A Civil Rights Crisis: The Dangerous Attack on Disability Protections in Schools

 The recent lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, poses a significant threat to the rights of individuals with disabilities across the United States. Currently, seventeen states have initiated legal action challenging Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a cornerstone civil rights law that has safeguarded disabled individuals from discrimination for over five decades. This lawsuit significantly endangers the progress that has been made in disability rights over the past 50+ years.

Section 504 mandates that any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance must not discriminate against individuals based on their disabilities. This provision has been instrumental in ensuring that schools, healthcare facilities, and other institutions provide necessary accommodations, such as accessible facilities and tailored educational plans. The current lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 504, potentially dismantling these essential protections.

The implications of this legal challenge are profound. If successful, it could strip away critical accommodations that enable millions of Americans to participate fully in society. This includes students who rely on 504 plans for educational support and individuals who depend on accessible healthcare services in a school setting.

The lawsuit's focus on recent updates to Section 504, particularly the inclusion of gender dysphoria under the Biden administration as a recognized disability. This new rule requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations for transgender students within the school. Rather than targeting that one rule in their lawsuits, these states have included a push to do away with Section 504 completely.

In response, advocacy groups like the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) are mobilizing to defend Section 504. They urge concerned citizens to contact their state attorneys general, especially in the plaintiff states, to demand withdrawal from the lawsuit. Collective action is crucial to preserve the rights of disabled individuals.

As a society, we must remain vigilant and proactive in protecting the rights of all individuals, particularly those in marginalized communities. The attack on Section 504 is an attack on the principles of equality and inclusion that are underlying principles of our nation. It's our collective responsibility to ensure that progress is not reversed and that every individual, regardless of ability, has the opportunity to thrive.

The Risks of Dismantling the Department of Education

In recent years, there has been a growing debate over the role of the U.S. Department of Education. Last week, rumors swirled that President Trump would sign an executive order dismantling the department. Many conservatives have argued for eliminating the department for years as a move to reduce what they deem as federal overreach and return control of education to states and local governments. However, the consequences of such a move could be severe, potentially leading to increased disparities in educational quality, reduced oversight, and weakened protections for students who need them most.

The Department of Education: A Necessary Balance

Established in 1979, the Department of Education was designed to support state and local education efforts, ensuring a level playing field for students across the country. While concerns about excessive federal involvement are valid, the department provides critical functions such as distributing federal funding, enforcing civil rights protections, and promoting accountability in education systems.

Advocates for dismantling the department often cite the importance of local control. While decentralization allows for tailored educational policies, history has shown that without federal oversight, disparities between wealthy and low-income districts can widen, and underserved communities may be left behind. The department plays a vital role in ensuring that all students—regardless of socioeconomic background—have access to a quality education.

US Education funding

In 2019, the United States spent approximately $15,500 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student at the elementary and secondary levels, which was 38% higher than the average of OECD countries reporting data ($11,300). This placed the U.S. fifth in spending per student at these levels, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Austria, and the Republic of Korea. 

At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures were even higher, averaging $37,400 per FTE student. This amount was more than double the OECD average of $18,400, making the U.S. second only to Luxembourg in higher education spending. 

Despite these substantial investments, the U.S. often lags behind other nations in key educational outcomes, such as standardized test scores in math, reading, and science. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of educational spending in the United States. 

It's important to note that while the U.S. invests heavily in education, the distribution of these funds can vary significantly across states and districts, leading to disparities in educational quality and access. This underscores the critical role of the Department of Education in promoting equitable funding and resources to ensure all students receive a quality education.

We should also note that many countries do not factor transportation costs into their education funding totals, as children often ride free on public transportation systems, particularly in large cities. In contrast, in the U.S., many districts rely on busing as the primary form of transportation to and from schools, which significantly raises costs. Additionally, most foreign countries provide government-created and distributed primary and secondary education curricula, whereas U.S. districts often spend considerable amounts on privately developed curricula, driving up education expenses. Lastly, the U.S. is one of the few nations without a public healthcare system, and the costs associated with providing healthcare for teachers are included in their employment costs, but are not a factor in education costs elsewhere in the world. These factors collectively contribute to the significantly higher cost of public education in the U.S.

