifelong learning opportunities, these models adapt and institutionalize themselves differently around the world to meet these various community needs. This volume seeks to analyze the different ways this model has served communities in different international contexts, but for similar purposes.
Scholars have recently begun to empirically evaluate the triple-A supply chain, which emphasizes concurrent capabilities in agility, adaptability and alignment across the…
Scholars have recently begun to empirically evaluate the triple-A supply chain, which emphasizes concurrent capabilities in agility, adaptability and alignment across the supply chain to develop sustainable competitive advantage. Complexity theory suggests however that other combinations of triple-A capabilities may be equally effective, especially given a firm's strategic orientation relative to its market and its supply chain. Our research objective was to examine what combinations of these capabilities lead to the same outcome (i.e. high firm performance).
We collected 182 survey responses from a global sample of supply chain managers. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was employed to assess effective recipes of agility, adaptability, alignment, supply chain orientation, and market orientation.
Our results revealed four distinct “recipes” (i.e. combinations of agility, adaptability, alignment, supply chain orientation and market orientation) that lead to high levels of firm performance.
Our results indicate that firms currently do not necessarily have to concomitantly develop capabilities across all triple-A components. Considering the costs associated with developing each of these capabilities, the findings allow us to derive several theoretical and managerial insights.