Dadfadf

hwUS Statistics In the year 2000, there were 76.6 million students enrolled in schools from kindergarten through graduate schools. Of these, 72 percent aged 12 to 17 were judged academically "on track" for their age (enrolled in school at or above grade level). Of those enrolled in compulsory education, 5.2 million (10.4 percent) were attending private schools. Among the country's adult population, over 85 percent have completed high school and 27 percent have received a bachelor's degree or higher. The average salary for college or university graduates is greater than $51,000, exceeding the national average of those without a high school diploma by more than $23,000, according to a 2005 study by the U.S. Census Bureau.[4] The 2010 unemployment rate for high school graduates was 10.8%; the rate for college graduates was 4.9%.[5] The country has a reading literacy rate at 99% of the population over age 15,[6] while ranking below average in science and mathematics understanding compared to other developed countries.[7] In 2008, there was a 77% graduation rate from high school, below that of most developed countries.[8] The poor performance has pushed public and private efforts such as the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, the ratio of college-educated adults entering the workforce to general population (33%) is slightly below the mean of other developed countries (35%)[9] and rate of participation of the labor force in continuing education is high.[10] A 2000s study by Jon Miller of Michigan State University concluded that "A slightly higher proportion of American adults qualify as scientifically literate than European or Japanese adults".[11] [] School grades Most children enter the public education system around ages five or six. The American school year traditionally begins in August or September, after the traditional summer recess. Children are assigned into year groups known as grades, beginning with preschool, following by kindergarten and culminating in twelfth grade. Children customarily advance together from one grade to the next as a single cohort or "class" upon reaching the end of each school year in May or June, although developmentally disabled children may be held back a grade and gifted children may skip ahead early to the next grade. Basically, the American educational system comprises 12 grades of study over 12 calendar years of primary and secondary education before graduating and becoming eligible for college admission.[12] After pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, there are five years in [12] primary school (normally known as elementary school). After completing five grades, the student will enter junior high or middle school and then high school to get the high school diploma.[12] The U.S. uses ordinal numbers for naming grades, unlike Canada and Australia where cardinal numbers are preferred. Thus, Americans are more likely to say "First Grade" rather than "Grade One". Typical ages and grade groupings in public and private schools may be found through the U.S. Department of Education.[13] Many different variations exist across the country. Level/Grade | Typical age (at end of the school year) | Preschool | Various optional programs, such as Head Start | Under 6 | Pre-Kindergarten | 4–5 | Elementary School | Kindergarten | 5–6 | 1st Grade | 6–7 | 2nd Grade | 7–8 | 3rd Grade | 8–9 | 4th Grade | 9–10 | 5th Grade | 10–11 | Middle School | 6th Grade | 11–12 | 7th Grade | 12–13 | 8th Grade | 13–14 | High school | 9th Grade (Freshman) | 14–15 | 10th Grade (Sophomore) | 15–16 | 11th Grade (Junior) | 16–17 | 12th Grade (Senior) | 17–18 | Post-secondary education | Tertiary education (College or University) | Ages vary, but often 18–23 (five years to complete four years of schooling,referred to as Freshman,Sophomore, Junior andSenior years) | Vocational education | Ages vary | Graduate education | Adult education | Education in the United States Students completing high school may apply to attend an undergraduate school. This may be a community college (one that offers two-year degrees, usually to prepare students to transfer to state universities), liberal arts college (one that concentrates on undergraduate education), or part of a larger research university. The course of study is called the "major", which comprises the main or special subjects. However, students are not locked into a major upon admission—usually, a major is chosen by the second year of college, and changing majors is frequently possible depending on how the crs work out, unlike British tertiary education. Universities are either public (state-sponsored, such as Ohio State University or University of Georgia) or private such as Harvard or Swarthmore. Students may choose to continue onto graduate school for a master's or Ph.D, or to a first professional degree program. A master's degree requires an additional two years of specialized study; a doctoral degree (Ph.D.) usually takes some years, although exactly how long depends on the time required to prepare the doctoral dissertation. First professional degrees have a more structured program than the typical Ph.D. program. The standard time required for a first professional degree is three or four years; for example, law school is a three-year program, while medical, dental, and veterinary schools are four-year programs. [] Preschool There are no mandatory public prekindergarten or crèche programs in the United States. The federal government funds the Head Start preschool program for children of low-income families, but most families are responsible for finding preschool or childcare. In the large cities, there are sometimes upper-class preschools catering to the children of the wealthy. Because some upper-class families see these schools as the first step toward the Ivy League, there are even counselors who specialize in assisting parents and their toddlers through the preschool admissions process.[14] Increasingly, a growing body of preschools are adopting international standards such as the International Preschool Curriculum[15] [] Student health According to the National Association of School Nurses, 17% of students are considered obese and 32% are overweight.[16] [] Elementary and secondary education Schooling is compulsory for all children in the United States, but the age range for which school attendance is required varies from state to state. Most children begin elementary education with kindergarten (usually five to six years old) and finish secondary education with twelfth grade (usually eighteen years old). In some cases, pupils may be promoted beyond the next regular grade. Some states allow students to leave school between 14–17 with parental permission, before finishing high school; other states require students to stay in school until age 18[17] Educational attainment in the United States Most parents send their children to either a public or private institution. According to government data, one-tenth of students are enrolled in private schools. Approximately 85% of students enter the public schools,[18] largely because they are free (tax burdens by school districts vary from area to area). Most students attend school for around six hours per day, and usually anywhere from 175 to 187 days per year. Most schools have a summer break period for about two months from mid-to-late June through mid-to-late August. This break is (supposedly) much longer than in some other nations.  Other options being employed or discussed are Year-round school and Extended school time, but the option continues to be unpopular with both educators and parents.[citation needed] Parents may also choose to educate their own children at home; 1.7% of children are educated in this manner.[18] Nearly 6.2 million students between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, including nearly three of 10 Hispanics.[19] In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that forced busing of students may be ordered to achieve racial desegregation.[20] In 2009, there were over 6.2 million teachers in elementary and secondary schools.[21] In 2010, American students rank 17th in the world. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development says that this is due to focusing on the low end of performers. All of the recent gains have been made, deliberately, at the low end of the socioeconomic scale and among the lowest achievers. The country has been outrun, the study says, by other nations because the US has not done enough to encourage the highest achievers.[22] Schools are also used to continue the culture. About half the states encourage schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.[23] [] Elementary school Main article: Primary education in the United States Historically, in the United States, local public control (and private alternatives) have allowed for some variation in the organization of schools. Elementary school includes kindergarten through fifth grade (or sometimes, to fourth grade, sixth grade or eighth grade). In elementary school, basic subjects are taught, and students often remain in one or two classrooms throughout the school day, with the exceptions of physical education ("P.E." or "gym"), library, music, and art classes. There are (as of 2001) about 3.6 million children in each grade in the United States.[24] Typically, the curriculum in public elementary education is determined by individual school districts. The school district selects curriculum guides and textbooks that are reflective of a state's learning standards and benchmarks for a given grade level.[25] Learning Standards are the goals by which states and school districts must meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) as mandated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This description of school governance is simplistic at best, however, and school systems vary widely not only in the way curricular decisions are made but also in how teaching and learning take place. Some states and/or school districts impose more top-down mandates than others. In others, teachers play a significant role in curriculum design and there are few top-down mandates. Curricular decisions within private schools are made differently than they are in public schools, and in most cases without consideration of NCLB. Public Elementary School teachers typically instruct between twenty and thirty students of diverse learning needs. A typical classroom will include children with a range of learning needs or abilities, from those identified as having special needs of the kinds listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Act IDEA to those that are cognitively, athletically or artistically gifted. At times, an individual school district identifies areas of need within the curriculum. Teachers and advisory administrators form committees to develop supplemental materials to support learning for diverse learners and to identify enrichment for textbooks. Many school districts post information about the curriculum and supplemental materials on websites for public access.[26] Each local school district gives each teacher a book to give to the students for each subject, and brief overviews of what the teacher are expected to teach.[citation needed] In general, a student learns basic arithmetic and sometimes rudimentary algebra in mathematics, English proficiency (such as basic grammar, spelling, and vocabulary), and fundamentals of other subjects. Learning standards are identified for all areas of a curriculum by individual States, including those for mathematics, social studies, science, physical development, the fine arts, and reading.[25] While the concept of State Learning standards has been around for some time, No Child Left Behind has mandated that standards exist at the State level. Elementary School teachers are trained with emphases on human cognitive and psychological development and the principles of curriculum development and instruction. Teachers typically earn either a Bachelors or Masters Degree in Early Childhood and Elementary Education. The teaching of social studies and science are often underdeveloped in elementary school programs. Some attribute this to the fact that elementary school teachers are trained as generalists, however, teachers attribute this to the priority placed on developing reading, writing and math proficiency in the elementary grades and to the large amount of time needed to do so. Reading, writing and math proficiency greatly affect performance in social studies, science and other content areas. Certification standards for teachers are determined by individual states, with individual colleges and universities determining the rigor of the college education provided for future teachers. Some states require content area tests, as well as instructional skills tests for teacher certification in that state.[27] The broad topic of Social Studies may include key events, documents, understandings, and concepts in American history, and geography, and in some programs, state or local history and geography. Topics included under the broader term "science" vary from the physical sciences such as physics and chemistry, through the biological sciences such as biology, ecology, and physiology. Most States have predetermined the number of minutes that will be taught within a given content area. Because No Child Left Behind focuses on reading and math as primary targets for improvement, other instructional areas have received less attention.[28] There is much discussion within educational circles about the justification and impact of having curricula that place greater emphasis on those topics (reading, writing and math) that are specifically tested for improvement.[29] [] Secondary education Main article: Secondary education in the United States As part of education in the United States, secondary education usually covers grades 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 through 12. [] Junior and senior high school Middle school and Junior high school include the grade levels intermediate between elementary school and senior high school. "Middle school" usually includes sixth, seventh and eighth grade; "Junior high" typically includes seventh through ninth grade. The range defined by either is often based on demographic factors, such as an increase or decrease in the relative numbers of younger or older students, with the aim of maintaining stable school populations.[30] At this time, students are given more independence, moving to different classrooms for different subjects, and being allowed to choose some of their class subjects (electives). Usually, starting in ninth grade, grades become part of a student’s official transcript. Future employers or colleges may want to see steady improvement in grades and a good attendance record on the official transcript. Therefore, students are encouraged to take much more responsibility for their education.[citation needed] Senior high school is a school attended after junior high school. High school is often used instead of senior high school and distinguished from junior high school. High school usually runs either from 9th through 12th, or 10th through 12th grade. The students in these grades are commonly referred to as freshmen (grade 9), sophomores (grade 10), juniors (grade 11) and seniors (grade 12). [] Basic curricular structure Generally, at the high school level, students take a broad variety of classes without special emphasis in any particular subject. Curricula vary widely in quality and rigidity; for example, some states consider 65 (on a 100-point scale) a passing grade, while others consider it to be as low as 60 or as high as 75.[citation needed] Students are required to take a certain minimum number of mandatory subjects, but may choose additional subjects ("electives") to fill out their required hours of learning. The following minimum courses of study in mandatory subjects are required in nearly all U.S. high schools: * Science (usually two years minimum, normally biology, chemistry and physics) * Mathematics (usually two years minimum, normally including algebra, geometry, pre-calculus, statistics, and even calculus) * English (usually four years minimum, including literature, humanities, composition, oral languages, etc.) * Social sciences (usually three years minimum, including various history, government/economics courses)[31] * Physical education (at least one year) Many states require a "health" course in which students learn about anatomy, nutrition, first aid, sexuality, drug awareness and birth control. Anti-drug use programs are also usually part of health courses. In many cases, however, options are provided for students to "test out" of this requirement or complete independent study to meet it. Foreign language and some form of art education are also a mandatory part of the curriculum in some schools. [] Electives Common types of electives include: * Computers (word processing, programming, graphic design) * Athletics (cross country, football, baseball, basketball, track and field, swimming, tennis, gymnastics, water polo, soccer, wrestling, cheerleading, volleyball, lacrosse, ice hockey, field hockey, boxing, skiing/snowboarding, golf) * Publishing (journalism/student newspaper, yearbook/annual, literary magazine) * Performing Arts/Visual Arts, (choir, band, orchestra, drama, art, ceramics, photography, and dance) * Foreign languages (Spanish, French are common; Chinese, Latin, Greek, German, Italian, Arabic, and Japanese are less common)[32] * Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps [] Advanced courses Many high schools provide Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. These are special forms of honors classes where the curriculum is more challenging and lessons more aggressively paced than standard courses. AP or IB courses are usually taken during the 11th or 12th grade of high school, but may be taken as early as 9th grade. Most post-secondary institutions take AP or IB exam results into consideration in the admissions process. Because AP and IB courses are intended to be the equivalent of the first year of college courses, post-secondary institutions may grant unit cr, which enables students to graduate early. Other institutions use examinations for placement purposes only: students are exempted from introductory course work but may not receive cr towards a concentration, degree, or core requirement. Institutions vary in the selection of examinations they accept and the scores they require to grant cr or placement, with more elite institutions tending to accept fewer examinations and requiring higher scoring. The lack of AP, IB, and other advanced courses in impoverished inner-city high schools is often seen as a major cause of the greatly differing levels of post-secondary education these graduates go on to receive, compared with both public and private schools in wealthier neighborhoods. Also, in states with well-developed community college systems, there are often mechanisms by which gifted students may seek permission from their school district to attend community college courses full-time during the summer, and part-time during the school year. The units earned this way can often be transferred to one's university, and can facilitate early graduation. Early college entrance programs are a step further, with students enrolling as freshmen at a younger-than-traditional age. [] Home schooling Main article: Homeschooling in the United States In 2007, approximately 1.5 million children were homeschooled, up 74% from 1999 when the U.S. Department of Education first started keeping statistics. This was 2.9% of all children.[33] Many select moral or religious reasons for homeschooling their children. The second main category is "unschooling," those who prefer a non-standard approach to education.[33] Most homeschooling advocates are wary of the established educational institutions for various reasons. Some are religious conservatives who see nonreligious education as contrary to their moral or religious systems, or who wish to add religious instruction to the educational curriculum (and who may be unable to afford a church-operated private school, or where the only available school may teach views contrary to those of the parents). Others feel that they can more effectively tailor a curriculum to suit an individual student’s academic strengths and weaknesses, especially those with singular needs or disabilities. Still others feel that the negative social pressures of schools (such as bullying, drugs, crime, sex, and other school-related problems) are detrimental to a child’s proper development. Parents often form groups to help each other in the homeschooling process, and may even assign classes to different parents, similar to public and private schools. Opposition to homeschooling comes from varied sources, including teachers' organizations and school districts. The National Education Association, the largest labor union in the United States, has been particularly vocal in the past.[34] Opponents' stated concerns fall into several broad categories, including fears of poor academic quality, loss of income for the schools, and religious or social extremism, or lack of socialization with others. At this time, over half of states have oversight into monitoring or measuring the academic progress of home schooled students, with all but ten requiring some form of notification to the state.