The Role of Public and Private Education

Without the Department of Education, the future of public schools could become uncertain. State-driven policies could lead to significant differences in educational quality, while an expansion of private school voucher programs might divert essential funds from public institutions.

While school choice has its benefits, including increased competition and flexibility for parents, the potential risks of unchecked privatization must also be considered. Voucher programs, in particular, often do not cover the full cost of private school tuition, meaning that families who cannot afford to pay the difference are left without viable options. As a result, these programs tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier students who can already afford private education, while leaving lower-income families struggling to access high-quality schooling.

Additionally, many private schools receiving vouchers are not held to the same accountability and transparency standards as public schools, meaning that taxpayer dollars could go to institutions that do not provide adequate education or uphold civil rights protections. This redirection of public funds further weakens public schools, which serve the vast majority of American students, leading to larger class sizes, fewer resources, and reduced teacher salaries.

Proper oversight is needed to ensure that all students receive a fair and effective education, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Without such safeguards, the expansion of voucher programs could deepen educational inequalities rather than resolve them.

Protecting Civil Rights and Equity

One of the key functions of the Department of Education is the enforcement of laws like Title IX, which protects students from discrimination based on gender. Additionally, the department helps uphold protections for students with disabilities and ensures that federal education funds reach the schools and students who need them most.

The department also plays a crucial role in supporting special education programs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education, and the department helps provide necessary funding and resources to ensure these students have access to the support they need. Without federal oversight, states may struggle to maintain equitable special education programs, potentially leaving vulnerable students without the resources required for their success.

A careful, balanced approach is necessary. While states should have significant control over education policy, there must also be a mechanism to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all students. Eliminating the department could weaken these safeguards, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how student rights are upheld across different states.

A Thoughtful Approach to Reform

Instead of dismantling the Department of Education, a more pragmatic approach would involve reforming it to be more efficient and responsive to local needs. Streamlining bureaucratic processes, providing more resources, and allowing for greater support to
the state and local levels could help strike a balance between national standards and local control.

Education is a cornerstone of democracy and social mobility. While it is important to evaluate and improve the role of federal oversight, a complete dismantling of the Department of Education could create unintended consequences that may harm students, educators, and communities. A collaborative, bipartisan approach is essential to ensuring that every student has access to a high-quality education, no matter where they live.

Why I Take the Donald Trump Campaign Seriously, and You Should Too.

In the past few months we have begun the search for the next President of the United States of America. This year and a half process of deciding who will be given enormous amounts of power over human life in this country cannot be taken lightly. Who we decide to elect president will most likely have a wide range of impacts, from supreme court nominees, to military conflicts, to economic affairs. Each citizen has been given the right to vote, to help decide who that person should be. This right should never be taken lightly, as generations have fought so all may have and retain it.

Many have deemed the democratic nomination to be a shoo in for Hilary Clinton, most are not considering any other candidates for nomination. On the other side, 16 republicans have announced their candidacy. Of these 16 -which includes several governors with exceptional records, and several senators- Donald Trump is the current front runner for the republican nomination. Though many people have thought his whole presidential campaign is nothing more than a publicity stunt, many people are taking him seriously as a candidate. While I support his right to run, I am concerned with why people support him.

My recent experience with Trump supporters has made me question whether or not they even know where he stands on the issues, or if they are more anti-establishment, anti-Washington, and anti-political correctness. Trump is known for his brash talk with bold statements on issues such as immigration and veterans. He has attacked establishment mainstays like John McCain and Lindsay Graham in sometimes sophomoric ways leading many to call for apologies which never came.

Some people appreciate that unapologetic personality and think that kind of attitude is what we need to have in Washington leading our country. Others say the reason they support Trump because you know he'll do what he says. Many have told me it is because he has been such a successful businessman that we need someone who understands business in the white house. 

Those I have come in contact with have no idea where he sits on most issues aside from immigration. So where does Donald Trump stand on the issues?

Speaking about healthcare he said: "It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare."

