November 2014 – Special Educator e-Journal

Table of Contents

• Update from the U.S. Department of Education

• Making the Grade: Written by Jessie S. Thacker-King

• Intersection: Navigating the Road to Work

• Legislative Announcements, Calls to Participate and New Projects

• Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET

• Upcoming Conferences and Events

• Funding Forecast and Award Opportunities

• Acknowledgements

• Download a PDF or XPS Version of This Issue

Update from the U.S. Department of Education

$121 Million Awarded in Grants to Help Improve Outcomes of Individuals with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) today announced more than $121 million in grants to help improve the outcomes of individuals with disabilities—from cradle through career. The investments are aimed at promoting inclusion, equity and opportunity for all children and adults with disabilities to help ensure their economic self-sufficiency, independent living and full community participation.

“These investments are significant in assisting individuals with disabilities to reach their full potential,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We want all individuals with disabilities to succeed and these investments symbolize our values and commitment as a nation toward achieving excellence for all.”

Among the grants is $54 million from OSERS’ Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to support research, demonstrations, technical assistance, technology, personnel development and parent-training and information centers. The OSEP grants include $8.7 million to WestED in San Francisco to create a Center for Systemic Improvement (CSI). The $8.7 million grant becomes the largest technical assistance (TA) investment ever funded by OSERS. The focus of this national center will be to provide assistance to states to help build their capacity to support local school districts and early intervention services programs in improving educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. CSI will help states implement the Department’s Results Driven Accountability framework by strategically delivering the assistance necessary to implement bold, innovative and systemic reforms that raise expectations for academic achievement and improve outcomes.

Besides special education, OSERS’ Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) awarded $47 million to fund its comprehensive and coordinated programs of vocational rehabilitation, supported employment and independent living for individuals with disabilities. And, OSERS’ National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) distributed $19 million to institutions of higher education and private and non-profit organizations for innovative, cutting-edge research projects.

U.S. Department of Education Invests Nearly $96 Million to Ensure All Students Have Same Opportunities to Learn, Achieve and Succeed

The U.S. Department of Education announced today nearly $96 million in grants to ensure every student—regardless of wealth, zip code, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or disability—has the same opportunities to learn and achieve.

These grants focus on closing equity and opportunity gaps for minority students attending colleges and universities across the country. Education is the engine of opportunity and the great equalizer for every student because it provides the clearest path to the middle class. That’s why the Obama Administration has worked to ensure that there are ladders of opportunity for all students through a variety of programs, such as the Excellent Educators for All initiative and the President’s My Brother’s Keeper initiative.

“Ensuring that every student—from the wealthiest to the poorest and historically underserved—has access to a high-quality education is what our work is all about,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We aren’t just talking the talk; we are awarding millions of dollars in grants to help institutions better serve minority students through various programs and services.”

The grants awarded by the Department are:

• Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program ($20,141,221)
• Strengthening Institutions Program ($22,998,921)
• The Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions Program ($16,360,038)
• Native Hawaiian Education Program ($10,054,780)
• Alaska Native Education Equity Program ($12,662,376)
• Promoting Post-baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program ($10,625,456)
• Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program ($3,039,006)

The Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program provides grants to assist institutions of higher education (IHEs) in expanding educational opportunities for, and improve the attainment of, Hispanic students. These grants enable these institutions to expand and enhance their academic offerings, program quality and institutional stability.

The Strengthening Institutions Programs award funding to help eligible IHEs become self-sufficient and expand their capacity to serve low-income students by providing funds to improve and strengthen the academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions.

The Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions program awards two-year grants to IHEs serving Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. The grants can be used for a wide range of activities such as faculty development and exchanges, curriculum development, counseling services, and the purchase or upgrading of library materials or laboratory equipment. To be eligible for grants through this program, an institution must have an undergraduate enrollment of at least 20 percent Alaska Native or 10 percent Native Hawaiian students.

The Native Hawaiian Education Program awards grants to support innovative projects that enhance the educational services provided to Native Hawaiians and to supplement and expand programs and authorities in the area of education. Types of projects supported by this program include early education and care programs, family-based education centers, beginning reading and literacy programs, activities to address the needs of gifted and talented native Hawaiian students, special education programs, professional development for educators, and activities to enable native Hawaiian students to enter and complete postsecondary education.

The Alaska Native Education Equity Program supports efforts to meet the unique educational needs of Alaska Natives by awarding competitive grants for innovative projects addressing the distinct educational needs of this student population. Along with educational institutions, eligible recipients include Alaska Native organizations and cultural and community-based groups.

The Promoting Post-baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program provides grants to expand post-baccalaureate educational opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students. The program also provides funding to expand post-baccalaureate academic offerings, as well as enhance the quality of academic programs in IHEs that are educating and helping large numbers of Hispanic and low-income students complete postsecondary degrees.

The Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program helps colleges and universities assists predominantly minority institutions in effecting long-range improvement in science and engineering education programs, and increasing the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into science and engineering careers. The program also supports special projects designed to provide or improve support to accredited nonprofit colleges, universities and professional scientific organizations for a broad range of activities that address specific barriers that eliminate or reduce the entry of minorities into science and technology fields.

Promoting Safe and Supportive Schools

Last month, Secretary Duncan joined representatives from education and juvenile justice organizations at the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Summit on School Discipline and Climate. There, he spoke about the importance of comprehensively supporting our students – and not just when it comes to raising test scores. Our schools should first, and foremost, be safe places to learn and our students should feel secure and valued.

We’d all agree that acting out in school is both disrespectful and disruptive, but should a minor infraction like tardiness or a dress code violation earn a student suspension or expulsion? For some kids, that’s exactly what happens, thanks to zero-tolerance disciplinary policies in place in school districts across the country. What’s even more troubling, too often these removals from school begin a road to academic failure and even later involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Under a promising effort called the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services, in partnership with philanthropies, are helping to foster safe, supportive, and productive learning environments while keeping students in school. As part of the initiative, on Oct. 6 and 7 we held a National Leadership Summit on School Climate and Discipline that brought together teams of educators and justice system professionals from 20 states and the District of Columbia to discuss how to improve school disciplinary practice and reduce student entry into the juvenile justice system. The summit provided the opportunity for states and local jurisdictions to develop strategies and begin taking steps toward disciplinary and juvenile justice reform. We also announced $4.3 million in grant awards to support activities designed to keep kids in school and out of court.

Kids should be held responsible for their behavior, but there are better alternatives to the harsh disciplinary methods being used in too many districts. By working with schools and justice system professionals, I believe we can find ways to keep our kids in school and on the path to learning and success.