[35] [] Grading scale In schools in the United States children are continually assessed throughout the school year by their teachers, and report cards are issued to parents at varying intervals. Generally the scores for individual assignments and tests are recorded for each student in a grade book, along with the maximum number of points for each assignment. At any time, the total number of points for a student when divided by the total number of possible points produces a percent grade, which can be translated to a letter grade. Letter grades are often but not always used on report cards at the end of a marking period, although the current grade may be available at other times (particularly when an electronic grade book connected to an online service is in use). Although grading scales usually differ from school to school, the most common grade scale is letter grades—"A" through "F"—derived from a scale of 0–100 or a percentile. In some areas, Texas or Virginia for example, the "D" grade (or that between 70–60) is considered a failing grade. In other jurisdictions, such as Hawaii, a "D" grade is considered passing in certain classes, and failing in others. A | B | C | D | F, E, I, N, or U | + | | – | + | | – | + | | – | + | | – | | | | 100–97 | 96–93 | 92–90 | 89–87 | 86–83 | 82–80 | 79–77 | 76–73 | 72–70 | 69–67 | 66–63 | 62–60 | Below 60 Percent | | | [] Standardized testing See also: Test (student assessment) Under the No Child Left Behind Act, all American states must test students in public schools statewide to ensure that they are achieving the desired level of minimum education,[36] such as on the Regents Examinations in New York, or the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS); students being educated at home or in private schools are not included. The act also requires that students and schools show "adequate yearly progress." This means they must show some improvement each year. When a student fails to make adequate yearly progress, No Child Left Behind mandates that remediation through summer school and/or tutoring be made available to a student in need of extra help. During high school, students (usually in 11th grade) may take one or more standardized tests depending on their postsecondary education preferences and their local graduation requirements. In theory, these tests evaluate the overall level of knowledge and learning aptitude of the students. The SAT and ACT are the most common standardized tests that students take when applying to college. A student may take the SAT, ACT, or both depending upon the post-secondary institutions the student plans to apply to for admission. Most competitive schools also require two or three SAT Subject Tests, (formerly known as SAT IIs), which are shorter exams that focus strictly on a particular subject matter. However, all these tests serve little to no purpose for students who do not move on to post-secondary education, so they can usually be skipped without affecting one's ability to graduate. [] Extracurricular activities A major characteristic of American schools is the high priority given to sports, clubs and activities by the community, the parents, the schools and the students themselves. Extracurricular activities are educational activities not falling within the scope of the regular curriculum but under the supervision of the school. These activities can extend to large amounts of time outside the normal school day; home-schooled students, however, are not normally allowed to participate. Student participation in sports programs, drill teams, bands, and spirit groups can amount to hours of practices and performances. Most states have organizations that develop rules for competition between groups. These organizations are usually forced to implement time limits on hours practiced as a prerequisite for participation. Many schools also have non-varsity sports teams, however these are usually afforded less resources and attention. The idea of having sports teams associated with high schools is relatively unique to the United States in comparison with other countries. Sports programs and their related games, especially football and/or basketball, are major events for American students and for larger schools can be a major source of funds for school districts. Schools may sell "spirit" shirts to wear to games; school stadiums and gymnasiums are often filled to capacity, even for non-sporting competitions. High school athletic competitions often generate intense interest in the community. Inner city schools serving poor students are heavily scouted by college and even professional coaches, with national attention given to which colleges outstanding high school students choose to attend. State high school championship tournaments football and basketball attract high levels of public interest. In addition to sports, numerous non-athletic extracurricular activities are available in American schools, both public and private. Activities include Quizbowl, musical groups, marching bands, student government, school newspapers, science fairs, debate teams, and clubs focused on an academic area (such as the Spanish Club) or cultural interests (such as Key Club). [] Education of students with special needs Main article: Special education in the United States In the United States, education for students with special needs is structured to adhere as closely as possible to the same experience received by typically developing peers. This concept was developed with the passing of IDEA (see below). This law directed states to develop opportunities for children with special needs to be educated within the public education system. Students with special needs must have the opportunity to be with typically developing peers in the mainstream school. For example: recess, cafeteria, assemblies, hallways, regular classes, etc. This process is known as mainstreaming. Special education (educational programs required to assist special needs students) must be provided for these students for mainstreaming to be possible. Students with special needs attend special schools only if their need for very specialized services makes mainstreaming impossible. The level of mainstreaming that is provided varies greatly within different school districts. For example, larger school districts are often able to provide more adequate and quality care for those with special needs rather than smaller school districts. Students with special needs are required to attend the same amount of time as typically developing peers. Students receiving special education services are entitled by law to an annual review of yearly progress as well as an evaluation every three years to determine the needs for continued services. Parents who have specific desires for their child's education must act as advocates to assure their child's best interests are being met. To more clearly identify special needs students, the federal government defined thirteen categories of special needs. These included autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, hearing impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment. The key to overcoming special needs in the mainstream school for students is: * Attending sessions (i.e. resource room) during the day to supplement regular or special classroom instruction. The goal of these programs is for students to learn compensatory strategies and study skills to enable them to succeed in mainstream classes. These sessions are generally for students who are fully included into the general educational environment. * Students with similar needs are placed together in a self-contained classroom if their education cannot be satisfactorily achieved in the general educational environment. In other words, these classrooms are provided for students who do not benefit educationally, socially or emotionally from a standard classroom placement. These classrooms, commonly known as special classes, are taught by teachers with training in adapting curricula to meet the needs of students with special needs. According to the National Association of School Nurses, 5% students in 2009 have a seizure disorder, another 5% have ADHD and 10% have mental or emotional problems.[16] [] Educating children with disabilities The federal law, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to ensure that all government-run schools provide services to meet the individual needs of students with special needs, as defined by the law.[37] All students with special needs are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Schools meet with the parents or guardians to develop an Individualized Education Program that determines best placement for the child. Students must be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that is appropriate for the student's needs. Government-run schools that fail to provide an appropriate placement for students with special needs can be taken to due process wherein parents may formally submit their grievances and demand appropriate services for the child. Schools may be eligible for state and federal funding for the (sometimes large) costs of providing the necessary facilities and services. [] Criticism At-risk students (those with educational needs that aren't associated with a disability) are often placed in classes with students with minor emotional and social disabilities.[38] Critics assert that placing at-risk students in the same classes as these disabled students may impede the educational progress of both the at-risk and the disabled students.[citation needed] Some research has refuted this claim, and has suggested this approach increases the academic and behavioral skills of the entire student population.[39] See also: Special education [] Public and private schools In the United States, state and local government have primary responsibility for education. The Federal Department of Education plays a role in standards setting and education finance, and some military primary and secondary schools are run by the Department of Defense.[40] K-12 students in most areas have a choice between free tax-funded public schools, or privately-funded private schools.[citation needed] Public school systems are supported by a combination of local, state, and federal government funding. Because a large portion of school revenues come from local property taxes, public schools vary widely in the resources they have available per student. Class size also varies from one district to another. Curriculum decisions in public schools are made largely at the local and state levels; the federal government has limited influence. In most districts, a locally elected school board runs schools. The school board appoints an official called the superintendent of schools to manage the schools in the district. The largest public school system in the United States is in New York City, where more than one million students are taught in 1,200 separate public schools. Because of its immense size – there are more students in the system than residents in eight US states – the New York City public school system is nationally influential in determining standards and materials, such as textbooks. Admission to individual public schools is usually based on residency. To compensate for differences in school quality based on geography, school systems serving large cities and portions of large cities often have "magnet schools" that provide enrollment to a specified number of non-resident students in addition to serving all resident students. This special enrollment is usually decided by lottery with equal numbers of males and females chosen. Some magnet schools cater to gifted students or to students with special interests, such as the sciences or performing arts.[41] Admission to some of these schools is highly competitive and based on an application process. Private schools in the United States include parochial schools (affiliated with religious denominations), non-profit independent schools, and for-profit private schools. Private schools charge varying rates depending on geographic location, the school's expenses, and the availability of funding from sources, other than tuition. For example, some churches partially subsidize private schools for their members. Some people have argued that when their child attends a private school, they should be able to take the funds that the public school no longer needs and apply that money towards private school tuition in the form of vouchers; this is the basis of the school choice movement. 5,072,451 students attended 33,740 private elementary and secondary schools in 2007. 74.5% of these were Caucasian, non-Hispanic, 9.8% were African American , 9.6% were Hispanic. 5.4% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and .6% were American Indian. Average school size was 150.3 students. There were 456,266 teachers. The number of students per teacher was about 11. 65% of seniors in private schools in 2006-7 went on to attend a 4-year college.[42] Private schools have various missions: some cater to college-bound students seeking a competitive edge in the college admissions process; others are for gifted students, students with learning disabilities or other special needs, or students with specific religious affiliations. Some cater to families seeking a small school, with a nurturing, supportive environment. Unlike public school systems, private schools have no legal obligation to accept any interested student. Admission to some private schools is often highly selective. Private schools also have the ability to permanently expel persistently unruly students, a disciplinary option not legally available to public school systems. Private schools offer the advantages of smaller classes, under twenty students in a typical elementary classroom, for example; a higher teacher/student ratio across the school day, greater individualized attention and in the more competitive schools, expert college placement services. Unless specifically designed to do so, private schools usually cannot offer the services required by students with serious or multiple learning, emotional, or behavioral issues. Although reputed to pay lower salaries than public school systems, private schools often attract teachers by offering high-quality professional development opportunities, including tuition grants for advanced degrees. According to elite private schools themselves, this investment in faculty development helps maintain the high quality program that they offer. An August 17, 2000 article by the Chicago Sun-Times refers to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago Office of Catholic Schools as the largest private school system in the United States.[43] [] College and university Main article: Higher education in the United States Post-secondary education in the United States is known as college or university and commonly consists of four years of study at an institution of higher learning. There are 4,352 colleges, universities, and junior colleges in the country.[44] In 2008, 36% of enrolled students graduated from college in four years. 57% completed their undergraduate requirements in six years, at the same college they first enrolled in.[45] The U.S. ranks 10th among industrial countries for percentage of adults with college degrees.[5] Suzzallo Library at University of Washington Like high school, the four undergraduate grades are commonly called freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years (alternatively called first year, second year, etc.). Students traditionally apply for admission into colleges. Schools differ in their competitiveness and reputation; generally, the most prestigious schools are private, rather than public. Admissions criteria involve the rigor and grades earned in high school courses taken, the students' GPA, class ranking, and standardized test scores (Such as the SAT or the ACT tests). Most colleges also consider more subjective factors such as a commitment to extracurricular activities, a personal essay, and an interview. While colleges will rarely list that they require a certain standardized test score, class ranking, or GPA for admission, each college usually has a rough threshold below which admission is unlikely. Once admitted, students engage in undergraduate study, which consists of satisfying university and class requirements to achieve a bachelor's degree in a field of concentration known as a major. (Some students enroll in double majors or "minor" in another field of study.) The most common method consists of four years of study leading to a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), a Bachelor of Science (B.S.), or sometimes another bachelor's degree such as Bachelor of Fine Arts (B.F.A.), Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.), Bachelor of Engineering (B.Eng.,) or Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) Five-Year Professional Architecture programs offer the Bachelor of Architecture Degree (B.Arch.) Professional degrees such as law, medicine, pharmacy, and dentistry, are offered as graduate study after earning at least three years of undergraduate schooling or after earning a bachelor's degree depending on the program. These professional fields do not require a specific undergraduate major, though medicine, pharmacy, and dentistry have set prerequisite courses that must be taken before enrollment. Alexander Hall at Princeton University Some students choose to attend a community college for two years prior to further study at another college or university. In most states, community colleges are operated either by a division of the state university or by local special districts subject to guidance from a state agency. Community colleges may award Associate of Arts (AA) or Associate of Science (AS) degree after two years. Those seeking to continue their education may transfer to a four-year college or university (after applying through a similar admissions process as those applying directly to the four-year institution, see articulation). Some community colleges have automatic enrollment agreements with a local four-year college, where the community college provides the first two years of study and the university provides the remaining years of study, sometimes all on one campus. The community college awards the associate's degree, and the university awards the bachelor's and master's degrees. Graduate study, conducted after obtaining an initial degree and sometimes after several years of professional work, leads to a more advanced degree such as a master's degree, which could be a Master of Arts (MA), Master of Science (MS), Master of Business Administration (MBA), or other less common master's degrees such as Master of Education (MEd), and Master of Fine Arts (MFA). Some students pursue a graduate degree that is in between a master's degree and a doctoral degree called a Specialist in Education (Ed.S.). After additional years of study and sometimes in conjunction with the completion of a master's degree and/or Ed.S. degree, students may earn a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) or other doctoral degree, such as Doctor of Arts, Doctor of Education, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Pharmacy, Doctor of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Osteopathy, Doctor of Podiatry Medicine, Doctor of Psychology, or Juris Doctor. Some programs, such as medicine and psychology, have formal apprenticeship procedures post-graduation, such as residencies and internships, which must be completed after graduation and before one is considered fully trained. Other professional programs like law and business have no formal apprenticeship requirements after graduation (although law school graduates must take the bar exam to legally practice law in nearly all states). Entrance into graduate programs usually depends upon a student's undergraduate academic performance or professional experience as well as their score on a standardized entrance exam like the Graduate Record Examination (GRE-graduate schools in general), the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), or the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). Many graduate and law schools do not require experience after earning a bachelor's degree to enter their programs; however, business school candidates are usually required to gain a few years of professional work experience before applying. 8.9 percent of students receive postgraduate degrees. Most, after obtaining their bachelor's degree, proceed directly into the workforce.[46] [] Cost The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent)[citation needed] lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender. All but a few charity institutions cover all of the students' tuition, although scholarships (both merit-based and need-based) are widely available. Generally, private universities charge much higher tuition than their public counterparts, which rely on state funds to make up the difference. Because each state supports its own university system with state taxes, most public universities charge much higher rates for out-of-state students. Annual undergraduate tuition varies widely from state to state, and many additional fees apply. In 2009, average annual tuition at a public university (for residents of the state) was $7,020.