On gun control: "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

On tax reform: "If we want jobs in America, we need to enact my 5-part tax policy: kill the death tax; lower the tax rates on capital gains & dividends; eliminate corporate taxes in order to create more American jobs; mandate a 15% tax for outsourcing jobs and a 20% tax for importing goods, and enact the 1-5-10-15 income tax plan [four brackets with a top rate of 15%]."

Now he has many more stances on many more issues including abortion, education, etc. Sometimes he has stayed steady, sometimes he has flip flopped. If you are considering supporting him, please read up on what he has said over the years on the issues.

For those who are supporting him because they think he'll be outspoken and unapologetic in the White House, I would like to point you to our current president. No matter what has happened, he has been unapologetic: Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, VA, the Middle East, etc. That is not how you heal America, that is how you divide it further. We need less divisiveness and more compromise among our nation's leaders.

For those who say that they support Trump because - as one person put it - "at least you know what you will get with him, or do you want some one like we have now who says what you wanna hear then does nothing?" My response is that no candidate will ever be perfect on doing everything he says he will do - that is the reality of the presidency.

Sometimes they realize they don't have the authority to do those things, often they realize there are reasons for that, and lastly we are electing a president with constitutionally limited powers, not a king. Even if Donald Trump is elected president, he won't, and can't do all of the things he claims he would do. Some of those things are not within the powers of the president to enact.

We can only consider what he has said in the past, because we have no true political record of how he would act to follow. I say this because, when considering his record, you have to consider: what record does Donald Trump have of accomplishing anything without having either a contractual obligation or a monetary incentive to accomplish it? As president he will have neither.

The real reason why he's getting a boost right now is more than likely a disgruntled GOP electorate. Early polls are no guarantee who will be the nominee by far. At this point four years ago Rick Santorum was leading in the polls. As the debates near, I encourage you to consider every candidate just as I will, where they stand on the issues now, and what they have accomplished in the past.

Please read what each candidate has done, what they say and think about what is best for all of America. This is not a time to rush onto a bandwagon because a candidate is bold or is popular. This is the time to contemplate the future of America and who we think will be best to lead it. 

You are still  allowed to support Donald Trump, but I ask that you consider all of the candidates as well. Read about them and where they are on the issues, what they have done with their time in the private sector and in office. Please take your duty as a citizen of this great nation seriously.

Where did the Greatness Go? Part One

By Zach Baker
This video is a clip from a TV show called The Newsroom staring Jeff Daniels. He goes on a rant about how America is not the greatest country in the world anymore. Here are the stats he points out that prove America is not the greatest. We are 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 7th in literacy, 3rd in median household income, 4th in exports, 4th in labor force, 178th in infant mortality, 1st in number of adults who believe in angels, 1st in military spending, and 1st in incarcerated citizens. I wont be talking about all of these statistics but I will focus on a few major ones that I believe to be important.


























First I would like to focus on where we are number one. Military spending accounts for almost 700 billion dollars out of our GDP(Gross Domestic Product). I hope those reading will not think I am anti-military. I have many friends who are in right now and I give them my full support. I do, however, feel that this massive amount of money we spend on developing ways to better kill people could be lessened. With the current stockpile the US Armed Forces has at their back, we are unstoppable. The warheads and WMD's that we posses could send everyone in the world back to the Stone Age twice over. This is not even counting how many guns and how much ammunition the civilian population in the US owns. In 2007 there were an estimated 88.8 small firearms per 100 residents. If someone is going to try and invade this country all I have to say is "you are not gonna get far". So why do we spend so much on military? This country is fully protected from just the firearms the civilians have. It comes down to foreign politics. In order to be the biggest player in foreign affairs we need the biggest military. Foreign politics and policies will be something I'll cover in the future.

Incarceration in the US is the highest in the world. The US spent 74 billion dollars on corrections in 2007.