Karol Mason is Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Announces Resolution of Civil Rights Investigation of California’s Downey Unified School District

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced today that it has entered into an agreement with California’s Downey Unified School District to resolve a complaint about the harassment and discriminatory treatment of a transgender student. The complaint alleged that the District discriminated against a transgender student by failing to respond adequately to complaints that the student was subjected to verbal harassment by peers and that staff at the student’s school disciplined her for wearing make-up, discouraged her from speaking about her gender identity with classmates and suggested that she transfer to another school.

“Our federal civil rights laws protect all students from sex-based discrimination and harassment,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights. “I commend the Downey Unified School District for entering into this agreement to ensure that each of its students, including transgender students and students who do not conform to stereotyped notions of masculinity or femininity, can learn in a safe, educational environment.”

Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the District requested to resolve this complaint through a voluntary agreement. Under the terms of the voluntary agreement, the District will ensure that gender nonconforming and transgender students can participate fully in the District’s programs and activities in a safe, educational environment.

The District committed to take the following actions:

• Engage a consultant with expertise on child and adolescent gender identity, including experience with discrimination against gender nonconforming and transgender students, to support and assist the District with implementing the provisions of the agreement;
• Work with its consultant to ensure a school climate free of harassment by incorporating age-appropriate information for students on gender identity, gender-based discrimination and harassment;
• Continue to treat the student the same as other female students in all respects in the education programs and activities offered by the District, including access to sex-designated facilities for female students;
• Notify the student and the complainant that they may request that the District develop a Student Success Plan to ensure the student has equal access and opportunity to participate in all programs and activities, and is otherwise protected from gender-based discrimination at school;
• Ensure that the student is not disciplined for acting or appearing in a manner that does not conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity;
• Remove all discipline imposed on the student during the 2011?12 school year from the student’s records;
• Review District policies, procedures and regulations applicable to student participation in all programs and activities offered by the District and make necessary revisions to ensure that all students, including students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are provided an equal opportunity to participate in all such programs and activities in a manner that does not discriminate based on sex, gender identity or gender expression;
• Develop an implementation guide for administrators, faculty and staff that addresses how the District’s gender-based discrimination policies apply to transgender and gender nonconforming students;
• Conduct mandatory training on issues related to gender nonconformance and gender-based harassment for District and school-site administrators who have the responsibility of investigating or supervising the investigation of gender-based harassment complaints and implementing other anti-discrimination policies and procedures regarding transgender and gender nonconforming students; and
• Conduct annual school climate assessments, including a student and parent survey, to evaluate the effectiveness of the District’s bullying and harassment prevention efforts.

OCR will closely monitor implementation of the agreement to ensure that the commitments made are implemented in a timely, effective manner.

A copy of the resolution letter can be found here. A copy of the agreement can be found here.

OCR’s mission is to ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. The office is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination by educational institutions on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex and age, as well as the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001.

Obama Administration Approves NCLB Flexibility Extension Requests for Six States

The Obama Administration announced that Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, Rhode Island and Utah have received a one-year extension for flexibility from certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

“America’s schools and classrooms are undergoing some of the largest changes in decades—changes that will help prepare our students with the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that tomorrow’s economy will require,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said. “This extension will allow the states to continue the critical work of implementing the bold reforms they developed to improve achievement for all students.”

ESEA has been due for Congressional reauthorization since 2007. In the absence of reauthorization, President Obama announced in September 2011 that the Administration would grant waivers from parts of the law to qualified states in exchange for state-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity and improve the quality of instruction. The one-year extension of ESEA flexibility allows the states to continue moving forward on the ambitious work they began with their initial flexibility requests.

The states being granted extensions today have implemented education reforms that go far beyond ESEA’s rigid, top-down requirements. Examples of that work include:

Arizona:

• The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has established SMART goals and objectives as part of ADE’s strategic plan to ensure accountability in implementing the principles of ESEA flexibility. ADE generates monthly reports on progress towards these goals and objectives, and ADE’s leadership convenes on a quarterly basis to monitor progress.
• Through the Governor’s College and Career Ready Program, ADE convened high school teachers and community college faculty to discuss and collaborate on what it means to be college ready to ensure that students are actually college ready and that both groups have the same understanding. Teachers and faculty compared curricula at the high school and college levels and discussed expectations for college readiness.
• To support focus schools in targeting interventions to address schools’ needs, ADE’s Office of Exceptional Student Services (ESS) reviewed focus schools, which were identified based on the performance of the bottom quartile of students, for high concentrations of students with disabilities within that bottom quartile. ESS created a grant program specifically for these schools to be able to target interventions toward supporting students with disabilities.

Massachusetts:

• The Massachusetts office of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) formally evaluates many aspects of its implementation and makes changes based on those evaluations. Based on annual evaluations of district implementation of ESE’s college- and career-ready standards, ESE released more than 100 model curriculum units and is currently conducting a more thorough evaluation of six districts that report a high level of success with implementation of these standards.
• ESE won a grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs to provide professional development through ESE’s statewide system of support. ESE worked with its partners (e.g., the Federation for Children with Special Needs) to build this system and to help solicit parental feedback on ESE’s plans to redesign its district and school accountability report cards.
• ESE uses its data system for teaching and learning (i.e., EDWIN analytics) to produce customized reports for teachers based on their students’ performance.

Missouri:

• Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MDESE) implemented school-based data teams of teachers of core subjects and state education staff in the priority and focus schools. These teams develop school accountability plans and meet regularly to analyze and discuss student progress in English language arts and math, and to share best instructional practices.
• MDESE partnered with the National Institute for School Leadership to launch the Missouri Leadership for Excellence, Achievement and Development program that focuses on enhancing leadership skills of principals and district staff working in focus schools. Training, which began in January 2013 and concluded in July 2014, focused on developing systemic processes for sustained school improvement, empowering instructional leadership teams, building collaborative learning and decision-making cultures, and coaching teachers on the use of outcome data to drive instructional improvements.
• MDESE posted model curricula and sample formative assessments for all K-12 grade levels in math and English language arts to support educators and students transitioning to college- and career-ready (CCR) standards.

Oregon:

• The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) is engaged in ongoing collaboration with professional organizations, such as the Oregon Education Association (OEA) and Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA), to support the implementation of reforms that are part of Oregon’s ESEA flexibility request, including the transition to and implementation of college- and career-ready standards and supports for teachers and leaders.
• With support from a new state legislative initiative (Senate Bill 3233), Oregon is aligning its work related to the implementation of college- and career-ready standards, and its educator evaluation system through the creation of regional and district Professional Learning Teams, which will guide district implementation and support alignment in these two areas.
• ODE actively works to ensure that English Learners are supported in the transition to college- and career-ready standards by including English Learner educators and Title III coordinators on its Stewardship Team, which guided Oregon’s transition work. In addition, ODE conducted outreach on the new standards to general district and school staff, as well as district and school staff that specifically support English Learners, through joint presentations and by developing parent toolkits on college- and career-ready standards that are available in both English and Spanish.