[45] Tuition for public school students from outside the state is generally comparable to private school prices, although students can often qualify for state residency after their first year. Private schools are typically much higher, although prices vary widely from "no-frills" private schools to highly specialized technical institutes. Depending upon the type of school and program, annual graduate program tuition can vary from $15,000 to as high as $50,000. Note that these prices do not include living expenses (rent, room/board, etc.) or additional fees that schools add on such as "activities fees" or health insurance. These fees, especially room and board, can range from $6,000 to $12,000 per academic year (assuming a single student without children).[47] The mean annual Total Cost (including all costs associated with a full-time post-secondary schooling, such as tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board), as reported by the Census Bureau for the school year 2001/2, according to the various college years was as follows[citation needed]: * College years 1 to 2: $9489 (per year) * College years 3 to 4: $11901 (per year) Total, four year schooling: $42780 * College years 5 or plus: $13669 (per year) * Vocational, technical, business or other: $7401 (per year) College costs are rising at the same time that state appropriations for aid are shrinking. This has led to debate over funding at both the state and local levels. From 2002 to 2004 alone, tuition rates at public schools increased by just over 14 percent, largely due to dwindling state funding. A more moderate increase of 6 percent occurred over the same period for private schools.[47] Between 1982 and 2007, college tuition and fees rose three times as fast as median family income, in constant dollars.[48] The debt of the average college graduate for student loans in 2010 was $23,200.[49] To combat costs colleges have hired adjunct professors to teach. In 2008 these teachers cost about $1,800 per 3-cr class as opposed to $8,000 per class for a tenured professor. Two-thirds of college instructors were adjuncts. There are differences of opinion whether these adjuncts teach better or worse than regular professors. There is a suspicion that student evaluation of adjuncts, along with their subsequent continued employment, can lead to grade inflation.[50] [] The status ladder American college and university faculty, staff, alumni, students, and applicants monitor rankings produced by magazines such as U.S. News and World Report, Academic Ranking of World Universities, test preparation services such as The Princeton Review or another university itself such as the Top American Research Universities by the University of Florida's The Center.[51] These rankings are based on factors like brand recognition, selectivity in admissions, generosity of alumni donors, and volume of faculty research. Fifty-five US universities are listed in the top 200 in the world in the THES - QS World University Rankings.[52][53][54] A small percentage of students who apply to these schools gain admission.[55] Included among the top 20 institutions identified by ARWU in 2009 are six of the eight schools in the Ivy League; 4 of the 10 schools in the University of California system; the private Universities of Stanford, Chicago, and Johns Hopkins; the public Universities of Washington and Wisconsin; and the Massachusetts and California Institutes of Technology.[56] Also renowned within the United States are the so-called "Little Ivies" and a number of prestigious liberal arts colleges. Certain public universities (sometimes referred to as "Public Ivies") are also recognized for their outstanding record in scholarship. Some of these institutions currently place among the elite in certain measurements of graduate education and research, especially among engineering and medical schools.[57][58] Each state in the United States maintains its own public university system, which is always non-profit. The State University of New York and the California State University are the largest public higher education systems in the United States; SUNY is the largest system that includes community colleges, while CSU is the largest without. Most areas also have private institutions, which may be for-profit or non-profit. Unlike many other nations, there are no public universities at the national level outside of the military service academies. Prospective students applying to attend one of the five military academies require, with limited exceptions, nomination by a member of Congress. Like acceptance to "top tier" universities, competition for these limited nominations is intense and must be accompanied by superior scholastic achievement and evidence of "leadership potential." Aside from these aforementioned schools, academic reputations vary widely among the 'middle-tier' of American schools, (and even among academic departments within each of these schools.) Most public and private institutions fall into this 'middle' range. Some institutions feature honors colleges or other rigorous programs that challenge academically exceptional students, who might otherwise attend a 'top-tier' college.[59][60][61][62] Aware of the status attached to the perception of the college that they attend, students often apply to a range of schools. Some apply to a relatively prestigious school with a low acceptance rate, gambling on the chance of acceptance, and also apply to a "safety school",[63] to which they will (almost) certainly gain admission. Lower status institutions include community colleges. These are primarily two-year public institutions, which individual states usually require to accept all local residents who seek admission, and offer associate's degrees or vocational certificate programs. Many community colleges have relationships with four-year state universities and colleges or even private universities that enable their students to transfer to these universities for a four-year degree after completing a two-year program at the community college. Regardless of perceived prestige, many institutions feature at least one distinguished academic department, and most post-secondary American students attend one of the 2,400 four-year colleges and universities or 1,700 two-year colleges not included among the twenty-five or so 'top-tier' institutions.[64] For this reason (among others), America's higher education status ladder remains highly controversial, and certainly not beyond reproach. For example, Reed College refuses to participate in institutional rankings, insisting that one cannot quantify the qualitative. [] Criticism A college economics professor has blamed "credential inflation" for the admission of so many unqualified students into college. He reports that the number of new jobs requiring college degrees is less than the number of college graduates.[5] The same professor reports that the more money that a state spends on higher education, the slower the economy grows, the opposite of long held notions.[5] [] Contemporary education issues See also: Education reform Major educational issues in the United States center on curriculum, funding, and control. Of critical importance, because of its enormous implications on education and funding, is the No Child Left Behind Act.[36] [] Curriculum issues President George W. Bush signing the No Child Left Behind Act Curricula in the United States vary widely from district to district. Not only do schools offer a range of topics and quality, but private schools may include religious classes as mandatory for attendance (raising the question of government funding vouchers; see below). This has produced camps of argument over the standardization of curricula and to what degree. These same groups often are advocates of standardized testing, which is mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. There is debate over which subjects should receive the most focus, with astronomy and geography among those cited as not being taught enough in schools.[65] [] English in the classroom A large issue facing curricula today is the use of the English language in teaching. English is spoken by over 95% of the nation, and there is a strong national tradition of upholding English as the de facto official language[citation needed]. Some 9.7 million children aged 5 to 17 primarily speak a language other than English at home. Of those, about 1.3 million children do not speak English well or at all.[66] While a few, mostly Hispanic, groups want bilingual education, the majority of school districts are attempting to use English as a Second Language (ESL) course to teach Spanish-speaking students English. In addition, many[who'] feel there are threats to the "integrity" of the language itself. [] Attainment Forty-four percent of college faculty believe that incoming students aren't ready for writing at the college level. Ninety percent of high school teachers believe exiting students are well-prepared.[67] Since the 1980s the number of educated Americans has continued to grow, but at a slower rate. Some have attributed this to an increase in the foreign born portion of the workforce. However, the decreasing growth of the educational workforce has instead been primarily due to slowing down in educational attainment of people schooled in the United States.[68] [] Intelligent design or creationism In 1999 the School Board of the state of Kansas caused controversy when it decided to eliminate teaching of evolution in its state assessment tests.[69] This caused outrage among scientists and average citizens alike, and intense media coverage and the national spotlight persuaded the board to eventually overturn the decision. As of 2005, such controversies have not abated. Not surprisingly, scientists stress the importance of evolution in the curriculum and most do not support the teaching of intelligent design or creationism in public school biology courses.[70] Many religious and family values groups, on the other hand, claim that evolution is simply a theory in the colloquial sense, and as such creationist ideas should therefore be taught alongside it as an alternative viewpoint. While a majority of United States citizens approve of teaching evolution[citation needed], many also support teaching intelligent design and/or creationism in public schools. Support for evolution was found to be greater among the better educated.[71] US courts have ruled it is a violation of the separation of church and state to present creationism and intelligent design as science or fact in public schools because it necessarily presupposes specific religious content.[citation needed] [] Sex Education Today, sex education ("sex ed") in the United States is highly controversial. Many schools attempt to avoid the study as much as possible, confining it to a unit in health or physical education classes. There are few specifically sex education classes in existence. Also, because former President George W. Bush called for abstinence-only sex education and had the power to withhold funding,[72] many schools backed away from instructing students in the use of birth control or contraceptives. However, according to a 2004 survey, a majority of the 1001 parent groups polled wants complete sex education in the schools. The American people are heavily divided over the issue. Over 80% of polled parents agreed with the statement "Sex education in school makes it easier for me to talk to my child about sexual issues," while under 17% agreed with the statement that their children were being exposed to "subjects I don't think my child should be discussing." 10 percent believed that their children's sexual education class forced them to discuss sexual issues "too early." On the other hand, 49 percent of the respondents (the largest group) were "somewhat confident" that the values taught in their children's sex ed classes were similar to those taught at home, and 23 percent were less confident still. (The margin of error was plus or minus 4.7 percent.)[73] [] Textbook review and adoption In many localities in the United States, the curriculum taught in public schools is influenced by the textbooks used by the teachers. In some states, textbooks are selected for all students at the state level. Since states such as California and Texas represent a considerable market for textbook publishers, these states can exert influence over the content of the books.[74] In 2010, the Texas Board of Education adopted new Social Studies standards that could potentially impact the content of textbooks purchased in other parts of the country. The deliberations that resulted in the new standards were partisan in nature and are said to reflect a conservative leaning in the view of United States history.[75] As of January 2009, the four largest college textbook publishers in the United States were: * Pearson Education (including such imprints as Addison-Wesley and Prentice Hall) * Cengage Learning (formerly Thomson Learning) * McGraw-Hill * Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Other US textbook publishers include: * John Wiley &Sons * Jones and Bartlett Publishers * F. A. Davis Company * W. W. Norton &Company * SAGE Publications * Flat World Knowledge * Bookboon.com [] Funding [] Funding for K–12 schools According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency).[76] However, the United States is ranked 37th in the world in education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. All but seven of the leading countries are in the third world; ranked high because of a low GDP.[77] U.S. public schools lag behind the schools of other developed countries in the areas of reading, math, and science.[78] According to a 2007 article in The Washington Post, the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district has produced outcomes that are lower than the national average. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts – even when poor children are compared with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%.[79] In 2004, the U.S. Congress set up a voucher program for low income minority students in Washington D.C. to attend private schools. The vouchers were $7,500 per student per year. The parents said their children were receiving a much better education from the private schools. In 2007, Washington D.C. non-voting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said she wanted the voucher program to be eliminated, and that the public schools needed more money.[80] Secretary of Education Arne Duncan supports retaining vouchers for the district only, as do some DC parent groups.[81][82] According to a 2006 study by the Goldwater Institute, Arizona's public schools spend 50% more per student than Arizona's private schools. The study also says that while teachers constitute 72% of the employees at private schools, they make up less than half of the staff at public schools. According to the study, if Arizona's public schools wanted to be like private schools, they would have to hire approximately 25,000 more teachers, and eliminate 21,210 administration employees.[83] During the 2006–2007 school year, a private school in Chicago founded by Marva Collins to teach low income minority students charged $5,500 for tuition, and parents said that the school did a much better job than the Chicago public school system.[84] However, Collins' school was forced to close in in 2008 due to lack of sufficient enrollment and funding.[85] Meanwhile, during the 2007–2008 year, Chicago public school officials claimed that their budget of $11,300 per student was not enough.[86] In 1985 in Kansas City, Missouri, a judge ordered the school district to raise taxes and spend more money on public education. Spending was increased so much, that the school district was spending more money per student than any of the country's other 280 largest school districts with a charge to "dream" of the possibilities and to make them happen. Although this very high level of spending continued for more than a decade, there was no improvement in the school district's academic performance.[87][88] Public school defenders answer that both of these examples are misleading, as the task of educating students is easier in private schools, which can expel or refuse to accept students who lag behind their peers in academic achievement or behavior, while public schools have no such recourse and must continue to attempt to educate these students. For this reason, comparisons of the cost of education in public schools to that of private schools is misleading; private school education can be accomplished with less funding because in most cases they educate those students who are easiest to teach.[89] But not in all cases. For example, Marva Collins created her low cost private school specifically for the purpose of teaching low income African American children whom the public school system had labeled as being "learning disabled".[90] One article about Marva Collins' school stated, "Working with students having the worst of backgrounds, those who were working far below grade level, and even those who had been labeled as 'unteachable,' Marva was able to overcome the obstacles. News of third grade students reading at ninth grade level, four-year-olds learning to read in a few months, outstanding test scores, disappearance of behavioral problems, second-graders studying Shakespeare, and other incredible reports, astounded the public." [91] According to a 1999 article by William J. Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, increased levels of spending on public education have not made the schools better. Among many other things, the article cites the following statistics:[92] * Between 1960 and 1995, U.S. public school spending per student, adjusted for inflation, increased by 212%. * In 1994, less than half of all U.S. public school employees were teachers. * Out of 21 industrialized countries, U.S. 12th graders ranked 19th in math, 16th in science, and last in advanced physics. A 2008 report[93] by The Heritage Foundation provides the following chart based on data[94][95] from the US Department of Education indicating no real improvement in reading scores, while per student expenditure more than doubles from $4,060 in 1970 to $9,266 in 2005: (click to see image) Other commentators have suggested that the public school system has exhibited signs of success. SAT scores have risen consistently over the past decades, despite the fact that the pool of students taking the test has increased from an academic elite to a much more representative sampling of the population. Commentators have suggested that this increase in scores, coming as it does at a time when more students have started to take the test and the public schooling system has faced ever-increasing challenge, suggests that the US educational system is much more effective than is commonly believed, and that the negative cast common in public perception is due to negative propaganda disseminated by elements with a personal interest in discring or weakening public education.[96] Funding for schools in the United States is complex. One current controversy stems much from the No Child Left Behind Act. The Act gives the Department of Education the right to withhold funding if it believes a school, district, or even a state is not complying and is making no effort to comply. However, federal funding accounts for little of the overall funding schools receive. The vast majority comes from the state government and in some cases from local property taxes. Various groups, many of whom are teachers, constantly push for more funding. They point to many different situations, such as the fact that in many schools funding for classroom supplies is so inadequate that teachers, especially those at the elementary level, must supplement their supplies with purchases of their own.[97] Property taxes as a primary source of funding for public education have become highly controversial, for a number of reasons. First, if a state's population and land values escalate rapidly, many longtime residents may find themselves paying property taxes much higher than anticipated. In response to this phenomenon, California's citizens passed Proposition 13 in 1978, which severely restricted the ability of the Legislature to expand the state's educational system to keep up with growth. Some states, such as Michigan, have investigated or implemented alternate schemes for funding education that may sidestep the problems of funding based mainly on property taxes by providing funding based on sales or income tax. These schemes also have failings, negatively impacting funding in a slow economy.[98] Another issue is that many parents of private school and home-schooled children have taken issue with the idea of paying for an education their children are not receiving. However, tax proponents point out that every person pays property taxes for public education, not just parents of school-age children. Indeed, without it schools would not have enough money to remain open. Still, parents of students who go to private schools want to use this money instead to fund their children's private education. This is the foundation of the school voucher movement. School voucher programs were proposed by free-market advocates seeking competition in education, led by economist Milton Friedman, but have been criticized for damaging public schools, both in funding and diversity. One of the biggest debates in funding public schools is funding by local taxes or state taxes. The federal government supplies around 8.5% of the public school system funds, according to a 2005 report by the National Center for Education Statistics. The remaining split between state and local governments averages 48.7 percent from states and 42.8 percent from local sources. However, the division varies widely. In Hawaii local funds make up 1.7 percent, while state sources account for nearly 90.1 percent.