 

I hope everyone sees the problem with this. We spend about an average of 30,000 dollars per inmate in federal and state correctional institutes. I only wish we spent that much per pupil in public schools which is at around 11,500 dollars per pupil in 012-13(Source). This brings me to the one point I would like to say. Perhaps if we spent less on criminals and more on children then our math, science, and reading skills could be closer to the top while the incarceration rate could lower substantially. They say children are our future. I would also like to say inmates are our past. They have made their choices and while some can be rehabilitated there is a majority that will end up back in or stay in the correctional system. If anyone knows of a site with more up to date, please post it in the comments. Thanks.

Education Reform: No Child Left Behind and Common Core

Much of our current educational system stems from an old idea, that each state and school district should set it's own standards, curriculum and by doing so leave both accountability for said standards, and ability to change them with the states. Some states did very well, others did not. Low education rates over decades have shown that decrease in education leads to an increase in drugs, violence and crime. Those who have less than a high school education are three times more likely to go to jail than those who receive their diploma and 63 times more likely than those who get a college degree. Right now the unemployment rate is triple for those without a high school diploma than those with a four year college degree.

It is clear from these stats that education is crucial to upper movement for the lower classes, and that the need for education is crucial to our country's continued success and increased prosperity. We have established in the U.S. and throughout most of the world that education is one of the basic responsibilities for each government.

Over the years congress and various presidents have tried to fight against poverty and low education in the U.S.. In 1965 as part of his "War on Poverty" the "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" was passed by congress, emphasizing fair and equal opportunities for all students to achieve academic excellence. It was designed to do this by disbursing funding to schools with children from low income families. It was equally focused on improving low functioning schools as well; however, it has also brought focus for improving funding to these schools to be based upon whether low functioning schools are improving. For most schools nationwide, most federal funding comes from grants have been allotted to schools based upon fulfilling requirements by the Department of Education. Overall most funding for schools come from property taxes, but often that alone often does not fulfill all of the needs of school districts, and so they often rely heavily on these federal grants.

The question became how to continue to encourage poor functioning schools. Dropout rates had increased and it became clear that evaluating students would be a key component in developing methods to know how to encourage poor functioning schools. In the 1990's most states incorporated standardized testing into their curriculum. These tests were set by each state in order to give accountability to teachers and administrators and to gauge the efficacy of the teaching being conducted. In 2001 ESEA was reauthorized with an additional provision, which was called "No Child Left Behind."

No Child Left Behind has been heavily criticized because of it's focus on testing as the primary way to determine where to disperse grants. It failed to take into account student's previous growth and other factors, and overall has left behind more kids than it has helped. 

More recently the National Governor's association in coordination with other national groups decided that there needed to be simpler across the board basic standards that should be met. The need for these standards was to try to ensure that all students would at least be taught up to a minimum standard. This does not mean that students can not be past these standards, achieve higher, get into better classes that have extra expectations, etc. It does, however, mean that a student from California moving to Ohio in 8th grade should be around the same level of education and not several steps behind.

The response has been mixed - many teachers who I have interviewed have been overwhelming in support of the common core curriculum. Their reasons for this seems to be the focus on mastery of concepts and the focus on fewer concepts, allowing teachers to ensure students get a more in-depth understanding of the most important concepts.An additional benefit to these standards is that by having the same standards, we are more easily able to measure how our students are doing compared with students across the world. Having 50 sets of standards made it incredibly difficult to compare our educational performance with other countries. This difference has been thought to be one of the causes for our country being rated lower in education than several other countries.

The concern with common core seems to be centered around a few ideas: the first being that this change has been facilitated through the department of education through the "Race to the Top" program. The concern over a federal takeover of education seems unfounded, however, as each state still sets their own standards based on the core curriculum. These standards are not mystery standards. They are available and are not hidden to parents or teachers once the states have decided on them.

Another major concern is involved in the lack of testing involved with these standards and the lack of involvement by teachers and parents in directly setting the standards. Also there is concern that there has not been a trial run of these standards. I feel that these concerns at this point are valid, but with the amount of states involved in these standards, the secondary concern will be confirmed or denied within 5 years or so. The last concern seems to be the overall cost of implementation, including retraining and curriculum materials.

I understand and support common core's main focus,  and I believe that having equal standards among the states is a necessity. However I also understand that there is a lot that we do not understand about it yet.