Rhode Island:

• The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) developed a comprehensive set of activities and resources to transition its schools and school districts to college- and career-ready standards (CCRS). Those activities included working with districts to develop curriculum aligned to Rhode Island’s CCRS; developing and distributing handouts and resource lists to various stakeholder groups; and seeking external funding to support educators with knowledge of CCRS who then shared that knowledge with other educators. RIDE conducted workshops on CCRS for more than 5,700 educators, including those who work with English learners and students with disabilities; created modules on key areas of CCRS that are available online; and disseminated information and solicited feedback on Rhode Island’s CCRS roll-out using social media and the Education Commissioner’s weekly field memos.
• RIDE has leveraged its data dashboard system in multiple ways. For example, it uses these dashboards on InfoWorks!, the Education Department’s data reporting site, to provide information to the public on various accountability measures. RIDE also has schools conduct self-evaluations using data dashboards. The information obtained from the dashboards is used during quarterly visits to focus and priority schools to track their progress and inform decision-making regarding next steps.

Utah:

• The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) is moving towards the design of technical assistance that is tailored to fit differentiated needs at the classroom teacher level to improve student achievement.
• USOE conducts onsite monitoring of priority schools at least twice a year, which is more than its regular Title I monitoring cycle.
• USOE coordinates with the state higher education system and other institutions to link student performance data across the K-16 continuum for research purposes.

In order to receive an extension, states must demonstrate that they have resolved any state-specific issues and next steps as a result of the Department’s monitoring, as well as any other outstanding issues related to ESEA flexibility. States could also request additional amendments to support their continuous improvement efforts. The extension is through the 2014-2015 school year. The Department is reviewing requests from states for one-year extensions to ESEA flexibility on a rolling basis.

Forty-one states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico currently have ESEA flexibility, 35 of which expire this summer. Those 35 states have all submitted extension requests. Twenty-nine states—Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia have been granted extensions since July 3.

New Jersey Teachers Lead the Way in Expecting More from Students

When beginning a lesson on area and perimeter earlier this year with her students, third-grade teacher Michele Elliott turned to New Jersey’s model curriculum for guidance on how to teach what students should know and be able to do under new, more-rigorous college- and career-ready standards. Then she set about having some fun.

Elliott, who teaches at Green-Fields Elementary School in West Deptford, New Jersey, and her students, applied masking tape to the tiled floor of their classroom to make rectangles of various sizes. The children then used the rectangles as the starting point for discussions about perimeter and its relationship to area.

This is just one example of how New Jersey teachers are using the State’s model curriculum, which the State’s teachers helped develop.

“The model curriculum guides you by expanding on the standards, but you have a lot of freedom with it in how you teach,” Elliott said. “It gives you a goal, but how you get there is based on whatever you think will work best for your students.”

The State’s Race to the Top grant helped support the development of the model curriculum, which covers English language arts and mathematics. An estimated 300 teachers volunteered to work with the State to create the model curriculum in 2012.

“They were very excited about putting something together that was coherent and made sense, that reflected what they wanted good instruction to look like,” said Meghan Snow, who helped lead the effort in mathematics for the New Jersey Department of Education.

Elliott’s district, which is just across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, opted to use the mathematics model curriculum in all five of its schools because of its high quality.

New Jersey’s 75 Priority Schools, which have student outcomes that put them in the bottom five percent of the schools in the State, are required by the State to use the curricula unless they can show they have other alternatives that are also aligned to the new standards.

The State’s Regional Achievement Centers provide teachers at Priority Schools with coaching and professional development opportunities. The Priority Schools also benefit from a technology system provided to them by the State that allows teachers to view and analyze student performance data in real time throughout the school year using formative assessments embedded in the model curriculum.

Using Data

Having the real-time student achievement data is invaluable, according to Deidre Richardson, a state mathematics specialist with a Regional Achievement Center in Central New Jersey and one of hundreds of educators in New Jersey who worked with State officials to write the model curriculum.

Richardson said the formative assessments that come with the model curriculum enable teachers to better serve the needs of each student by differentiating their instruction. Teachers can review student answers for individual questions immediately after an assessment. “Then, they can put the students in small groups and work on those areas where they need help,” she said. “This is powerful. It puts the data in teachers’ hands.”

Laura Sandy, who teaches sixth grade at West Deptford Middle School, agrees the model curriculum formative assessments are valuable. “If I thought my students comprehended something, and they really didn’t, then I would need to go back and cover it again. This helps me see that.”

“Teachers aren’t examining the data in isolation,” said Frank Grossman, executive director of the Regional Achievement Center that serves Trenton and the surrounding area “They are looking at it with colleagues and getting help in analyzing it from instructional coaches.”

Bringing the Standards to Life

Richardson said, “The model curriculum and the model curriculum assessments [formative assessments] do what they were intended to do,” which is to help teachers shift to the Common Core State Standards. New Jersey and more than 40 other States are currently using those standards to increase college- and career-readiness.

“In math, the shift is toward a much deeper conceptual understanding of the topics covered,” Richardson said. “That’s what makes good math students and makes peoplecomfortable with math. With the Common Core, students are not just asked to memorize rules and procedures.”

Jo Ann Kiessling, a second-grade teacher at Oakview Elementary School, also in West Deptford, agreed. She said the new standards really allow teachers to slow down and to focus on ensuring young students in the early grades understand numbers in a concrete way. Students may be asked to visualize numbers, for example. “We might ask, ‘What does the number eight look like on two dice? What does the number eight look like on dominoes? What does the number look like when you write a numeral? Is eight bigger than 10 or smaller than 10?’” she explained.

Elliott said, with the help of the model curriculum, teachers also get a picture in their head of what students need to learn. “It’s very clear where you need to focus,” she said. “That’s good for instruction.”

Statement from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan on commitments from the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Council of the Great City Schools on high-quality assessments

“Educators, parents, and policy makers need to know how much students are learning; that’s why thoughtful assessment of student learning and student growth, including annual assessments, is a vital part of progress in education. Assessments must be of high quality, and must make good use of educators’ and students’ time. Yet in some places, tests – and preparation for them – are dominating the calendar and culture of schools and causing undue stress for students and educators. I welcome the action announced today by state and district leaders, which will bring new energy and focus to improving assessment of student learning. My Department will support that effort.”