[99] The most expensive school in the United States was constructed by the Los Angeles Unified School District in 2010. It cost $578 million; served 4,200 K–12 students.[100] [] Funding for college At the college and university level student loan funding is split in half; half is managed by the Department of Education directly, called the Federal Direct Student Loan Program (FDSLP). The other half is managed by commercial entities such as banks, cr unions, and financial services firms such as Sallie Mae, under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). Some schools accept only FFELP loans; others accept only FDSLP. Still others accept both, and a few schools will not accept either, in which case students must seek out private alternatives for student loans.[101] [] Charter schools The charter-school movement was born in 1990. Charter schools have spread rapidly in the United States, members, parents, teachers, and students" to allow for the "expression of diverse teaching philosophies and cultural and social life styles." [102] [] Affirmative action In 2003 a Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional.[103] Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle- and upper-class people of color at the expense of lower class European Americans and Asian Americans.[104] In 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese undergraduate at Yale University, filed a civil rights complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against Princeton University, claiming that his race played a role in their decision to reject his application for admission.[105] See also: Affirmative action in the United States [] Control There is some debate about where control for education actually lies. Education is not mentioned in the constitution of the United States. In the current situation, the state and national governments have a power-sharing arrangement, with the states exercising most of the control. Like other arrangements between the two, the federal government uses the threat of decreased funding to enforce laws pertaining to education.[40] Furthermore, within each state there are different types of control. Some states have a statewide school system, while others delegate power to county, city or township-level school boards. However, under the Bush administration, initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act have attempted to assert more central control in a heavily decentralized system. Many cities have their own school boards everywhere in the United States. With the exception of cities, outside the northeast U.S., school boards are generally constituted at the county level. The U.S. federal government exercises its control through the U.S. Department of Education. Educational accration decisions are made by voluntary regional associations. Schools in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, teach in English, while schools in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico teach in Spanish. Nonprofit private schools are widespread, are largely independent of the government, and include secular as well as parochial schools. [] International Comparison U.S. students' average scores in international comparisons have often been below the average of developed countries. In the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment 2003, 15 year olds ranked 24th of 38 in mathematics, 19th of 38 in science, 12th of 38 in reading, and 26th of 38 in problem solving.[106] In the 2006 assessment, the U.S. ranked 35th out of 57 in mathematics and 29th out of 57 in science. Reading scores could not be reported due to printing errors in the instructions of the U.S. test booklets. U.S. scores were behind those of most other developed nations.[107] While US teens' performance was mediocre in the Programme for International Student Assessment tests, which emphasizes problem solving, US fourth and eighth graders tested above average on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study tests, which emphasizes traditional learning.[108] See also: Cram school [] Educational attainment Main article: Educational attainment in the United States This graph shows the educational attainment since 1947.[109] The rise of the high school movement in the beginning of the 20th century was unique in the United States, such that, high schools were implemented with property-tax funded tuition, openness, non-exclusivity, and were decentralized. The academic curriculum was designed to provide the students with a terminal degree. The students obtained general knowledge (such as mathematics, chemistry,composition, etc.) best applicable to the high geographic and social mobility in the United States. The provision of the high schools accelerated with the rise of second industrial revolution industry. The increase in office white collar and skilled blue-collar work in manufacturing reflected in the high demand for high schools. In the 21st century, the educational attainment of the US population was similar to that of many other industrialized countries with the vast majority of the population having completed secondary education and a rising number of college graduates that outnumber high school dropouts. As a whole the population of the United States is becoming increasingly more educated.[citation needed] Post-secondary education is valued very highly by American society and is one of the main determinants of class and status.[citation needed] As with income, however, there are significant discrepancies in terms of race, age, household configuration and geography.[109] Overall the households and demographics featuring the highest educational attainment in the United States are also among those with the highest household income and wealth. Thus, while the population of the US is becoming increasingly educated on all levels, a direct link between income and educational attainment remains.[109] In 2007, Americans stood second only to Canada in the percentage of 35 to 64 year olds holding at least two-year degrees. Among 25 to 34 year olds, the country stands tenth. The nation stands 15 out of 29 rated nations for college completion rates, slightly above Mexico and Turkey.[48] The U.S. Department of Education’s 2003 statistics suggest that 14% of the population – or 32 million adults – have very low literacy skills.[110] A five-year, $14 million study of U.S. adult literacy involving lengthy interviews of U.S. adults, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government,[111] was released in September 1993. It involved lengthy interviews of over 26,700 adults statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."[111] According to a 2003 study by the US government, around 23% of Americans in California lack basic prose literacy skills.[112] [] Health and safety Many schools have nurses either full-time or part time to administer to students and to ensure that medication is taken as directed by their physician.[113] For nearly all high school grades and many elementary schools as well, a police officer, titled a "resource officer", or SRO (Security Resource Officer), is on site to screen students for firearms and to help avoid disruptions.[114][115][citation needed] [] See also * Academic grading in the United States * ACT and SAT * US education and the welfare state * Campuslive * College Board examinations * Education in Colonial America * Higher education in the United States * Lists of school districts in the United States * Notable dropouts in the United States * Outcome-based education * Roots of Empathy * Two Million Minutes (documentary film) [] Further reading [] Bibliography * Berliner, David C. [] History for more detailed bibliography see History of Education in the United States: Bibliography * James D. Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935 (University of North Carolina Press, 1988). * Axtell, J. The school upon a hill: Education and society in colonial New England. Yale University Press. (1974). * Maurice R. Berube; American School Reform: Progressive, Equity, and Excellence Movements, 1883–1993. 1994. online version * Brint, S., &Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989). * Button, H. Warren and Provenzo, Eugene F., Jr. History of Education and Culture in America. Prentice-Hall, 1983. 379 pp. * Cremin, Lawrence A. The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957. (1961). * Cremin, Lawrence A. American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607–1783. (1970); American Education: The National Experience, 1783–1876. (1980); American Education: The Metropolitan Experience, 1876–1980 (1990); standard 3 vol detailed scholarly history * Curti, M. E. The social ideas of American educators, with new chapter on the last twenty-five years. (1959). * Dorn, Sherman. Creating the Dropout: An Institutional and Social History of School Failure. Praeger, 1996. 167 pp. * Gatto, John Taylor. The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Prison of Modern Schooling. Oxford Village Press, 2001, 412 pp. online version [116] * Herbst, Juergen. The once and future school: Three hundred and fifty years of American secondary education. (1996). * Herbst, Juergen. School Choice and School Governance: A Historical Study of the United States and Germany 2006. ISBN 1-4039-7302-4. * Krug, Edward A. The shaping of the American high school, 1880–1920. (1964); The American high school, 1920–1940. (1972). standard 2 vol scholarly history * Lucas, C. J. American higher education: A history. (1994). pp.; reprinted essays from History of Education Quarterly * Parkerson, Donald H. and Parkerson, Jo Ann. Transitions in American Education: A Social History of Teaching. Routledge, 2001. 242 pp. * Parkerson, Donald H. and Parkerson, Jo Ann. The Emergence of the Common School in the U.S. Countryside. Edwin Mellen, 1998. 192 pp. * Peterson, Paul E. The politics of school reform, 1870–1940. (1985). * Ravitch, Diane. Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms. Simon &Schuster, 2000. 555 pp. * John L. Rury; Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Schooling.'; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2002. online version * Sanders, James W The education of an urban minority: Catholics in Chicago, 1833–1965. (1977). * Solomon, Barbara M. In the company of educated women: A history of women and higher education in America. (1985). * Theobald, Paul. Call School: Rural Education in the Midwest to 1918. Southern Illinois U. Pr., 1995. 246 pp. * David B. Tyack. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (1974), * Tyack, David and Cuban, Larry. Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Harvard U. Pr., 1995. 184 pp. * Tyack, David B., &Hansot, E. Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820–1980. (1982). * Veysey Lawrence R. The emergence of the American university. (1965). [] References * ^ [1] Bureau, U. C. (2009). The 2009 Statistical Abstract. Retrieved from National Data Book * ^ a b https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html * ^ [2] State Compulsory School Attendance Laws Information Please Almanac.. Retrieved December 19, 2007. * ^ [3]. United States Census (2000). Retrieved June 17, 2005. * ^ a b c d Zagier, Alan Scher (6 June 2010). "Rethinking the four-year degree". Washington Post: Washington Post. pp. A2.  * ^ A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century, U.S. Department of Education, 2003. Accessed May 13, 2006. Two percent of the population do not have minimal literacy and 14% have Below Basic prose literacy. * ^ Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), OECD, reading literacy, science literacy and mathematics literacy all rank near the bottom of OECD-countries. * ^ Ripley, Amanda (December 8, 2008). Can She Save our Schools. Time Magazine.  * ^ Education at Glance 2005 by OECD: Current tertiary graduation rates. * ^ Education at Glance 2005 by OECD: Participation in continuing education and training * ^ "Scientific Literacy: How Do Americans Stack Up'." Science Daily. * ^ a b c "American Education System – Education System in United States of America – USA Education System". Indobase.com. http://www.indobase.com/study-abroad/countries/usa/usa-education-system.html. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Structure of U.S. Education. U.S. Network for Education Information: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 19, 2005. * ^ Educational Consultants. About.com (2005). Retrieved August 12, 2005. * ^ IPC. International Preschool Curriculum (2010). Retrieved March 5, 2010. * ^ a b "School Nurses". Merritt Island, Florida: Space Coast Medicine and Healthy Living. March/April 2009. pp. 21–33.  * ^ Age range for compulsory school attendance and special education services, and policies on year-round schools and kindergarten programs. Retrieved November 28, 2009. * ^ a b Education. United States Census (2000). Retrieved June 17, 2005. * ^ "'High school dropout crisis' continues in U.S., study says". CNN.com. May 5, 2009. * ^ "Supreme Court and School Busing". United Press International. * ^ Will, George F. (6 June 2010). "Column:the teacher bailout". Washington, DC: Washington Post. pp. A15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060403753.html.  * ^ Reed, Matt (12 December 2010). "Tackling 'achievement gap' hurts US schools". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 1B. http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101212/COLUMNISTS0207/12120317/1086/Matt%20Reed%20%20Chair%20of%20schools%20talks%20issues/MATT-REED--Cocoa-s--A--is-great--but-data-demand-a-breakthrough-by-elite..  * ^ [4] * ^ "Digest of Education Statistics, 2001" (PDF). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002130.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ a b "Illinois State Board of Education – Illinois Learning Standards". Isbe.state.il.us. http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ [5][dead link] * ^ "Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS)". Isbe.state.il.us. http://www.isbe.state.il.us/certification/html/testing.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Archived: No Child Left Behind Act Is Working". Ed.gov. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ [6][dead link] * ^ [7] The major difference between a middle school and a junior high lies in the philosophy. The middle school philosophy focuses on the student where the junior high focus is more on the content. Definition of junior high school, accessed July 24, 2007. Archived 2009-10-31. * ^ David McCullough "History and Knowing Who We Are," American Heritage, Winter 2008. * ^ Enrollment in foreign language courses. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 16, 2006. * ^ a b Lloyd, Janice, Gannett News Service (January 5, 2008). Home-schooling numbers rise. Burlington Free Press.  * ^ Aronold, Dave. Home Schools Run By Well-Meaning Amateurs. National Education Association. Retrieved February 19, 2005. * ^ Home School Legal Defense Association. Retrieved February 13, 2007. * ^ a b Executive Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 20, 2006. * ^ IDEA 2004 Resources. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 16, 2006. * ^ Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education S Vaughn, CS Bos, JS Schumm – 1999 * ^ Gillies, R.M. (2004). "The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning". Learning and Instruction 14 (2): 197–213. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9.  * ^ a b Federal Role in Education. United States Department of Education. Retrieved February 16, 2006. * ^ Klauke, Amy. Magnet schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved February 21, 005. * ^ Michael Birnbaum (2009-11-02). "A look at private schools". Washington Post. Washington Post. pp. B2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101878.html.  * ^ [8][dead link] * ^ Neuharth, Al (1 May 2009). "College Decision Day". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 11A.  * ^ a b Michelle Singletary (2009-10-22). "The Color of Money:Getting through college these days almost requires a degree in thrift". Washington Post. pp. 20A. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102103664.html'sub=AR.  * ^ Educational attainment of persons 18 years old and over. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 6, 2005. * ^ a b Tuition Levels Rise but Many Students Pay Significantly Less than Published Rates. The College Board (2003). Retrieved June 20, 2005. * ^ a b Broder, David S. (columnist) (December 7, 2008). College affordability about future. Burlington Free Press (and other column subscribers).  * ^ [9] * ^ Clark, Kim (November 17–24, 2008). Does it Matter That Your Professor Is Part Time'. US News and World Report.  * ^ "The Top American Research Universities". The Center (University of Florida). http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research.html. Retrieved 2006-11-07.  * ^ [10] — A 2006 ranking from THES - QS of the world’s research universities. * ^ "Who Needs Harvard'". The Atlantic Online. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/easterbrook. Retrieved 2006-11-07.  * ^ "What's the Value of an Ivy Degree'". The Dartmouth Review. http://69.57.157.207/issues/2.7.00/ivies.html. Retrieved 2006-11-07.  * ^ Ivy League College Admissions Facts and Statistics. Admissions Consultants. Retrieved February 18, 2005. * ^ [11] * ^ the Top American Research Universities by University of Florida TheCenter * ^ America's Best Graduate Schools 2008: Top Engineering Schools. USNews.com. Retrieved June 18, 2007. * ^ "City University of New York – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUNY_Honors_College#The_Honors_College. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Schreyer Honors College * ^ "Christ College – The Honors College of Valparaiso University". Valpo.edu. http://www.valpo.edu/christc/. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Baylor University || Honors College". Baylor.edu. http://www.baylor.edu/honors_college/splash.php. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ More than a 'safety school'. The Daily Targum. Retrieved February 16, 2005. * ^ "Number of U.S. Colleges and Universities and Degrees Awarded, 2005 —". Infoplease.com. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908742.html. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ * "Astronomy Education in the United States". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/useduc03.html. Retrieved 22 October 2010.  * "What is GENIP'". Geographic Education National Implementation Project. http://genip.tamu.edu/. Retrieved 22 October 2010.  * Harm de Blij (3 November 1999). "Geographic Education and Public Policy". About.com. http://geography.about.com/library/misc/bldeblij1.htm. Retrieved 21 October 2010.  * ^ Summary Tables on Language Use and English Ability: 2000. United States Census (2000). Retrieved February 6, 2006. * ^ Burlington Free Press. Retrieved September 15, 2009.[dead link] * ^ Goldin, C., Katz, L.F. The Race between Education and Technology. The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA: 2008. * ^ Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community. CNN.com (1999). Retrieved August 12, 2005. * ^ Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008. * ^ Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution. CBS News Polls (2004). Retrieved June 20, 2005. * ^ Abstinence Only Sex Education Program in Schools. About.com. Retrieved February 15, 2006. * ^ Sex Education in America – General Public/Parents Survey. NPR/Kaiser/Harvard survey (2004). Retrieved June 17, 2005. * ^ Revisionaries: How a group of Texas conservatives is rewriting your kids' textbooks. Washington Monthly, January/February 2010. Retrieved April 7, 2010. * ^ Texas Conservatives win Curriculum Change. New York Times article. Retrieved April 7, 2010. * ^ OECD calls for broader access to post-school education and training, OECD, September 13, 2005 * ^ [12] Education Spending Statistics, Nationmaster.com * ^ "Who's No. 1' Finland, Japan and Korea, Says OECD". Siteselection.com. 2001-12-10. http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Can D.C. Schools Be Fixed', The Washington Post, June 10, 2007 * ^ Future of D.C. school vouchers worries parents, The Washington Times, July 29, 2007 * ^ "Secretary Duncan wants D.C. kids to keep vouchers". Usatoday.Com. 2009-03-04. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-04-duncan-vouchers_N.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Lester, Natalie (2009-02-27). "D.C. parents to push to keep vouchers". Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/dc-parents-to-push-congress-to-keep-vouchers/. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Private Schools Now 33% Off!, Cato Institute, October 18, 2006 * ^ Marva Collins School to close, ABC News, June 05, 2008 * ^ Marva Collins School to close, ABC News, 5 June 2008. * ^ Chicago students skip school in funding protest, Associated Press, September 2, 2008 * ^ Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment, Cato Institute, March 16, 1998 * ^ Catastrophe in Kansas City, December 1995 * ^ Lawrence M. Bezeau. "Chapter 11, Home Schooling, Private Schools, and Charter Schools". Unb.ca. Archived from the original on August 28, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070828100128/http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact11.html. