The Legislative History of Mental Disorders in Federal Education Programs

In recent years, the diagnosis of mental disorders in school age children such as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Early Onset Bipolar Disorder (EOBD), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) have increased as a percentage of the total school population. This paper looks at the development of federal education policies based on legislation that includes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, and the recent Every Student Succeeds Act. It also includes the development of federal education policies through legislation regarding students with disabilities. Terms related to the diagnosis of childhood mental disorders will be defined as recorded in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. The paper considers how the changes to the DSM over time have affected the meanings of the mental disorders that can be found in subsequent iterations of federal and state law. This paper analyzes the implementation of school sanctioned and/or recommended or prescribed treatments for the identified disorders. It looks at the results of the implementation of these prescriptions and/or treatments over time and the perceived results related to the next steps in federal and state legislation regarding mental and behavioral health polices for students

Teacher Preparation and Evaluation: Goodbye Qualifications, Hello Effectiveness

NCLB’s Title II (Sec. 2123), focused on the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers and principals. Funding was authorized to assist LEAs in, “Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers, including specialists in core academic subjects…” NCLB identified the need for highly qualified teachers and attempted to empower schools to seek out and recruit such individuals. ESSA’s Title II is very different. The measure used in the new law does not detail qualifications, but seeks to gauge effectiveness, overlooking and in fact negating in some cases the need for qualifications. For example, ESSA establishes teacher, principal or other school leader preparation academies by way of federal funding. These new federally funded and state authorized academies remain in existence if they are able to meet the minimum number or percentage of effective teachers or principals or other school leaders. (p. 302) Effectiveness in ESSA is measured in student assessment test scores. Academies that are to be authorized under this federal program need to demonstrate that they do not, “…have unnecessary restrictions on the methods the academy will use to train prospective teacher, principal, or other school leader candidates, including- (i) obligating (or prohibiting) the academy’s faculty to hold advanced degrees or conduct academic research… (iii) restrictions related to the number of course credits required as part of the program of study.” (p. 305) These academies are not necessarily degree granting institutions, but they are able to issue certificates of completion or degrees. After reviewing the academy’s record of producing effective teachers, or principals, or other school leaders as determined by the State, they may recognize these certificates or degrees as the equivalent to a Master’s degree in education for the compensation or hiring purposes. ( p. 306) The new teacher/school leader training academies also require a yearlong internship. Teacher performance assessment may also be used in the federally funded academies. ESSA also includes funding for changes to teacher assessment. These new assessments are based in part on evidence of student academic achievement and may include student growth and other measures of educator performance. This language in ESSA closely parallels the much of the state legislation that has passed in recent years whereby teachers are evaluated by their students through surveys and through documentation of teaching practice through state wide longitudinal data systems that connect student test scores to teacher and principal evaluations systems. (p. 316-317) This paper focuses on the noted changes in ESSA that require teaching effectiveness based on nationally recognized assessments that are administered at the state level which may include measures of growth that compare students with other students. This is a sudden departure from NCLB that focused on teacher and principal qualifications and measured achievement based on set criteria established by the state. This paper will discuss the changes and consider the possible implications for Pre-Service Teachers

Historical Changes in Special Education Alternative Assessment

This paper addresses the historical changes that have affected special education students, their teachers and their parents from PL 94-142 to ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). Aspects studied include the role and relative importance of testing and assessment, placement, changes in pedagogy and parental involvement. From NCLB to ESSA, the nature of testing and assessment for special education students has changed. Under NCLB, states were required to test all students and submit annual state report cards. Student performance data was to be disaggregated for (cc) students with disabilities. (NCLB, p. 1446-1447) In ESSA, however, the data will be collected as a comparison measure for, (III) children with disabilities as compared to children without disabilities. (ESSA, p. 58) The change in the wording reflects the larger move away from achievement based on set criteria to a comparison measure where value is placed on a student\u27s score in relation to the scores of other students. The subject matter to be assessed has expanded. NCLB tests addressed reading or language arts, math, and science. ESSA continues to require tests in these subjects, but expands assessment that also may include ...(III) student engagement; (IV) educator engagement... (VI) postsecondary readiness; (VII) school climate and safety; and (VIII) any other indicator the State chooses that meets the requirements of this clause. (ESSA, p. 84) Alternate assessment for special education students has changed under ESSA. Along with the requirement that the alternate assessments must be aligned with the ...challenging State academic standards and alternate achievement standards for the students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the new law imposes a cap on alternate assessments for special education students, not to exceed 1% of the total number of all students in the State who are assessed in that subject. (ESSA, p. 61) The role of parents has also changed from NCLB to ESSA. Under NCLB, parents or guardians were required to provide consent prior to individual testing for the purpose of placement in special education programs. However, there is new language in ESSA that creates an exception for this requirement. If school authorities send notification home to parents or guardians regarding special education testing and that paperwork is not returned to the school, the school authorities are able to document the non-response and test the students without the typically required parental/guardian consent paperwork. This change reflects a larger theoretical shift in parental rights and responsibilities. There is a clear move away from ensuring that parents and/or guardians are the ultimate authority in the decision to test students for placement in special education programs. Language in ESSA may be used to place the State and the agents of the State in a greater position of authority over students. In ESSA, parents are referred to as equal partners in the education of their children. This language expresses how the law has de-emphasized the primary authority and responsibility that parents have traditionally held over the education of their own children. This paper addresses the changes in the laws over the years and the possible implications for students, teachers, and parents

Interdisciplinary Teaching

These are the kinds of lessons we only dreamed about doing when we decided to teach. Multiple disciplines can truly complement each other and bring out more student interest than any one subject can do standing alone. The work produced by the students is both artistically pleasing and useful for any mathematician or scientist. The researchers began with a study of the standards for math, language, science, art and social studies at a set grade level. From there, they looked for standards that could be connected with a common theme. After selecting related standards and choosing a theme, they built several interconnected lessons that addressed standards from multiple disciplines. They built these model lessons as an example for other standards-based thematic lessons. The researchers will share the process they went through to take the standards as the base but then expand out from there to create culturally rich and engaging activities that flow among disciplines with a common purpose. In their model lessons, the researchers will explain how they were able to use historical text, mapping skills, geometry problem solving, earth science, artwork, reading strategies and essay writing to creatively teach the required standards in a new and interesting way