To top

Abstract

There are approximately, 50.1 million students in elementary and secondary school in the United States.  Roughly, that figure equates to about 13.1percent of students with various disabilities (IES, 2013).  In the United States, students with disabilities are covered under the umbrella of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1975).  Under this act, reenacted in 1990 students identified with a disability.  Their classification came from one of the 13 areas that negatively affects their ability to learn in the regular classroom. Their identification makes them eligible to receive a wide array of services meant to ensure that students with disabilities receive equal opportunities under the law (Duncan & Posny, 2010). According to USA Today, the national graduation rate of the US is 78.2 percent (Brown, 2013). However, 514,238 students dropped out. Of that figure, a little more than 61 percent or 313,685 were students with disabilities (Behrent, 2011).

In Finland, on the other hand, there are approximately 540,500 pupils enrolled in comprehensive schools. 40 percent of all secondary students receive special education interventions during their schooling (Edutopia: Finland’s Formula for School Success (Edcation Everywhere Series), 2012).  Approximately 13 percent  of the students receive either intensified support or special support (Irma Suovirta, 2013). The intensified support or special support is their version of IDEA.  Some 23 percent of the school population are served in part time special education classes (Sahlberg, 2012).  In Finland, the completion rate for upper secondary (our high school level) school is 90 percent (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

This paper will compare the special educational systems of the United States and Finland.  It will thoroughly review the history of special education laws in both countries; look at how the schools receive funding for the implementation of special education programs. It also considers the special education teacher training procedures.  This study will also examine both program structures by looking at the populations served as well as investigate the various services offered.  Additionally, the study will evaluate the successfulness of the programs by examining the outcomes as measured by the graduation percentages.  Finally, this paper will look at functional ways that successful programs in Finland enhance student learning for special education students and how best to implement similar special education strategies in the United States.

History

The United States led the charge for school reform by including students with disabilities in the educational environment by passing PL94-142, Education for the Handicapped Children Act (EHA). This law guaranteed a free and appropriate public education for all students (FAPE).  Prior to the implantation of EHA, students with disabilities had two major options.  Students were either not allowed enrollment in the public school system or parents were encouraged to place them in a facility for the remainder of their lives.   Another less talked about option for the higher functioning students was to enroll in the public schools with little to no assistance.  Most of these students would dropout because of failure to progress long before reaching graduation (Pardini, 2013).  With the passing of PL94-142, students with all levels of disabilities were legally included in the educational domain including students with mild to severe disabilities. Reauthorization of the EHA law in 1990 and again in 1997, renamed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,), brought about many changes. (Duncan & Posny, 2010).

Much like the United States, in Finland most disabled people (regardless of the type or severity), were amalgamated together and denied their rights and opportunities (Winzer, 2006). However, Finland did follow the United States’ lead in recognizing the need for educational services for students with disabilities with the passing of their law regarding special education.  In 1970,  the Finnish government passed the Comprehensive School Act  that assured  equal opportunity for all students to achieve an education.  However, this law did not cover students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities the responsibilities of educating these students remained with the social welfare system (Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2009).  It was not until 1985 that the educational system assumed the responsibility for these students (Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2009). It was not until the passing of The Basic Education Act in 1998, did students with disabilities have a fully implemented educational plan (IEP) to ensure their individual educational needs were met (Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2009).  Like the United States, the newly initiated IEP organized and clarified the educational supports needed by individual students to warrant success. The student’s rights included their right for education within the general education classroom (Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2009).

Programming and Funding

With the Education for the Handicapped Children Act (EHA) came the promise of funding by the Federal government. The funding was for up to 40 percent of the cost for accessibility to public education for students with disabilities (Pardini, 2013).  The funding would afford schools a way to pay for the addition of appropriately trained teaching staff.  It would have also funded the various curriculums necessary for students with disabilities to achieve success.  According to Priscilla Pardini’s article, however, the government failed to follow through with the funding of the special educational program by approximately 25 percent (Pardini, 2013).  Therefore, the government required the states to provide the educational services represented under IDEA, but without the appropriate funding.  To date, reports are that the federal government is underfunding these programs by approximately 22 percent (University of Michigan: SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION , 2013).

In Finland, all classes including special education are publically funded (Hancock, 2011). It is noted, however that funding for special education is based or tied to  the IEP not to placement of the student (Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2009). The public funds all public schools. This funding also covers health services, school meals and individualized support for all students considered special needs.  Standardized tests are not part of the school system until the students are ready to graduate (Sahlberg, 2012). Students may sit for standardized testing if they want to and their teacher agrees to sit with them.  Unlike the US, however, student test scores are not what drives the learning in Finnish schools.  Testing is used to improve the direction of the learning.

Teacher Training

Although Federal law required all students to receive services, teachers were ill equipped to handle the influx of students with disabilities.  This shortage of qualified teachers still exists today (Gale Encyclopedia of Education: special Education: Preparation of Teachers, 2013).  Shortages of teachers in this area relate directly to the area of licensure, location, as well as multiplicity of the faculty. Special education teachers are required to have a Bachelor’s degree with the addition of core courses in special education competencies.  They are required to take the same state accepted test that other teachers take (varies with the state, here in Arkansas it is the Praxis).  While many teacher education programs are available, the accessibility of the specialty training needed for special education preparation is limited in many areas. Teacher shortages in this critical area brings hardships on not only the students, but also the ability of schools to follow the letter of the law (IDEA) and provide the services that meet the needs of students with disabilities.  According to the Hechinger Report, about 11 percent of the nation’s special education classes are being taught by “emergency” qualified teachers (Butrymowicz, 2010). This article describes one states attempt at placing “semi qualified” teachers in special education classrooms because of the national shortage. Although many colleges and universities offer competent training for special education teachers, there are far too few graduates to fulfill the ever growing need. Adding to administrative frustration, according to an article by Leah Washburn-Moses, between 8-10 percent of all special education teachers leave the field within the first five years (Washburn-Moses, 2005).

In Finland, there is a certain prestige in becoming a teacher.  According to Wayne D’Orio’s article, only one applicant out of every eight is accepted into the coveted field of teaching (D’Orio, 2013). The Trade Union of Education in Finland necessitates a Master’s degree with a major in special education (Finland, 2008).  Training at the university level furnishes them with the core competencies that are required to become knowledgeable in special education much like the United States.  However, there were no figures on teacher shortages in Finland. According to a report published by The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (the OECD in 2010, there were over 6600 applicants that applied for the 660 teacher openings (Development, 2012).

Populations Served

In the initial law, EHA, provided educational services for student from ages 3-21 (History: twenty Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities through IDEA).  In 1986, the reenacted IDEA called for services between the ages of birth to 21 years old.  IDEA helped to provide services to children identified under the age of three helping to deliver the much-needed early interventions necessary to meet the educational needs of students and their families.