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Marva Collins Seminars, Inc". Marvacollins.com. http://www.marvacollins.com/comments.html. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Excerpts from Ordinary Children, Extraordinary Teachers and Marva Collins’ Way". Edocere.org. http://www.edocere.org/articles/marva_collins.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ 20 Troubling Facts about American Education, William J. Bennett, October 1999 * ^ Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement', Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming, September 2008 * ^ "Table 174. Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1969–70 through 2004–05-Continued". Nces.ed.gov. http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_a174.asp. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Trend in NAEP reading average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students". Nces.ed.gov. 2009-04-29. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2008/2009479.asp. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Is Public Education Working' How Would We Know'". Commondreams.org. 2005-01-03. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0103-22.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Teachers Dig Deeper to Fill Gap in Supplies. New York Times article (2002). Retrieved June 26, 2005. * ^ [13]. Flint Journal article (2008). Retrieved June 12, 2008. * ^ Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, Table 1. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 15, 2006. * ^ Hoag, Christina (23 August 2010). "Los Angeles school has $578M price tag". Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. pp. 5A.  * ^ "Grove City College: Student Loans". gcc.edu. http://www.gcc.edu/Student_Loans.php. Retrieved 2010-10-06.  * ^ Herbst, Juergen. School Choice and School Governance: A Historical Study of the United States and Germany page 107 2006. ISBN 1-4039-7302-4 * ^ "Highlights of the 2002–2003 Supreme Court Term". Supct.law.cornell.edu. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/03highlts.html#2. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Hurst, C. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Sixth ion. 2007. 374–377. * ^ "Amid charge of bias, Rapelye stands firm". The Daily Princetonian. November 30, 2006. * ^ International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 18, 2005. * ^ "PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World Volume 1: Analysis." (PDF). http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ Jay Matthews (2009-10-19). "Tests don't always offer right answers". Washington Post. pp. 3B. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/10/politicians_and_pundits_are_us.html#more.  * ^ a b c "US Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003". http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf. Retrieved 2006-07-31.  * ^ "Literacy study: 1 in 7 U.S. adults are unable to read this story". USATODAY.com. January 8, 2009. * ^ a b (PDF) Literacy in America. National Center for Educational Statistics. April 2002. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf. Retrieved 2007-12-11  * ^ http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx * ^ "Transfer to". Aft.org. http://www.aft.org/topics/school-nurses. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/nasro_survey_2004.html * ^ "School Resource Officer". Online Police Academy. http://www.onlinepoliceacademy.org/school-resource-officer/. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  * ^ "Read The Book". John Taylor Gatto. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-14.  [] External links * EducationUSA: Your Guide to US Higher Education * U.S. Department of Education * National Center for Education Statistics * National Assessment of Educational Progress Example Grading Scale Korea Ministry of Education, Science and Technology The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (often abbreviated into "the Ministry of Education") is responsible for South Korean education. The former body, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, was named by the former Minister of Education, who enhanced its function in 2001 because the administration of Kim Dae-jung considered education and human resources development as a matter of the highest priority. As a result of the reform, it began to cover the whole field of human resource development and the minister of education was appointed to the Vice Prime Minister.[citation needed] In 2008, the name was changed into the present one after the Lee Myeong Bak administration annexed the former Ministry of Science and Technology to the Education ministry. Like other ministers, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology is appointed by the president. They are mainly chosen from candidates who have an academic background and often resign in a fairly short term (around one year).[citation needed] [] Kindergarten Kindergarten in Korea is not a publicly administered program. Parents send their children to private schools: most are taught in Korean, many of those have an English class, and some kindergartens are taught almost entirely in English.[citation needed] Kindergarten in South Korea is composed of children from ages three to seven. Most children do not attend "preschool" but are lumped together in a kindergarten class with other children who may be within a four-year age difference. (In English-language kindergartens, the children are grouped according to age and also according to the number of years the children have been studying English.) When the child reaches about six or seven years of age (8 years old in the Korean calendar system) he/she is systematically moved on to the first year of elementary school. From kindergarten to high school, matriculating through the grade levels is not determined on knowledge, grades or passing of any tests, but is based purely upon the student's age. Enrollment in kindergartens or preschools expanded impressively during the 1980s. In 1980 there were 66,433 children attending 901 kindergartens or preschools. By 1987 there were 397,020 children in 7,792 institutions. The number of kindergarten and preschool teachers rose from 3,339 to 11,920 during the same period. The overwhelming majority of these teachers—approximately 92 percent—were women. This growth was attributable to several factors: Ministry of Education encouragement of preschool education, the greater number of women entering the work force, growth in the number of nuclear families where a grandparent was often unavailable to take care of children, and the feeling that kindergarten might give children an "edge" in later educational competition. Kindergartens often paid homage to the expectations of parents with impressive graduation ceremonies, complete with diplomas and gowns. [] Elementary school Elementary school consists of grades one to six (age 8 to age 14 in Korean years—6 to 12 or 7 to 13 in western years). Students learn subjects including, but not limited to, Korean, mathematics, science, social studies, fine arts, English, P.E., moral education, practical arts, and music. Usually, the class teacher covers most of the subjects; however, there are some specialized teachers in professions such as physical education and foreign languages, including English. About 20 years ago, English used to be taught first in middle school, but nowadays, students begin learning English in the third year of elementary school. Korean language has a very different grammatical structure from English, and English education in Korea is more or less inefficient, so this is a frequent source of concern to parents. Many choose to send their children to additional private educational institutions called hagwon (학원) after school. More schools in the country are recruiting native English speakers to facilitate learning English. Alongside public elementary schools there are a number of private elementary schools in Korea, usually distinguishable by the uniforms their students wear (public elementary school students do not wear uniforms apart from PE kit). These schools follow a similar curriculum as public elementary schools, but often offer superior facilities, a higher teacher-to-student ratio, and extra programs. They also usually offer a higher standard of learning. Though highly desirable, they are prohibitively expensive for many Korean parents. Elementary schools are called chodeung-hakgyo (Hangul:초등학교 Hanja:初等學校,), meaning elementary school. The South Korean government changed its name to the current form from gukmin hakgyo (Hangul:국민학교 Hanja:國民學校) meaning citizens' school in 1996. This was done as a gesture of restoring national pride. The word, abbreviated from 황국신민의 학교 (皇國臣民의 學校), means "school for the subjects of the imperial state" carried over from Japanese colonial rule. [] Secondary education In 1987 there were approximately 4,895,354 students enrolled in middle schools and high schools, with approximately 150,873 teachers. About 69 percent of these teachers were male. The secondary-school enrollment figure also reflected changing population trends—there were 3,959,975 students in secondary schools in 1979. Given the importance of entry into higher education, the majority of students attended general or academic high schools in 1987: 1,397,359 students, or 60 percent of the total, attended general or academic high schools, as compared with 840,265 students in vocational secondary schools. Vocational schools specialized in a number of fields: primarily agriculture, fishery, commerce, trades, merchant marine, engineering, and the arts.[citation needed] Competitive entrance examinations at the middle-school level were abolished in 1968. Although as of the late 1980s, students still had to pass noncompetitive qualifying examinations, they were assigned to secondary institutions by lottery, or else by location within the boundary of the school district. Secondary schools, formerly ranked according to the quality of their students, have been equalized, with a portion of good, mediocre, and poor students being assigned to each one. The reform, however, did not equalize secondary schools completely. In Seoul, students who performed well in qualifying examinations were allowed to attend better quality schools in a "common" district, while other students attended schools in one of five geographical districts. The reforms applied equally to public and private schools whose enrollments were strictly controlled by the Ministry of Education. In South Korea, the grade of a student is reset as the student progresses through elementary, middle and high school. To differentiate the grades between students, one would often state the grade based on the level of education he/she is in. For example, a student in a first year of middle school would be referred to as "First grade in Middle School (중학교 1학년)". Middle schools are called 중학교 in Korean (中學校, jung hakgyo), which literally means middle school. High schools are called 고등학교 in Korean (高等學校, godeung hakgyo), literally meaning "high-level school". [] Middle school Middle schools in South Korea consist of three grades. Most students enter at age 12-13 and graduate at age 15-16 (western years). These three grades correspond roughly to grades 7–9 in the North American system and Years 8-10 in England and Wales's system. Middle school in South Korea marks a considerable shift from elementary school, with students expected to take studies and school much more seriously. At most middle schools regulation uniforms and haircuts are enforced fairly strictly, and some aspects of students' lives are highly controlled. Like in elementary school, students spend most of the day in the same homeroom classroom with the same classmates; however, students have different teachers for each subject. Teachers move around from classroom to classroom, and few teachers apart from those who teach special subjects have their own rooms to which students come. Homeroom teachers (담임선생님 dam im seonsangnim) play a very important role in students' lives. Most middle school students take six lessons a day, and in addition to this usually have an early morning block that precedes regular lessons and a seventh lesson specialising in an extra subject to finish the day. Unlike with high school, middle school curricula do not vary much from school to school. Maths, English, Korean, social studies, and science form the core subjects, with students also receiving instruction in music, art, PE, history, ethics, home economics, technology, and "Hanja" (Chinese character) . What subjects students study and in what amount may vary from year to year. All regular lessons are 45 minutes long. Before school, students have an extra block, 30-or-more minutes long, that may be used for self-study, watching Educational Broadcast System (EBS) broadcasts, or for personal or class administration. As of 2008, students attend school from Monday to Friday, and have a half-day every 1st, 3rd, and 5th (calendar permitting) Saturday of the month. Saturday lessons usually include Club Activity (CA) lessons, where students may participate in extracurricular activities. In the late 1960s the government abolished entrance examinations for middle school students, replacing it with a system whereby elementary school students within the same district are selected for middle schools by a lottery system. This has the effect of equalising the quality of students from school to school, though schools in areas where students come from more privileged backgrounds still tend to outperform schools in poorer areas. Until recently most middle schools have been same-sex, though in the past decade most new middle schools have been mixed, and some previously same-sex schools have converted to mixed as well. As with elementary schools, students pass from grade to grade regardless of knowledge or academic achievement, the result being that classes often have students of vastly differing abilities learning the same subject material together. In the final year of middle school examination scores become very important for the top students hoping to gain entrance into the top high schools, and for those in the middle hoping to get into an academic rather than a technical or vocation high school. Otherwise, examinations and marks only matter insofar as living up to a self-enforced concept of position in the school ranking system. There are some standardised examinations for certain subjects, and teachers of academic subjects are expected to follow approved textbooks, but generally middle school teachers have more flexibility over curricula and methods than teachers at high school. Many middle school students also attend after-school academies, known as hagwon, and some receive extra instruction from private tutors. The core subjects, especially the cumulative subjects of English and maths, receive the most stress. Some hagwon specialise in just one subject, and others offer all core subjects, constituting a second round of schooling every day for their pupils. Indeed, some parents place more stress on their children's hagwon studies than their public school studies. Additionally, many students attend academies for things such as martial arts or music. The result of all this is that many middle school students, like their high school counterparts, return from a day of schooling well after midnight. [] High school High schools in South Korea teach students from first grade (age 15-16) to third grade (age 17-18), and students commonly graduate at age 18 or 19. High schools in Korea can be divided into specialty tracks that accord with a student's interest and career path. For example, there are science (Science high school), foreign language and art specialty high schools to which students can attend with prior entrance examinations, which are generally highly competitive. Other type of high schools include public high schools and private high schools, both with or without entrance examinations. These high schools do not report to specialize in a field, but are more focused on sending their students to college. For students who do not wish a college education, vocational schools specializing in fields such as technology, agriculture or finance are available, in which the students are employed right after graduation. Around 30% of high school students are in vocational high schools.[5] On noting the schedule of many high school students, it is not abnormal for them to arrive home from school at midnight, after intensive "self-study" sessions supported by the school. The curriculum is often noted as rigorous, with as many as 11 or so subjects and most of the students choose to attend private academies called 학원 (學院, pronounced hagwon) to boost their academic performance. Core subjects include Korean, English and Math, with adequate emphasis on social and physical science subjects. It is critical to note that the type and level of subjects may differ from school to school, depending on the degree of selectivity and specialization of the school. Korean education certainly has its strong points as its fifteen year olds produce outstanding results in the area of mathematics and are the world's most literate bunch [1]. However, South Korean high schools are insufficiently preparing students for an often learner centered and creative system of education.[6] Nevertheless, Koreans often make the plea that Korean education is fine and sound at all levels. In essence, they argue that their education is world class and that their high schools are superb while citing (PISA) Program for International Student Assessment 2006 results to support their case. [] Teacher-centered education In essence, Korean education is more or less teacher-centered and any attempt by the teachers and administrators to change Korean education to a learner-centered one will not come without major obstacles as the classroom culture of Korean education is not set up for a learner-centered environment.[7] As it stands, the Korean secondary system of education is highly successful in preparing students for teacher-centered education such as that often used to teach math since the transfer of information is mostly one way, from teacher to student. However, this does not hold true for classroom environments where students are expected to take on self-reliant roles wherein, for the most part, active and creative personalities seem to lead to success.[6] High school is not mandatory, unlike middle school education in Korea. However, according to a 2005 study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, some 97% of South Korea's young adults do complete high school. This was the highest percentage recorded in any country.[8] [] Vocational education Vocational high schools offer programs in five fields: agriculture, technology/engineering, commerce/business, maritime/fishery, and home economics. In principle, all students in the first year of high school (10th grade) follow a common national curriculum, In the second and third years (11th and 12th grades) students are offered courses relevant to their specialization. In some programs, students may participate in workplace training through co-operation between schools and local employers. The government is now piloting Vocational Meister Schools in which workplace training is an important part of the program. Around half of all vocational high schools are private. Private and public schools operate according to similar rules; for example, they charge the same fees for high school education, with an exemption for poorer families. The number of students in vocational high schools has decreased, from about half of students in 1995 down to about one-quarter today. To make vocational high schools more attractive, in April 2007 the Korean government changed the name of vocational high schools into professional high schools. With the change of the name the government also facilitated the entry of vocational high school graduates to colleges and universities. Most vocational high school students continue into tertiary education; in 2007 43% transferred to junior colleges and 25% to university. At tertiary level, vocational education and training is provided in junior colleges (two- and three-year programs) and at polytechnic colleges. Education at junior colleges and in two-year programs in polytechnic colleges leads to an Industrial Associate degree. Polytechnics also provide one-year programs for craftsmen and master craftsmen and short programs for employed workers. The requirements for admission to these institutions are in principle the same as those in the rest of tertiary sector (on the basis of the College Scholastic Aptitude Test) but candidates with vocational qualifications are given priority in the admission process. Junior colleges have expanded rapidly in response to demand and in 2006 enrolled around 27% of all tertiary students. 