Along with the intervention services, the Department of Education, Special Education looked at student needs and made a plan about how best to meet those needs. IDEA began providing services for even more students with disabilities who required extraordinary services to further their educational outcomes. Under IDEA, students identified as a student with one of the 13 identifying criteria that adversely affects the child’s educational performance in the classroom will qualify for special educational services somewhere along a continuium (Friend & Bursuck, 2010).

The educational system in Finland is slightly different.  With a population much less than the U. S., 99.7 percent of the population complete compulsory school.  Students begin their mandatory schooling at age 7, although a free early childhood education program is provided to those who wish to partake (Sahlberg, 2012).  Sahlberg also reports that early intervention and special education is an intricate part of the compulsory schooling as are many of the basic family needs.  In providing these services, the Finnish system plays a central role in providing an equitable learning environment for all students (Sahlberg, 2012).

The Basic Education Act also systematically designed the special-needs programming profile.  It stated that students struggling in the general educational setting would receive, along with regular education, special education services.  These services included possible medical, psychological, and social needs of the student.  Unlike the U.S., the Finnish educational system does not require psychological or medical assessments before placement in the program, but they do encourage the formalized testing of students at some point.  Regulations leave teachers responsible for sanctioning the need for special services (Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2009).

Another difference between the U. S. and Finland is that instead of the testing determining the rapidity of learning, it is the student that determines the pace of their learning (English, 2013).  Teachers do monitor their students continuously to determine student needs.  This assessment ( presented as a narrative) naturally adds to the growth of the student and is not the guiding force.  More individualized learning affords students the ability to understand concepts completely compared to the hit or miss tempo of the U.S. classrooms.  In Finland, educational settings are truly child centered.  Assessments both formative and summative are used to guide learning for each student.  Based on the information gathered these assessments at the end of the second and night grades and from teacher narratives of each student, students receive the assistance needed to succeed (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The anticipation is that almost all students, at some point in time, will need and receive supplementary support (English, 2013).  Finland has initiated a matriculation examination for students at the end of their compulsory education years (Darling-Hammond, 2010).  Although the assessment is not required for graduation or entrance into university, it is highly recommended that students partake in this open-ended test.

Services Provided

Students in special education receive services through the IEP. Services include preschool for those who are determined to meet one of the include preschool for those who are determined to meet one of the  13 criteria.  A list of services ranging from speech and language pathology and audiology services to transportation, health and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes (An Overview of Related Services Under IDEA, 2013). The identification would include those who meet the needs of developmentally delayed between the ages of three and nine.  To meet the criteria students must experience delays in one or more of the following areas:  physical, cognitive, communicative, social emotional or adaptive behavior (NICHCY, 2012).

In the United States, the expectation to complete high school before attending vocational/ technical schools are for all students; however, they provide a narrow venue for special education students who need a lot of assistance while attending post-secondary schools (university).  Also, schools in the United States after high school are not free.  Although there are grants and loans to assist in paying the way, more funding is granted for special education students from the state (the amount varies from state to state) through agencies such as Vocational Rehabilitation (Rehabilitation, 2013).

In Finland, educational opportunities after 9^th grade are considered non-compulsory (Sahlberg, 2012).  At this time, students may choose to attend upper secondary to prepare for university or to attend a vocational school to further their training in toward job related training.  Reports do not offer a clear picture of exactly how many of the 45 percent of 16 year-olds that choose the vocational/technical studies are students with disabilities.  However, when one considers that 95 percent of all compulsory school students go on to either to vocational/technical studies or continue academic learning it is a clear picture that the students are continuing their education and go on to become lifelong learners. (Rubin, 2013).

How did Finland go from mediocre at best in the 1970’s to one of the top three schools in 2013 and how does the United States visualize the successes in Finland and duplicate them in their schools?  While research has shown that successful schools in any one area may not be duplicated in another area, there are a number of concepts that the US can take from Finland’s accomplishment as well as  the research available to help them find ways to reform the current educational system.  Obviously the successful system from Finland cannot be replicated in another country, however there are philosophies that could move the educational system along in the right direction.

One interesting area found in this research was the 4 percent poverty level in Finland compared to 16 percent in America.  This fact alone can account for much of the inequality within the US school systems.  Children who enter the school system unprepared to learn cannot learn.  Lack of basic needs proves to be a major issue in learning difficulties. As Wayne DÓrio’s article clearly stated “the absence of poverty” at the top of the list for reasons that Finland is at the top educationally (D’Orio, 2013).  He also states that because the student’s essential needs are being met, they are entering school willing and able to learn, and they come healthy.  Education is free in Finland, providing another area that enhances the probability that students will become lifelong learners.  School administrators and legislators who are accountable for funding need to reassess funding formulas to ensure equitable schools for all students.   Investing in teacher education was also at the top of the list.

In Finland, only the top ten percent of those in university vying for teaching positions see their dreams of becoming a teacher come to fruition.  Teachers are instructed in the area of research in order to continue to supply information about the educational process and how students best learn (Darling-Hammond, 2010).  According to Darling-Hammond, teachers continue to learn even after they begin teaching as they are provided three years choice graduate level schooling tuition free.  Teachers are encouraged to keep abreast of the latest research in their field.  In the US not only are some areas in dire need of teachers but those who are currently teaching tend to leave and go into the private sector because of lack of support and course pay rates. Finding ways to entice teachers to stay in the profession would be one way of easing the teacher shortage.  Administrative support for classroom structure and furthering teacher education/training is another option.

Another area in critical need of improvement for the United States is meeting the educational needs of the students.  The special educational system in the United States is based on a medical model for diagnosis and implementation of services (Kinlan, 2011).  This model means it is strict and rigid in terms of their placement policies and implementation.  It is imperative that student deficits be corrected as early as possible in order to provide the best opportunity for rectification in the learning process regardless of placement issues.  The earlier the students’ needs are met, the more likely they are to meet with improvement.  As noted by Carol Kinlan ‘s 2011, teachers should remain apprised of the latest techniques and research in their field to afford students with the best practice teaching (Kinlan, 2011). To boost this idea, funding should be allocated to make sure that more teachers are hired to work in this all areas including special education.  Using inclusionary programs has a proven track record to keep students in the regular classroom and still receive the “extra” help needed.  However, in most cases “inclusionary classrooms” are set up to have a special education teacher in the back of the room with the special education students while the general education teacher goes on with the lesson. Inclusion in this sense is not the intended set up.  Inclusion is intended for two equally qualified teachers to assist in student learning.  Another area that has fallen by the wayside in the US is the idea of vocational education within the public school system.  Years ago (back in the 70’s and 80’s) vocational education and the shuffling of students to and from the local vocational school was an everyday occurrence.  Some students are not meant to attend college and if the student has a trade to assist them in becoming a productive part of the work force then they were provided the best possible solution for the student and for the system?

Finally, the idea of testing should be questioned.  While it is always informative to know where student learning is at given intervals, assessing students excessively, curbs teacher creativeness.  Teachers feel the need to “teach to the test” especially if their performance evaluations are tied to the outcomes of these assessments.

As stated in Pasi Sahlberg’s blog, in order to ensure reforms in education, it must be a collective agreement (Sahlberg, 2012).  Teachers, principals, administration and parents all need to work together in the best interest of the students.  Reform comes slowly within the educational system and needs close monitoring. An examination of all educational models will help find the best fit for each school.

References

An Overview of Related Services Under IDEA. (2013, 12 1). Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com/print/Ref_Related_Services/

Behrent, M. (2011). In Defense of Public Education. Retrieved from New Politics: newopol.org/content/defense-public-education

Bodrova, D. J. (2012, January). Play and Children’s Learning. Retrieved from National Association for the Education of Young Children : www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/201201/Leong_Make_Believe_Play_Jan2012.pdf

Brown, J. (2013, January 22). National dropout, graduation rates improve, study shows. Retrieved from USATODAY.com: www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/22/education-high-school-dropout-rate/1855233/

Butrymowicz, S. (2010, September 1). National crisis: Not much training for some special-ed teachers. Retrieved from The Hechinger Report, Independent Educational News: hechingerreport.org/content/national-crisis-not-much-training-for-some-special-ed-teachers_4189/

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010, Oct). What we can learn from Finland’s successful school reform. Retrieved from National Education Association: www.nea.org/home40991.htm

Development, T. O. (2012, March 13). OECD calls for new approach to tackle teacher shortage. Retrieved from OECD: better policies for better lives: www.oecd.org/newsroom/oecdcallsfornewapproachtotackleteachershortage.htm

D’Orio, W. (2013). Finland is #1!,Finland’s education success has the rest of the world looking north for answers. Retrieved from Administrator Magazine: Curriculum: www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp

Duncan, A., & Posny, A. (2010, Nov). Thirty-Five Years of Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA. Retrieved from ED.gov: www2.ed.gov.print/about/offices/list.osers/idea35/history/index.html

Edutopia: Finland’s Formula for School Success (Edcation Everywhere Series). (2012, January 24). Retrieved from Edutopia.org: www.edutopia.org/reduction-everywhere-international-finland-video

English, J. (2013, Oct 24). US Teacher Gets Finnish Lesson in Optimizing Student Potential, Part 2. Retrieved from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) : oecdinsights.org/2013/09/24/us-teacher-gets-finnish-lesson-in-optimizing-student-poetential-part-2/

Finland, T. T. (2008). Teacher Education in Finland. Helsinki: Forssan Kirjapaino.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2010, July 20). The Special Education Referral, Assessment, Eligiblity, Planning, and Placement Process. Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com/reference/article/special-education-referral-assessment/

Gale Encyclopedia of Education: special Education: Preparation of Teachers. (2013, 11 23). Retrieved from Answers.com: www.answers.com/topic/special-education-preparation-of-teachers

Hancock, L. (2011, September). Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from Smithsonian.com: www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

Heavey, S. (2013, Nov 6). U.S. Poverty rate remains high even counting government aid. Retrieved from Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News/ Reuters.com: www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE9A513820131106

History: twenty Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities through IDEA. (n.d.). Retrieved from U. S. Office of Special Education Programs: www.ed.gov/offices/osers/osep

Huff Post. (2012, 01 27). Best Education in the World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average. Huff Post.

IES. (2013, 04 11). Fast Facts. Retrieved from National Center for Educational Statistics: nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

Irma Suovirta, R. H. (2013, November 15). Statistics Finland: Pre-primary and comprheensive school education 2013. Retrieved from Statistics Finland: www.stat.fi/til/pop_2013_2013-11-15_tie_001_en.html

Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2009, August 8). Disability or Learning Difficulty? constructing Special Eduaiton Students in Finland and the United States. Retrieved from All Academic Research: citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/0/7/6/5/pages307659/p307659-1.php

Kinlan, C. (2011, January 21). Rethinking Special Education in the U. S. Retrieved from Hechinger Report: hechingerreport..org/content/rethinging-special-education-in-the-u-s

Labor, D. o. (2013, 09 28). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov. Retrieved from Info please: www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719

Lepi, K. (2013). How 12 Countries Spend Education Money (And If It Makes A Difference). Edudemic; connecting education & technology.

M. Friend, W. D. (2013, 11 17). The Special Education Referral, Assessment, Eligibility, Planning, and Placement Process. Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com/print/special-education-referral-assessment/

NICHCY. (2012, 03). Categories of Disability Under IDEA. Retrieved from National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities: nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/gr3.pdf

Pardini, P. (2013, 11). The History of Special Education. Retrieved from rethinging schools. org: www.rethirngingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive/16_03/Hist163.shtml

Parent Brief Promoting Effective Parent Involvement in Secondary Educaiton. (2002, July). Retrieved from National Center on Secondary Education and Transition: ncset.org/premium-publications/printresource.asp?=423

Rehabilitation, V. (2013). Vocational Rehabilitation Services for High School Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from Executive Office of Health and Human Services: www.mass.gov/eohhs/consumer/family-services/youth-services/youth-with-disabilities/vocational-services.html

Rubin, C. M. (2013, Jan 14). The Global Search for Education: What Will Finland Do Next? Retrieved from Huff Post Education: www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/finland-education_b_2468823.html

Sahlberg, P. (2012). A Model Lesson; Finland Shows Us What Equal Opportunity Looks Like. American Educator, 20-40.

University of Michigan: SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION . (2013). Retrieved from Unversity of Michigan; Department of Psychology: sitemaker.umich.edu/delicata.356/funding_for_special_needs_education

Washburn-Moses, L. (2005, January). How to Keep Your Special Education Teachers. Retrieved from Managing Your School: www.nassp.org/portals/0/content/49169.pdf

Winzer, M. A. (2006). Confronting difference: an exursion through the history of special education. In M. a. Winzer, The SAGE Handbook of Special Educaiton. SAGE Publications.

Welcome to Intersection: Navigating the Road to Work, from the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth). The newsletter and the NCWD/Youth website offer information to improve programs and services for all youth and especially youth with disabilities. To read all articles below, visit: https://mail.aol.com/38798-516/aol-6/en-us/mail/DisplayMessage.aspx?ws_popup=true

U.S. Department of Labor Continues Support for NCWD/Youth

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) awarded a grant to the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) to continue operating NCWD/Youth for a second option year under the current funding cycle. IEL is excited to receive this award to continue building upon the last 13 years of work by the ODEP-funded National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. NCWD/Youth will use this money to continue building capacity within and across youth service delivery systems to improve employment and postsecondary education outcomes for all youth, including youth with disabilities. NCWD/Youth has four areas of focus going forward: 1) building the capacity of youth-serving systems, programs, and organizations; 2) individualized planning and career development; 3) youth development and leadership; and 4) professional development for youth service professionals.