95% of junior college students are in private institutions. Fees charged by private colleges are approximately twice those of public institutions. Polytechnic colleges are state-run institutions under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour; government funding keeps student fees much lower than those charged by other tertiary institutions. Around 5% of students are enrolled in polytechnic colleges.[5] [] Post-secondary education Most students enrolled in high school apply to colleges at the end of the year. Students have options of participating in either 수시 (pronounced: su-shi, early decision plans for college) or 정시(pronounced: jeong-shi, regular admissions). Students will have to take the College Scholastic Ability Test (colloquially known as 수능 Su-neung). The curriculum of most schools is structured around the content of the entrance examination. The Korean College Scholastic Ability Test has five sections: Korean Language/Reading, Math, English, Various "elective" subjects in the social and physical sciences, and 'Foreign Languages or Chinese Characters and Classics'. Unlike the American SAT, this test can only be taken once a year and requires intensive studying, some starting preparation as early as kindergarten. Students who perform below their expectations on the test and choose to defer college entrance and study for one year to score higher are called jaesuseng. In the late 1980s, the university a South Korean high school graduate attended was perhaps the single most important factor in determining his or her life chances. Thus, entrance into a prestigious institution was the focus of intense energy, dedication, and self-sacrifice. Prestigious institutions includes major public institutions such as KAIST, Seoul National University, and private institutions such as Korea University, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Yonsei University. Because college entrance depends upon ranking high in objectively graded examinations, high school students face an "examination hell", a harsh regiment of endless cramming and rote memorization of facts that is incomparably severe. Unlike the Confucian civil service examinations of the Choson Dynasty, their modern reincarnation is a matter of importance not for an elite, but for the substantial portion of the population with middle-class aspirations. In the late 1980s, over one-third of college-age men and women (35.2 percent in 1989) succeeded in entering and attending institutions of higher education; those who failed faced dramatically reduced prospects for social and economic advancement. The number of students in higher education had risen from 100,000 in 1960 to 1.3 million in 1987, and the proportion of college-age students in higher-education institutions was second only to the United States. The institutions of higher education included regular four-year colleges and universities, two-year junior vocational colleges, four-year teachers' colleges, and graduate schools. The main drawback was that college graduates wanted careers that would bring them positions of leadership in society, but there simply were not enough positions to accommodate all graduates each year and many graduates were forced to accept lesser positions. Ambitious women especially were frustrated by traditional barriers of sex discrimination as well as the lack of positions. Because tests given in high school (two times each semester) were almost as important in determining college entrance as the final entrance examinations, students had no opportunity to relax from the study routine. According to one contemporary account, a student had to memorize 60 to 100 pages of facts to do well on these periodic tests. It's not uncommon to see students walking home from their studies at very late hours (still dressed in their high school uniforms). Family and social life generally were sacrificed to the supreme end of getting into the best university possible. Examinations are very serious times of the year and they change the whole pattern of society. Businesses often start at 10 am to accommodate parents who have helped their children study late into the night and on the evenings before exams recreational facilities, such as tennis clubs, close early to facilitate study for these exams. The costs of the "examination hell" have been evident not only in a grim and joyless adolescence for many, if not most, young South Koreans, but also in the number of suicides caused by the constant pressure of tests.[citation needed] Often suicides have been top achievers who despaired after experiencing a slump in test performance.[citation needed] Also, the multiple choice format of periodic high school tests and university entrance examinations has left students little opportunity to develop their creative talents.[citation needed] A "facts only" orientation has promoted a cramped and unspontaneous view of the world that has tended to spill over into other areas of life than academic work.[citation needed] The prospects for basic change in the system—a de-emphasis on tests—were unlikely in the late 1980s. The great virtue of facts-based testing is its objectivity. Though harsh, the system is believed to be fair and impartial. The use of nonobjective criteria such as essays, personal recommendations, and the recognition of success in extracurricular activities or personal recommendations from teachers and others could open up all sorts of opportunities for corruption. In a society where social connections are extremely important, connections rather than merit might determine entry into a good university. Students who survive the numbing regimen of examinations under the modern system are at least universally acknowledged to have deserved their educational success. Top graduates who have assumed positions of responsibility in government and business have lent, through their talents, legitimacy to the whole system. [] Korean university rankings The highest ranked Korean university is Seoul National University at 47th place by the Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings 2009. But in the field of science and technology, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology) and KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) have been considered better than Seoul National University.[9] As expected, it is in the interest of the Korean government and universities to improve the international rankings of the domestic universities. Attempts by the government are being made to improve the situation. Another solution may be as simple as making it fundamentally more attractive for highly qualified foreign professors and researchers to come to work and more importantly to stay in Korea.[10] All in all, the Korean Ministry of Education hopes to remedy the problem via the ‘National Project Toward Building World Class Universities’. The project is designed to attract highly qualified foreign professors and researchers to Korean universities to improve their international rankings.[11] [] English education English is taught as a required subject from the third year of elementary school up to high school, including most universities, with the goal of performing well on the TEPS, TOEIC and TOEFL, which are tests of reading, listening and grammar-based English. For students who achieve high scores, there is also a speaking evaluation. Because of large class sizes and other factors in public schools, many parents pay to send their children to private English-language schools in the afternoon or evening. Usually different private English-language schools specialize in teaching elementary school students or in middle and high school students. The most ambitious parents send their children to kindergartens that utilize English exclusively in the classroom. Many children also live abroad for anywhere from a few months to several years to learn English. Sometimes, a Korean mother and her children will move to an English-speaking country for an extended period of time to enhance the children's English ability. In these cases, the father left in Korea is known as a gireogi appa (Korean: 기러기 아빠), literally a "goose dad" who must migrate to see his family.[3] There are more than 100,000 Korean students in the U.S. The increase of 10 percent every year helped Korea remain the top student-sending country in the U.S. for a second year, ahead of India and China. Korean students at Harvard University are the third most after Canadian and Chinese. Due to recent curriculum changes, the education system in Korea is now placing a greater emphasis on English verbal abilities rather than grammatical skills. Universities require all first year students to take an English conversation class in their first year and some universities require students to take conversational English classes through out the entirety of their university life.[citation needed] According to a 2003 survey conducted by the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, despite being one of the countries in Asia that spends the most money on English-language education, South Korea ranks the lowest among 12 Asian countries in English ability. [] History Like other East Asian countries with a Confucian heritage, South Korea has had a long history of providing formal education. Although there was no state-supported system of primary education, the central government established a system of secondary schools in Seoul and the provinces during the Choson Dynasty. State schools suffered a decline in quality, however, and came to be supplanted in importance by the sowon, the academies that were the centers of a neo-Confucian revival in the sixteenth century[citation needed]. Students at both private and state-supported secondary schools were exempt from military service and had much the same social prestige as university students enjoy today in South Korea. Like modern students, they were frequently involved in politics. Higher education was provided by the Confucian national university in the capital, the Sungkyunkwan. Its enrollment was limited to 200 students who had passed the lower civil service examinations and were preparing for the higher examinations. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, modern private schools were established by Koreans and by foreign Christian missionaries. The latter were particularly important because they promoted the education of women and the diffusion of Western social and political ideas. Japanese education policy after 1910 was designed to turn Koreans into obedient colonial subjects and to teach them limited technical skills. A state university modeled on Tokyo Imperial University was established in Seoul in 1923, but the number of Koreans allowed to study there never exceeded 40 percent of its enrollment; 60 percent of its students were Japanese expatriates. When United States military forces occupied the southern half of the Korean Peninsula in 1945, they established a school system based on the American model: six years of primary school, six years of secondary school (divided into junior and senior levels), and four years of higher education. Other occupation period reforms included coeducation at all levels, popularly elected school boards in local areas, and compulsory education up to the ninth grade. The government of Syngman Rhee reversed many of these reforms after 1948, when only primary schools remained in most cases coeducational and, because of a lack of resources, education was compulsory only up to the sixth grade. The school system in 1990, however, reflects that which was established under the United States occupation. During the years when Rhee and Park Chung Hee were in power, the control of education was gradually taken out of the hands of local school boards and concentrated in a centralized Ministry of Education. In the late 1980s, the ministry was responsible for administration of schools, allocation of resources, setting of enrollment quotas, certification of schools and teachers, curriculum development (including the issuance of textbook guidelines), and other basic policy decisions. Provincial and special city boards of education still existed. Although each board was composed of seven members who were supposed to be selected by popularly elected legislative bodies, this arrangement ceased to function after 1973. Subsequently, school board members were approved by the minister of education. Most observers agree that South Korea's spectacular progress in modernization and economic growth since the Korean War is largely attributable to the willingness of individuals to invest a large amount of resources in education: the improvement of "human capital." The traditional esteem for the educated man, originally confined to the Confucian scholar as cultured generalists, now extend to scientists, technicians, and others working with specialized knowledge. Highly educated technocrats and economic planners could claim much of the cr for their country's economic successes since the 1960s. Scientific professions were generally regarded as the most prestigious by South Koreans in the 1980s. Statistics demonstrate the success of South Korea's national education programs. In 1945 the adult literacy rate was estimated at 22 percent; by 1970 adult literacy was 87.6 percent[12] and, by the late 1980s, sources estimated it at around 93 percent.[12] Although only primary school (grades one through six) was compulsory, percentages of age-groups of children and young people enrolled in primary, secondary, and tertiary level schools were equivalent to those found in industrialized countries, including Japan. Approximately 4.8 million students in the eligible age-group were attending primary school in 1985. The percentage of students going on to optional middle school the same year was more than 99 percent. Approximately 34 percent, one of the world's highest rates of secondary-school graduates attended institutions of higher education in 1987, a rate similar to Japan's (about 30 percent) and exceeding Britain's (20 percent). Government expenditure on education has been generous. In 1975, it was 220 billion won,[12] the equivalent of 2.2 percent of the gross national product, or 13.9 percent of total government expenditure. By 1986, education expenditure had reached 3.76 trillion won, or 4.5 percent of the GNP, and 27.3 percent of government budget allocations. [] Student activism Student activism has a long and honorable history in Korea. Students in Choson Dynasty secondary schools often became involved in the intense factional struggles of the scholar-official class. Students played a major role in Korea's independence movement, particularly the March 1, 1919, countrywide demonstrations that were harshly suppressed by the Japanese military police. Students protested against the Rhee and Park regimes during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Observers noted, however, that while student activists in the past generally embraced liberal and democratic values, the new generation of militants in the 1980s were far more radical. Most participants have adopted some version of the minjung ideology that was heavily influenced by Marxism, Western dependency theory, and Christian "liberation theology", but was also animated by strong feelings of popular nationalism and xenophobia. The most militant university students, perhaps about 5 percent of the total enrollment at Seoul National University and comparable figures at other institutions in the capital during the late 1980s, were organized into small circles or cells rarely containing more than fifty members. Police estimated that there were seventy-two such organizations of varying orientation. [] Reforms in the 1980s Following the assumption of power by General Chun Doo Hwan in 1980, the Ministry of Education implemented a number of reforms designed to make the system more fair and to increase higher education opportunities for the population at large. In a very popular move, the ministry dramatically increased enrollment at large. The number of high school graduates accepted into colleges and universities was increased from almost 403,000 students in 1980 to more than 1.4 million in 1989. This reform decreased, temporarily, the acceptance ratio from one college place for every four applicants in 1980 to one for every three applicants in 1981. In 1980 the number of students attending all kinds of higher educational institutions was almost 600,000; that number grew almost 100 percent to 1,061,403 students by 1983. By 1987 there were 1,340,381 students attending higher educational institutions. By 1987 junior colleges had an enrollment of almost 260,000 students; colleges and universities had an enrollment of almost 990,000 students; other higher education institutions enrolled the balance. A second reform was the prohibition of private, after-school tutoring. Formerly, private tutors could charge exorbitant rates if they had a good "track record" of getting students into the right schools through intensive coaching, especially in English and in mathematics. This situation gave wealthy families an unfair advantage in the competition. Under the new rules, students receiving tutoring could be suspended from school and their tutors dismissed from their jobs. There was ample evidence in the mid-1980s, however, that the law had simply driven the private tutoring system underground and made the fees more expensive. Some underpaid teachers and cash-starved students at prestigious institutions were willing to run the risk of punishment in order to earn as much as W300,000 to W500,000 a month. Students and their parents took the risk of being caught, believing that coaching in weak subject areas could give students the edge needed to get into a better university. By the late 1980s, however, the tutorial system seemed largely to have disappeared. A third reform was much less popular. The ministry established a graduation quota system, in which increased freshman enrollments were counterbalanced by the requirement that each four-year college or university fail the lowest 30 percent of its students; junior colleges were required to fail the lowest 15 percent. These quotas were required no matter how well the lowest 30 or 15 percent of the students did in terms of objective standards. Ostensibly designed to ensure the quality of the increased number of college graduates, the system also served, for a while to discourage students from devoting their time to political movements. Resentment of the quotas was widespread and family counterpressures intense. The government abolished the quotas in 1984. Social emphasis on education was not without its problems, as it tended to accentuate class differences. In the late 1980s, a college degree was considered necessary for entering the middle class; there were no alternative pathways of social advancement, with the possible exception of a military career, outside higher education. People without a college education, including skilled workers with vocational school backgrounds, often were treated as second-class citizens by their white-collar, college-educated managers, despite the importance of their skills for economic development. Intense competition for places at the most prestigious universities—the sole gateway into elite circles—promoted, like the old Confucian system, a sterile emphasis on rote memorization in order to pass secondary school and college entrance examinations. Particularly after a dramatic expansion of college enrollments in the early 1980s, South Korea faced the problem of what to do about a large number of young people kept in school for a long time, usually at great sacrifice to themselves and their families, and then faced with limited job opportunities because their skills were not marketable. [] Teachers union Although primary- and secondary-school teachers traditionally enjoyed high status, they often were overworked and underpaid during the late 1980s. Salaries were less than those for many other white-collar professions and even some blue-collar jobs. High school teachers, particularly those in the cities, however, received sizable gifts from parents seeking attention for their children, but teaching hours were long and classes crowded (the average class contained around fifty to sixty students). In May 1989, teachers established an independent union, the Korean Teachers Union (KTU — 전국교원노동조합(전교조), Jeongyojo). Their aims included improving working conditions and reforming a school system that they regarded as overly controlled by the Ministry of Education. Although the government promised large increases in allocations for teachers' salaries and facilities, it refused to give the union legal status. Because teachers were civil servants, the government claimed they did not have the right to strike and, even if they did have the right to strike, unionization would undermine the status of teachers as "role models" for young Koreans. The government also accused the union of spreading subversive, leftist propaganda that was sympathetic to the communist regime in North Korea. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal Asia, the union claimed support from 82 percent of all teachers. The controversy was viewed as representing a major crisis for South Korean education because a large number of teachers (1,500 by November 1989) had been dismissed, violence among union supporters, opponents, and police had occurred at several locations, and class disruptions had caused anxieties for families of students preparing for the college entrance examinations. The union's challenge to the Ministry of Education's control of the system and the charges of subversion had made compromise seem a very remote possibility at the start of 1990. [] See also * Gifted and talented education in Korea Republic [] References * ^ a b c 한국인 문맹률 1.7%… 선진국 수준 * ^ Onishi, Norimitsu. "Dreams of a Korean Summer: School and a New Cell". The New York Times, August 27, 2005. Accessed 3 July 2009. * ^ a b Onishi, Norimitsu. "For English Studies, Koreans Say Goodbye to Dad". The New York Times, June 8, 2008. Accessed 3 July 2009. * ^ Onishi, Norimitsu.April 2, 2006. Accessed 3 July 2009. * ^ a b OECD review of vocational education and training in Korea * ^ a b Jambor, Paul Z. 'Favourable Teaching Approaches in the South Korean Post Secondary Classroom' Department of Education - The United States of America: Educational Resources Information Center, 2009 (Accessed in December, 2009) * ^ Jambor, Paul Z. 'Teaching Context: "Synthetic and Analytic Syllabuses" in a South Korean University Setting' Department of Education - The United States of America: Educational Resources Information Center, March 31, 2006 (Accessed in 2009) * ^ "South Korea's education success". BBC News, 13 September 2005. Accessed 3 July 2009. * ^ The Joongang Ilbo, university rankings, 2002~2008. * ^ Jambor, Paul Z. 'Why South Korean Universities Have Low International Rankings - Part II: The Student Side of the Equation', Academic Leadership: Volume 7, Issue 3, August 10, 2009 * ^ Jambor, Paul Z. 'Why South Korean Universities Have Low International Rankings', Academic Leadership: Volume 7, Issue 1, February 20, 2009 * ^ a b c Andrea Matles Savada and William Shaw, ors. ‘’South Korea: A Country Study’’. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1990. [] Further reading * Paul Z. Jambor "The 'Foreign English Teacher' A Necessary 'Danger' in South Korea", United States of America; Department of Education - Education Resources Information Center, 2010 * Jambor, Paul Z., 'Sexism, Ageism and Racism Prevalent Throughout the South Korean System of Education' Department of Education - The United States of America: Educational Resources Information Center, 2009 (Accessed in 2009) * Jambor, Paul Z., 'Protectionism in South Korean Universities' Academic Leadership, Volume 8, Issue 2 * Jambor, Paul Z., 'LEARNER ATTITUDES TOWARD LEARNER CENTERED EDUCATION AND ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE KOREAN UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM' The University of Birmingham: CELS, March 2007 (Accessed in 2007) * Jambor, Paul Z., 'Slide and prejudice', Times Higher Education, December 10, 2009 * Jambor, Paul Z., 'The Reluctance of Korean Education in the Face of Change' Academic Leadership, May 25, 2010 * Jambor Paul Z., 'Lingua Frankly' Times Higher Education, February 11, 2010 * Card, James. "Appetite for language costs S Korea dear". The Guardian Weekly, 15 December 2006. Accessed 4 July 2009. * Lee, Brian. "Korea’s endless grapple with English". JoongAng Daily, February 14, 2008. Accessed 4 July 2009. * Lee, Jeong-Kyu. Korean Higher Education: A Confucian Perspective (2002). ISBN 0-9705481-5-X * Lee, Jeong-Kyu. Historic Factors Influencing Korean Higher Education (2000). ISBN 0-9705481-1-7 * Lee, Jeong-Kyu. Korean Higher Education: Perspectives of Religion and Culture [Korean](2010). ISBN 978-89-268-0999-0 [] External links * Kuhn, Anthony. "Korean School Preps Students For Ivy League". All Things Considered, July 2, 2009. Japan History Main article: History of education in Japan Terakoya for girls in Edo period Formal education in Japan began with the adoption of Chinese culture in the 6th century. Buddhist and Confucian teachings as well as sciences, calligraphy, divination and literature were taught at the courts of Asuka, Nara and Heian. Scholar officials were chosen through an Imperial examination system. But contrary to China, the system never fully took hold and titles and posts at the court remained herary family possessions. The rise of the bushi, the military class, during the Kamakura period ended the influence of scholar officials, but Buddhist monasteries remained influential centers of learning. In the Edo period, the Yushima Seidō in Edo was the chief educational institution of the state; and at its head was the Daigaku-no-kami, a title which identified the leader of the Tokugawa training school for shogunate bureaucrats.[1] Under the Tokugawa shogunate, the daimyō vied for power in the largely pacified country. Since their influence could not be raised through war, they competed on the economic field. Their warrior-turned-bureaucrat Samurai elite had to be educated not only in military strategy and the martial arts, but also agriculture and accounting. Likewise, the wealthy merchant class needed education for their daily business, and their wealth allowed them to be patrons of arts and science. But temple schools (terakoya) educated peasants too, and it is estimated that at the end of the Edo period 50% of the male and 20% of the female population possessed some degree of literacy. Even though contact with foreign countries was restricted, books from China and Europe were eagerly imported and Rangaku ("Dutch studies") became a popular area of scholarly interest. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the methods and structures of Western learning were adopted as a means to make Japan a strong, modern nation. Students and even high-ranking government officials were sent abroad to study, such as the Iwakura mission. Foreign scholars, the so-called o-yatoi gaikokujin, were invited to teach at newly founded universities and military academies. Compulsory education was introduced, mainly after the Prussian model. By 1890, only 20 years after the resumption of full international relations, Japan discontinued employment of the foreign consultants. The rise of militarism led to the use of the education system to prepare the nation for war. The military even sent its own instructors to schools. After the defeat in World War II, the allied occupation government set an education reform as one of its primary goals, to eradicate militarist teachings and "democratize" Japan. The education system was rebuilt after the American model. The end of the 1960s were a time of student protests around the world, and also in Japan. The main subject of protest was the Japan-U.S. security treaty. A number of reforms were carried out in the post-war period until today. They aimed at easing the burden of entrance examinations, promoting internationalization and information technologies, diversifying education and supporting lifelong learning. In successive international tests of mathematics, Japanese children consistently rank at or near the top (see TIMSS).[2] The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is responsible for educational administration. [] Structure The school year in Japan begins in April and classes are held from Monday to either Friday or Saturday, depending on the school. The school year consists of three terms, which are separated by short holidays in spring and winter, and a one month long summer break.[3] The year structure is summarized in the table below. Age | Grade | Educational establishments | | 3-4 | | Kindergarten(幼稚園 Yōchien) | Special school(特別支援学校 Tokubetsu-shien gakkō) | | 4-5 | | | | | 5-6 | | | | | 6-7 | 1 | Elementary school(小学校 Shōgakkō)Compulsory Education | | | 7-8 | 2 | | | | 8-9 | 3 | | | | 9-10 | 4 | | | | 10-11 | 5 | | | | 11-12 | 6 | | | | 12-13 | 1 | Junior high school / Lower secondary school(中学校 chūgakkō)Compulsory Education | | | 13-14 | 2 | | | | 14-15 | 3 | | | | 15-16 | 1 | High school / Upper secondary school(高等学校 kōtōgakkō, abbr. 高校 kōkō) | College of technology(高専 kōsen) | | | 16-17 | 2 | | | | | 17-18 | 3 | | | | | 18-19 | | University: Undergraduate(大学 daigaku; gakushi-katei) | National Academy(大学校 daigakkō) | Medical School(医学部Igaku-bu）Veterinary school(獣医学部Juigaku-bu)Dentistry School(歯学部Shigaku-bu)Pharmaceutical School(薬学部Yakugaku-bu)National Defense Medical College(防衛医科大学校, Bōei Ika Daigakkō) | Community College(短期大学Tanki-daigaku）Vocational School(専門学校 Senmon-gakkō) | | | | 19-20 | Associate | | | | | | | | 20-21 | | | | | | | | 21-22 | Bachelor | | | | | | | 22-23 | | Graduate School: Master(大学院修士課程 daigaku-In；Shu-shi Katei) | National Academy: Master(大学校修士課程daigakkō; Shu-shi katei) | | | | | 23-24 | Master | | | | | | | 24-25 | | Graduate School: Ph.D(大学院博士課程 daigaku-In；Hakushi Katei) | National Defense Academy: Ph.D(防衛大学校博士課程Bōei Daigakkō; Hakushi katei) | Medical School: Ph.D(医学博士Igaku Hakushi)Veterinary School: Ph.D(獣医学博士Juigaku Hakushi)Dentistry School: Ph.D(歯学博士Shigaku Hakushi)Pharmaceutical School: Ph.D(薬学博士 Yakugaku Hakushi) | | | | 25-26 | | | | | | | | 26-27 | Ph.D | | | | | | | 27-28 | Ph.D | | | | | | [] Junior high school International educational scores (latest, 2007)(8th graders average score, TIMSSInternational Math and Science Study, 2007) | Countries:(sample) | Globalrank | Maths | Science | | | | Rank | Score | Rank | Score | | Singapore | 1 | 3 | 593 | 1 | 567 | | Taiwan | 2 | 1 | 598 | 2 | 561 | | South Korea | 3 | 2 | 597 | 4 | 553 | | Japan | 4 | 5 | 570 | 3 | 554 | | Hong Kong | 5 | 4 | 572 | 9 | 530 | | Hungary | 6 | 6 | 517 | 6 | 539 | | England | 7 | 7 | 513 | 5 | 542 | | Czech Republic | 8 | 11 | 504 | 7 | 539 | | Russia | 9 | 8 | 512 | 10 | 530 | | Slovenia | 10 | 12 | 501 | 8 | 538 | | United States | 11 | 9 | 508 | 11 | 520 | | Lithuania | 12 | 10 | 506 | 12 | 519 | | Australia | 13 | 14 | 496 | 13 | 515 | | Sweden | 14 | 15 | 491 | 14 | 511 | | Armenia | 15 | 13 | 499 | 17 | 488 | | Italy | 18 | 19 | 480 | 16 | 495 | | Maths Highlights from TIMSS 2007Science Highlights from TIMSS 2007 | | A typical classroom in a Japanese junior high school Main article: Secondary education in Japan Lower secondary school covers grades seven, eight, and nine, children between the ages of roughly 12 and 15, with increased focus on academic studies. Although it is still possible to leave the formal education system after completing junior high school and find employment, fewer than 4% did so by the late 1980s. Like elementary schools, most junior high schools in the 1980s were public, but 5% were private. Private schools were costly, averaging 558,592 yen (US$3,989) per student in 1988, about four times more than the 130,828 yen (US$934) that the ministry estimated as the cost for students enrolled in public junior high school. Teachers often majored in the subjects they taught, and more than 80% graduated from a four-year college. Classes are large, with thirty-eight students per class on average, and each class is assigned a homeroom teacher who doubles as counselor. Unlike elementary students, junior high school students have different teachers for different subjects. The teacher, however, rather than the students, moves to a new room for each fifty or forty-five minute period. Instruction in junior high schools tends to rely on the lecture method. Teachers also use other media, such as television and radio, and there is some laboratory work. By 1989 about 45% of all public junior high schools had computers, including schools that used them only for administrative purposes. Classroom organization is still based on small work groups of four to six students, although no longer for reasons of discipline. All course contents are specified in the Course of Study for Lower-Secondary Schools. Some subjects, such as Japanese language and mathematics, are coordinated with the elementary curriculum. Others, such as foreign-language study, begin at this level, though from April 2011 English will become a compulsory part of the elementary school curriculum. The junior school curriculum covers Japanese language, social studies, mathematics, science, music, fine arts, health, and physical education. All students are also exposed to industrial arts and homemaking. Moral education and special activities continue to receive attention. Most students also participate in one of a range of school clubs that occupy them until around 6pm most weekdays (including weekends and often before school as well), as part of an effort to address juvenile delinquency. A growing number of junior high school students also attend juku, private extracurricular study schools, in the evenings and on weekends. A focus by students upon these other studies and the increasingly structured demands upon students' time have been criticized by teachers and in the media for contributing to a decline in classroom standards and student performance in recent years. The ministry recognizes a need to improve the teaching of all foreign languages, especially English. To improve instruction in spoken English, the government invites many young native speakers of English to Japan to serve as assistants to school boards and prefectures under its Japan Exchange and Teaching Program. Beginning with 848 participants in 1987, the program grew to a high of 6,273 participants in 2002.[4] However, the program has been on the decline in recent years due to several factors, including shrinking local school budgets funding the program, as well as an increasing number of school boards hiring their foreign native speakers directly or through lower-paying, private agencies.[5] [] High school A high school class in 1963 Main article: Secondary education in Japan Even though upper-secondary school is not compulsory in Japan, 94% of all junior high school graduates entered high schools as of 2005.[6] Private upper-secondary schools account for about 55% of all upper-secondary schools, and neither public nor private schools are free. The Ministry of Education estimated that annual family expenses for the education of a child in a public upper-secondary school were about 300,000 yen (US$2,142) in the 1980s and that private upper-secondary schools were about twice as expensive. The most common type of upper-secondary school has a full-time, general program that offered academic courses for students preparing for higher education as well as technical and vocational courses for students expecting to find employment after graduation. More than 70% of upper-secondary school students were enrolled in the general academic program in the late 1980s. A small number of schools offer part-time programs, evening courses, or correspondence education. The first-year programs for students in both academic and commercial courses are similar. They include basic academic courses, such as Japanese language, English, mathematics, and science. In upper-secondary school, differences in ability are first publicly acknowledged, and course content and course selection are far more individualized in the second year. However, there is a core of academic material throughout all programs. Vocational-technical programs includes several hundred specialized courses, such as information processing, navigation, fish farming, business English, and ceramics. Business and industrial courses are the most popular, accounting for 72% of all students in full-time vocational programs in 1989. Most upper-secondary teachers are university graduates. Upper-secondary schools are organized into departments, and teachers specialize in their major fields although they teach a variety of courses within their disciplines. Teaching depends largely on the lecture system, with the main goal of covering the very demanding curriculum in the time allotted. Approach and subject coverage tends to be uniform, at least in the public schools. Training of disabled students, particularly at the upper-secondary level, emphasizes vocational education to enable students to be as independent as possible within society. Vocational training varies considerably depending on the student's disability, but the options are limited for some. It is clear that the government is aware of the necessity of broadening the range of possibilities for these students. Advancement to higher education is also a goal of the government, and it struggles to have institutions of higher learning accept more disabled students. [] Universities and colleges Main article: Higher education in Japan As of 2005, more than 2.8 million students were enrolled in 726 universities. At the top of the higher education structure, these institutions provide four-year training leading to a bachelor's degree, and some offer six-year programs leading to a professional degree. There are two types of public four-year colleges: the ninety-six national universities (including the Open University of Japan) and the thirty-nine local public universities, founded by prefectures and municipalities. The 372 remaining four-year colleges in 1991 were private. The overwhelming majority of college students attend full-time day programs. In 1990 the most popular courses, enrolling almost 40 percent of all undergraduate students, were in the social sciences, including business, law, and accounting. Other popular subjects were engineering (19 percent), the humanities (15 percent), and education (7 percent). The average costs (tuition, fees, and living expenses) for a year of higher education in 1986 were 1.4 million yen (US$10,000). To help defray expenses, students frequently work part-time or borrow money through the government-supported Japan Scholarship Association. Assistance is also offered by local governments, nonprofit corporations, and other institutions. According to The Times Higher Education Supplement and École des Mines de Paris, the top-ranking universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Keio University and Waseda University.[7][8] [] See also * Yutori education * Japanese history textbook controversies * Japanese University Entrance Examinations * Japanese school uniform * Japanese graduation ceremony * Eikaiwa (English conversation class) * Curriculum guideline * Language minority students in Japanese classrooms [] References * ^ Kelly, Boyd. (1999). Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Vol. 1, p. 522; De Bary, William et al. (2005). Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol. 2, p. 69. * ^ PISA scores for 15 year olds in Japan, 2005: * ^ Japanese education system * ^ http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/jet/participants.pdf * ^ http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060328zg.html * ^ STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2006 ion(http://www.mext.go.jp/english/statist/index.htm) * ^ "The Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings" (PDF). TSL Education Ltd.. 2005-10-28. http://www.alnaja7.org/success/Education/times_world_ranking_2005.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-27.  * ^ "The World University Rankings". http://www.mines-paristech.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html.  [] Further reading * De Bary, William Theodore, Carol Gluck, Arthur E. Tiedemann. (2005). Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press. 10-ISBN 0-231-12984-X/13-ISBN 978-0-231-12984-8; OCLC 255020415 * David G. Hebert (2005). Music Competition, Cooperation, and Community: An Ethnography of a Japanese School Band. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington. Ann Arbor: Proquest/UMI. * Christopher P. Hood, Japanese Education Reform: Nakasone's Legacy, 2001, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-23283-X. * Kelly, Boyd. (1999). Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Vol. 1. London: Taylor &Francis. 10-ISBN 1-884964-33-8/13-ISBN 978-1-884964-33-6 * Kathleen S. Uno (1999). Passages to Modernity: Motherhood, Childhood, and Social Reform in Early Twentieth Century Japan. Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1619-3, ISBN 978-0-8248-2137-1. [] External links * Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Recovery Act The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. It is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long‐neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The Act is an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the Great Depression, and includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need. Progress The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested heavily in education both as a way to provide jobs now and lay the foundation for long‐term prosperity. 0 The Act includes $5 billion for early learning programs, including Head Start, Early Head Start, child care, and programs for children with special needs. 1 The Act also provides $77 billion for reforms to strengthen elementary and secondary education, including $48.6 billion to stabilize state education budgets (of which $8.8 billion may be used for other government services) and to encourage states to: 1 Make improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensure that all schools have highly‐qualified teachers; 2 Make progress toward college and career‐ready standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning; 3 Improve achievement in low‐performing schools, through intensive support and effective interventions; and 4 Gather information to improve student learning, teacher performance, and college and career readiness through enhanced data systems. 