NCWD/Youth Shares Individualized Learning Plan Resources

As students and young adults return to school this fall, NCWD/Youth continues to share its resources on Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) to help promote career development. NCWD/Youth’s ILP webpage provides comprehensive information for educators, families, and youth on how to use ILPs to define career goals and postsecondary plans in order to inform students’ decisions about their courses and activities throughout middle and high school. NCWD/Youth’s newest InfoBrief entitledFamilies and College and Career Readiness: What Schools Can do to Engage Families in the Individualized Learning Plan (ILP) Processis designed to assist educators in effectively working with parents and family members to facilitate students’ career development through the use of individualized college and career planning tools. NCWD/Youth will continue to publish new ILP and career development resources in the coming months.

NCWD/Youth Releases Guiding Your SuccessToolfor Youth

NCWD/Youth’s new Guiding Your Success Tool is designed to engage youth in planning for their futures by breaking down the five key transition areas identified in theGuideposts for Success and encouraging youth to consider how these impact their lives. This tool was developed with the assistance of Cohort 1 of NCWD/Youth’s Youth Action Council on Transition (YouthACT), which consists of five groups of youth and adult partners that have received training to develop their leadership and advocacy skills and technical assistance to assist them in becoming change agents in their communities.

U.S. Department of Labor Awards $2,007,322 in Grants to Improve Post-Secondary Education and Employment of Youth with Disabilities

On September 29, the U.S. Department of Labor awarded $2,007,322 in funding toOnondaga Community College in Syracuse, New York and Pellissippi State Community College in Knoxville, Tennessee as part of the Pathways to Careers: Community Colleges for Youth and Young Adults with Disabilities Demonstration Project.  The award recipients will conduct pilot projects to research, develop, test, and evaluate innovative strategies for providing inclusive education and career development services to youth with disabilities between the ages of 14 and 24. Vice President Joe Biden announced the award as part of the larger Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Program (TAACCCT) grant initiative, co-administered by the Department of Labor and Department of Education, which promotes job-driven training efforts at nearly 270 community colleges across the country.

U.S. Department of Labor Awards $14.8M in Grants to Expand Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities

On September 25, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the award of $14.8 million to six states—California, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and South Dakota—to support employment opportunities for people with disabilities. This announcement marks Round V of the Disability Employment Initiative, which aims to improve employment outcomes for youth and adults with disabilities by increasing their utilization of existing career pathways through expanding the function of local American Job Centers.

The Institute for Educational Leadership Announces 2015 National Family and Community Engagement Conference

The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) is excited to announce the 2015 National Family and Community Engagement Conference, entitled “Shaping Our Future by Leading Together: Families, Schools and Communities.” The conference will be held at The Palmer House in Chicago, Illinois from June 22-24, 2015. The National Family and Community Engagement Network will open registration in October.

National Association of Workforce Development Professionals Shares Resources for National Workforce Development Month

The National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) has designated September as National Workforce Development Month to honor all those individual professionals who play such a vital role in our nation’s economic recovery efforts. NAWDP has pulled together a collection of resources and tools to help organizations and individuals promote the value of workforce development, the critical role that highly skilled professionals have in meeting the needs of local employers and job seekers, and the contributions that they make to the nation’s economy.

NCWD/Youth Prepares to Celebrate National Disability Employment Month

Held each October, National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) is a national campaign managed by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy that raises awareness about disability employment issues and celebrates the many and varied contributions of America’s workers with disabilities. The theme for 2014 is “Expect. Employ. Empower.” The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy offers an online Resource Toolbox for planning events and activities for NDEAM.

A highlight of NDEAM is Disability Mentoring Day (DMD). DMD is a large-scale national effort coordinated by the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) to promote career development for students and job-seekers with disabilities through hands-on career exploration and ongoing mentoring relationships.

The Ready to Achieve Mentoring Program (RAMP), housed at the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL), has several sites across the country that will be participating in NDEAM and DMD events.

PACER Center Invites Participation in National Bullying Prevention Month in October

PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center will be celebrating October with the message, The End of Bullying Begins with Me. PACER Center has created a five-step guide designed for students and educators to plan bullying prevention events in their schools and communities. Individuals can also add their names to the digital The End of Bullying Begins with Me petition, sign up their schools or organizations as a Champion against Bullying, and share why they care about bullying prevention.

Senator Harkin Introduces Three Bills as Part of “Access for All” Agenda for Americans with Disabilities

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced three new bills as part of his “Access for All” agenda to help Americans with disabilities achieve economic independence and reach the middle class. The bills include the Universal Home Design Act, the Accessible Transportation for All Act, and the Exercise and Fitness for All Act. This legislation follows the release of a HELP Committee Report,Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.

NCWD/Youth Blog Posts

NCWD/Youth’s blog features current and relevant information related to the Guideposts for Success, Youth Development and Leadership, Innovative Strategies, Professional Development,and more!

• Matching Motivation with Opportunity: Exploring Careers with Incarcerated Youth – 9/3/2014
• Bouncing Back: “Fall”ing into Workforce Development Again

To learn more click on the image above or – Click here

Legislative Announcements, Calls to Participate

and New Projects

U.S. Department of Education Announces 2014 National Blue Ribbon Schools 337 Schools Honored–287 public and 50 private
http://tinyurl.com/mcawtsl
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has announced the recognition of 337 schools – 287 public and 50 private– as National Blue Ribbon Schools for 2014 for their overall academic excellence or their progress in closing achievement gaps among student subgroups. These schools demonstrate that all students can achieve to high levels. The Department of Education will honor the schools at a recognition ceremony on November 10-11, 2014, in Washington, D.C. The award affirms the hard work of students, educators, families and communities in creating safe and welcoming schools where students master challenging content. The Department invites National Blue Ribbon School nominations from the top education official in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Department of Defense Education Activity and the Bureau of Indian Education. The Council for American Private Education (CAPE) nominates private schools.

Disability Visibility Project
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/06/16/storycorps-disability/19443/
“DisabilityScoop” reported June 16, 2014, in an article, “StoryCorps Looks To Record Disability Experience,” that a new project, the Disability Visibility Project, has been launched as a community partnership with StoryCorps, a national nonprofit that allows everyday people to record casual, one-on-one conversations in an effort to preserve history. As the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act approaches next year, this project will encourage people within the disability community to share their stories. StoryCorps’ recording booth in San Francisco is making sessions available between July 10 and Dec. 13 specifically for members of the disability community to record their stories. Additional times are expected to be added leading up to the ADA’s 25th anniversary in July 2015.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/07/10/congress-sheltered-eligibility/19500/
“DisabilityScoop” reported July 10, 2014, in an article, “Congress Passes Bill Limiting Sheltered Workshop Eligibility,” that a bill that would significantly limit young people with disabilities from entering sheltered workshop programs is headed to President Barack Obama’s desk. The U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve the “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.” Included in the bill are changes to the path from school to work for those with disabilities. The measure would prohibit individuals age 24 and younger from working jobs that pay less than the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour unless they first try vocational rehabilitation services, among other requirements. It would also require state vocational rehabilitation agencies to work with schools to provide “pre-employment transition services” to all students with disabilities and require such agencies to allocate a minimum of 15% of their federal funding to help individuals with disabilities in transition under the measure.

U.S. Department of Education’s Guidance Letter on Charter Schools’ Legal Obligations to Individuals With Disabilities
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/05/15/feds-warn-charters-special/19368/
The U.S. Department of Education issued a guidance letter in May 2014 outlining charter schools’ legal obligations to individuals with disabilities, regardless of whether the schools receive federal funding. Included in the letter are reminders that students with disabilities cannot be discriminated against in admissions and disciplinary actions; and that parents with disabilities must be accommodated, e.g., with sign-language interpreters or Braille materials, when communicating with the school.

Disability.gov PSAs Challenge Assumptions about People with Disabilities
https://www.disability.gov/newsroom/psa-download-center/
Disability.gov recently released public service announcements (PSAs) in support of the message that people are not defined by their disabilities. Each of the eight PSAs features one of Disability.gov’s “No Boundaries” participants. Each PSAs participant chose several words to describe him or herself to paint a broader picture of who they are. The PSAs are downloadable from the Disability.gov site.

Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET

To top

Funding Forecast and Award Opportunities

Forecast of Funding Opportunities under the Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs for Fiscal Year 2014
http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html
This document lists virtually all programs and competitions under which the U.S. Department of Education has invited or expects to invite applications for new awards for fiscal year 2014 and provides actual or estimated deadlines for the transmittal of applications under these programs. The lists are in the form of charts organized according to the Department’s principal program offices and include programs and competitions previously announced as well as those to be announced at a later date.

FY 2014 Discretionary Grant Application Packages
http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html
This site, from the Department of Education, provides information on grant competitions that are currently open.

Arthur Vining Davis Foundations Seeks Proposals to Strengthen Secondary Education
http://www.avdf.org/FoundationsPrograms/SecondaryEducation.aspx
The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations offers $100,000-$200,000 grants to support a wide range of innovative professional development programs that strengthen teachers in grades 9-12 and their teaching. For example, projects might be designed to improve professional development for in-service and pre-service teachers, strengthen teaching skills, support practical research in teacher and high school education, or encourage innovative use of technology and new techniques for presentation of classroom materials in high schools. Projects should aim to develop solutions with potential for wide application or replication by others. Requests to support well-established programs should be for initiatives with the potential to improve the program significantly. Special consideration will be given to projects in their early stages that address the concerns and problems of secondary education on a national level. In considering proposals to support high school teaching, sustained partnerships between the faculties of colleges (e.g., arts and sciences and education) and school districts, or collaborative efforts involving reform organizations, colleges/universities, and high schools are encouraged. Eligible institutions include but are not limited to public and private colleges and universities, graduate schools of education, and freestanding educational institutes. Ongoing deadlines.

Discover: Pathway to Financial Success Grant
http://www.pathwaytofinancialsuccess.org/get-a-grant
Discover is investing up to $10 million in financial education, and any high school can apply for a grant toward a financial education curriculum. Applying schools must have implemented or be looking to implement a financial education curriculum; have a measurement tool planned or in place to assess participation in and comprehension of the financial education curriculum; and agree to share overall results of the measurement tool’s pre- and post-curriculum testing with Discover upon the program’s completion to assess what worked and what didn’t. Maximum award: varies. Eligibility: high schools in the United States. Deadline: none.

Dollar General: Beyond Words Library Disaster Relief
http://www.ala.org/awardsgrants/awards/166/apply
Dollar General, in collaboration with the American Library Association (ALA), the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and the National Education Association (NEA), is sponsoring a school library disaster relief fund for public school libraries in the states served by Dollar General. The fund will provide grants to public schools whose school library program has been affected by a disaster. Grants are to replace or supplement books, media and/or library equipment in the school library setting. Maximum award: up to $15,000 to replace or supplement books, media and/or library equipment. Eligibility: public school libraries Pre K-12 located within 20 miles of a Dollar General store, distribution center or corporate office that have lost their building or incurred substantial damage or hardship due to a natural disaster (tornado, earthquake, hurricane, flood, avalanche, mudslide), fire or an act recognized by the federal government as terrorism; or have absorbed a significant number (more than 10% enrollment) of displaced/evacuee students. Deadline: none.

Fender Music Foundation: Grants
http://www.fendermusicfoundation.org/grants/?sec=info
Fender Music Foundation grants of instruments and equipment are awarded to music academies, schools, local music programs and national music programs across America, particularly in-school music classes, in which the students make music; after-school music programs that are not run by the school; and music therapy programs, in which the participants make the music. Maximum award: up to 8 instruments. Eligibility: established, ongoing and sustainable music programs in the United States, which provide music instruction for people of any age who would not otherwise have the opportunity to make music. Deadline: rolling.

AASA: National Superintendent of the Year
http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=3404
The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) National Superintendent of the Year Program pays tribute to the talent and vision of the men and women who lead the nation’s public schools. Maximum award: recognition; a $10,000 scholarship to a student in the high school from which the National Superintendent of the Year graduated. Eligibility: Any superintendent, chancellor, or top leader of a school system in the United States, Canada, or international school who plans to continue in the profession. Deadline: varies by state.

To top

Acknowledgements

Portions of this month’s NASET Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:

• Committee on Education and the Workforce
• FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
• National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, an electronic newsletter of the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), available online at http://www.ncset.org/enews. NCSET is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
• National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
• National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
• National Institute of Health
• National Organization on Disability
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
• U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• U.S. Office of Special Education
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this edition of the NASETSpecial Educator e-Journal.

To top

To learn more click on the image above or – Click here

To Download a PDF file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal – CLICK HERE

To Download a XPS file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal – CLICK HERE

NOTE: To save on your computer – Right Click and use “Save As” or “Save Target As”.