2 The Act provides $5 billion in competitive funds to spur innovation and chart ambitious reform to close the achievement gap. 3 The Act includes over $30 billion to address college affordability and improve access to higher education. Guiding Principles Providing a high‐quality education for all children is critical to America’s economic future. Our nation’s economic competitiveness and the path to the American Dream depend on providing every child with an education that will enable them to succeed in a global economy that is predicated on knowledge and innovation. President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. Focus on Early Childhood Education The years before a child reaches kindergarten are among the most critical in his or her life to influence learning. President Obama is committed to providing the support that our youngest children need to prepare to succeed later in school. The President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for children, from birth through age 5. Because the President is committed to helping all children succeed – regardless of where they spend their day – he will urge states to impose high standards across all publicly funded early learning settings, develop new programs to improve opportunities and outcomes, engage parents in their child’s early learning and development, and improve the early education workforce. Reform and Invest in K‐12 Education President Obama will reform America’s public schools to deliver a 21st Century education that will prepare all children for success in the new global workplace. He will foster a race to the top in our nation’s schools, by promoting world‐class academic standards and a curriculum that fosters critical thinking, problem solving, and the innovative use of knowledge to prepare students for college and career. He will push to end the use of ineffective, "off‐the‐shelf" tests, and support new, state‐of‐the‐art assessment and accountability systems that provide timely and useful information about the learning and progress of individual students. Teachers are the single most important resource to a child’s learning. President Obama will ensure that teachers are supported as professionals in the classroom, while also holding them more accountable. He will invest in innovative strategies to help teachers to improve student outcomes, and use rewards and incentives to keep talented teachers in the schools that need them the most. President Obama will invest in a national effort to prepare and reward outstanding teachers, while recruiting the best and brightest to the field of teaching. And he will challenge State and school districts to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom. The President believes that investment in education must be accompanied by reform and innovation. The President supports the expansion of high‐quality charter schools. He has challenged States to lift limits that stifle growth among successful charter schools and has encouraged rigorous accountability for all charter schools. Restore America’s Leadership in Higher Education President Obama is committed to ensuring that America will regain its lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020. The President believes that regardless of educational path after high school, all Americans should be prepared to enroll in at least one year of higher education or job training to better prepare our workforce for a 21st century economy. To accomplish these overarching goals, the President is committed to increasing higher education access and success by restructuring and dramatically expanding college financial aid, while making federal programs simpler, more reliable, and more efficient for students. The President has proposed a plan to address college completion and strengthen the higher education pipeline to ensure that more students succeed and complete their degree. His plan will also invest in community colleges to equip a greater share of young people and adults with high‐demand skills and education for emerging industries. SIGNIFICANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS August 20, 2010 General 2003‐02‐07 ‐‐ Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools . Adult Education 2003‐01‐30 ‐‐ Additional Guidance on the Application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to Reporting under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act . 2002‐04‐25 ‐‐ Guidance for Revisions in State Performance Levels For Vocational and Adult Education . 1999‐06‐30 ‐‐ Second Jointly Issued Guidance Regarding the Non‐Duplication Provision in the Workforce Investment Act . 1999‐06‐01 ‐‐ Responsibilities and Opportunities Created by Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 . 1999‐05‐14 ‐‐ Reservation of Funds for State Administration under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 and Adult Education and Family Literacy Act . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 2010‐06‐28 ‐‐ Teacher Incentive Fund ‐‐ Frequently Asked Questions For the 2010 Competition and Grant Award 0 Teacher Incentive Fund – Frequently Asked Questions – Addendum 1 (07/01/2010) 2010‐05‐24 ‐‐ Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 . 2010‐05‐21 – Race to the Top Assessment Program Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions . 2010‐03‐18 – Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum (March 30, 2010) ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum 2 (April 8, 2010) ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum 3 (April 21, 2010) ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum 4 (April 30, 2010) . 2010‐01‐ ‐‐ – Guidance on the Maintenance‐of‐Effort Requirements in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program . 2009‐12‐24 – Guidance for Grantees and Auditors: State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program . 2009‐12‐01 ‐ Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Phase II of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund . 2009‐11‐ ‐‐ Race to the Top Program ‐ Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions (including subsequent updates) . 2009‐09‐02 ‐‐ Using Title I, Part A ARRA Funds for Grants to Local Educational Agencies to Strengthen Education, Drive Reform, and Improve Results for Students . 2009‐07‐ ‐‐ Guidance on Enhancing Education through Technology (Ed Tech) Program Funds Made Available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐07‐ ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance on Title I, Part A Waivers . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program for the Insular Areas . 2009‐04‐10 – Guidance on McKinney‐Vento Homeless Children and Youth Program Funds Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐10 – Guidance – Impact Aid Section 8007 School Construction Funds Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 ‐‐ Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program • Modifications to Questions in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (April 7, 2009) • Modifications to Questions in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (May 11, 2009) • Modification to the Answer to Question III‐B‐1 in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (July 6, 2009) • Supplement to Section IV The Government Services Fund in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (October 2, 2009) . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for Title I, Part B of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for the State Independent Living Grants Program and Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind Program ‐‐ Title VII, Chapter 1, Part B, and Title VII, Chapter 2 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, ‐‐ Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . Career & Technical Education 2009‐05‐28 – Questions and Answers Regarding the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 – Version 3.0 • Update to Questions and Answers Regarding the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 – Version 2.0 (Issued on June 6, 2007) • Update to Questions and Answers Regarding the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 – Version 1.0 (Issued on January 9, 2007) . 2007‐05‐17 ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding the Consolidation of Title II Tech Prep Funds into Title I Basic Grant Funds . 2007‐03‐13 ‐‐ Student Definitions and Measurement Approaches for the Core Indicators of Performance under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 . 2007‐03‐12 ‐‐ Transmittal of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 State Plan Guide (Program Memo and Guide for Submission of State Plans) . 2003‐01‐30 ‐‐ Additional Guidance on the Application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to Reporting under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act . 2002‐06‐18 ‐‐ The Role of Tech‐Prep Education in Preparing America's Future . 2002‐04‐25 ‐‐ Guidance for Revisions in State Performance Levels for Vocational and Adult Education . 2000‐05‐19 ‐‐ Permissible State Uses of Tech‐Prep Funds . 1999‐10‐15 ‐‐ Accountability Systems Development for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 . 1999‐06‐30 ‐‐ Second Jointly Issued Guidance Regarding the Non‐Duplication Provision in the Workforce Investment Act . 1999‐05‐27 ‐‐ Application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to Performance Reporting . 1999‐05‐27 ‐‐ Services That Prepare Individuals for Nontraditional Training and Employment and Related Issues . 1999‐05‐24 ‐‐ Responsibilities and Opportunities Created by Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 . 1999‐05‐14 ‐‐ Reservation of Funds for State Administration under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 and Adult Education and Family Literacy Act . Civil Rights 2009‐12‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities During an H1N1 Outbreak . 2009‐01‐08 ‐‐ Dear Colleague Letter – Title VI and Public School Choice . 2008‐10‐17 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding Disclosure of Disability on Report Cards and Transcripts for Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools . 2008‐09‐17 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding Athletic Activities Counted for Title IX Compliance . 2008‐08‐28 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding the Use of Race in Postsecondary Education Student Admissions, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . 2008‐08‐28 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding the Use of Race in Elementary and Secondary Student Assignment, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . 2008‐02‐01 – Guidance on Homeless Children with Disabilities . 2007‐10‐19 – Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education . 2007‐03‐17 ‐‐ Transition of Students with Disabilities from High School to Postsecondary Institutions (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Stephanie J. Monroe, enclosing a “Dear Parent” letter and an OCR pamphlet entitled "Transition of Students with Disabilities to Postsecondary Education: A Guide for High School Educators”) . 2004‐09‐13 ‐‐ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and Religious Discrimination in Schools and Colleges (“Dear Colleague” letter from Kenneth L. Marcus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights) . 2003‐07‐14 ‐‐ Letter on the Participation of Private School Students in Federally‐Funded Programs . 2001‐01‐19 – Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students or Third Parties . 2000‐07‐25 ‐‐ Prohibited Disability Harassment (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantú and Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Judith E. Heumann) . 1998‐07‐23 ‐‐ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Athletic Scholarships (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantú, enclosing July 23, 1998 letter from Dr. Mary Frances O'Shea, OCR’s National Coordinator for Title IX Athletics, to Bowling Green State University) . 1994‐03‐10 ‐‐ Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance . 1994‐01‐31 ‐‐ Notice of Application of Supreme Court Decision in United States v. Fordice . 1991‐09‐27 ‐‐ Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited‐English Proficiency . 1985‐12‐03 ‐‐ Policy Regarding the Treatment of National Origin Minority Students Who Are Limited English Proficient (originally issued December 3, 1985; reissued April 6, 1990) . 1970‐07‐18 ‐‐ Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin . Elementary & Secondary Education 2010‐08‐13 – Initial Guidance for States on the Education Jobs Fund Program . 2010‐08‐13 – Initial Guidance for the State of Texas on the Education Jobs Fund Program . 2010‐08‐13 – Initial Guidance for the Insular Areas on the Education Jobs Fund Program . 2010‐08‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard . 2010‐06‐28 ‐‐ Teacher Incentive Fund ‐‐ Frequently Asked Questions For the 2010 Competition and Grant Award 1 Teacher Incentive Fund – Frequently Asked Questions – Addendum 1 (07/01/2010) 2010‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations and Reevaluations . 2010‐05‐24 Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 . 2010‐05‐21 – Race to the Top Assessment Program Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions . 2010‐05‐11 Promise Neighborhoods FAQs (including subsequent updates) . 2010‐03‐18 – Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum (March 30, 2010) ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum 2 (April 8, 2010) ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum 3 (April 21, 2010) ● Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) FAQs Addendum 4 (April 30, 2010) . 2010‐01‐ ‐‐ – Guidance on the Maintenance‐of‐Effort Requirements in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program 2009‐12‐24 – Guidance for Grantees and Auditors: State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program . 2009‐12‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities During an H1N1 Outbreak . 2009‐12‐01 ‐ Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Phase II of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund . 2009‐11‐ ‐‐ Race to the Top Program ‐ Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions (including subsequent updates) . 2009‐11‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Serving Children with Disabilities Eligible for Transportation . 2009‐10‐ ‐‐ Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and H1N1 . 2009‐09‐02 ‐‐ Using Title I, Part A ARRA Funds for Grants to Local Educational Agencies to Strengthen Education, Drive Reform, and Improve Results for Students . 2009‐09‐ ‐‐ Guidance on Flexibility and Waivers for SEAs, LEAs, Postsecondary Institutions, and Other Grantee and Program Participants in Responding to Pandemic Influenza (H1N1 Virus) . 2009‐08‐ ‐‐ Implementing Response to Intervention (RTI) Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds . 2009‐07‐ ‐‐ Guidance on Enhancing Education through Technology (Ed Tech) Program Funds Made Available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐07‐ ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance on Title I, Part A Waivers . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program for the Insular Areas . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Disproportionality . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Secondary Transition . 2009‐05‐01 – Guidance on the Maintenance‐of‐Effort Requirements in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program . 2009‐04‐10 – Guidance on McKinney‐Vento Homeless Children and Youth Program Funds Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐10 – Guidance – Impact Aid Section 8007 School Construction Funds Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐06 – Guidance – The State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants Program . 2009‐04‐01 ‐‐ Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program • Modifications to Questions in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (April 7, 2009) • Modifications to Questions in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (May 11, 2009) • Modification to the Answer to Question III‐B‐1 in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (July 6, 2009) • Supplement to Section IV The Government Services Fund in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (October 2, 2009) . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐01‐14 – Supplemental Educational Services ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2009‐01‐14 – Public School Choice – Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2009‐01‐12 ‐‐ Growth Models – Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2009‐01‐08 ‐‐ Dear Colleague Letter – Title VI and Public School Choice . 2008‐12‐22 – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding High School Graduation Rate . 2008‐12‐02 – Letter to Chief State School Officers on Performance Indexes . 2008‐10‐17 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding Disclosure of Disability on Report Cards and Transcripts for Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools . 2008‐10‐02 – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding Title III Non‐Supplanting Provisions (Letter to Chief State School Officers) (Guidance) . 2008‐09‐17 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding Athletic Activities Counted for Title IX Compliance . 2008‐08‐28 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding the Use of Race in Elementary and Secondary Student Assignment, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . 2008‐07‐28 – Guidance on Coordinated Early Intervening Services . 2008‐05‐14 – Fiscal Year 2008 Guidance for Title V, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (State Grants for Innovative Programs) . 2008‐02‐01 – Guidance on Homeless Children with Disabilities . 2007‐10‐19 – Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education . 2008‐02‐06 ‐‐ Non‐regulatory Guidance on Title I Fiscal Issues: Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, Supplement, not Supplant, Carryovers, Consolidating Funds in Schoolwide Programs, and Grantback Requirements . 2007‐12‐21 ‐‐ Standards and Assessment Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . 2007‐07‐20 ‐‐ Modified Academic Achievement Standards – Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2007‐07‐20 ‐‐ Additional Title I Provisions included in the Regulations Package on Modified Academic Achievement Standards Published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007 – Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2007‐05‐ ‐‐ Assessment and Accountability for Recently Arrived and Former Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2007‐03‐17 ‐‐ Transition of Students with Disabilities from High School to Postsecondary Institutions (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Stephanie J. Monroe, enclosing a “Dear Parent” letter and an OCR pamphlet entitled "Transition of Students with Disabilities to Postsecondary Education: A Guide for High School Educators”) . 2007‐01‐23 ‐‐ Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2006‐10‐05 ‐‐ Improving Teacher Quality State Grants―Title II; Part A . 2006‐09‐05 ‐‐ Letter to Chief State School Officers regarding efforts to ensure that all core academic subjects are taught by highly qualified and effective teachers, and encouraging states to eliminate use of High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) procedures . 2006‐07‐21 ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance‐‐"LEA and School Improvement" . 2006‐06‐19 ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance‐‐The Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At‐Risk, Title I, Part D . 2006‐05‐01 ‐‐ Questions and Answers on the Participation of Private Schools in Providing Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Under No Child Left Behind . 2006‐04‐24 ‐‐ Revised Guidance on Allowable Uses of "Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations" Funds to Assist Private Schools . 2006‐03‐29 ‐‐ Volume II―Frequently Asked Questions―Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students 0 Update to Volume I –Frequently Asked Questions on Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students (issued on February 2, 2006) . 2006‐03‐21 ‐‐ Letter to Chief State School Officers Regarding States’ Progress in Meeting the HQT Goal . 2006‐03‐ ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance‐‐“Designing Schoolwide Programs” . 2006‐02‐01 ‐‐ Uses of Funds under the Restart Program . 2006‐01‐17 ‐‐ Letter to heads of Federal Departments and Agencies asking for support of a new federal government‐wide effort to assist the nation's charter schools . 2006‐01‐10 ‐‐ FAQ‐‐Assistance for Homeless Youth Program under the Hurricane Education Recovery Act . 2006‐01‐06 ‐‐ FAQs: Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations . 2005‐10‐21 ‐‐ Letter to Chief State School Officers regarding the “highly qualified teacher” provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and elements the Department will use in determining if states are in compliance . 2005‐09‐29 ‐‐ Pro‐Children Act Guidance 2004‐10‐12 ‐‐ NCLB Policy Letters to States―Use of Funds for Districts and Schools Identified for School Improvement . 2004‐09‐13 ‐‐ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and Religious Discrimination in Schools and Colleges (“Dear Colleague” letter from Kenneth L. Marcus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights) . 2004‐07‐ ‐‐ Charter School Program Guidance . 2004‐07‐ ‐‐ The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools . 2004‐07‐21 ‐‐ Education for Homeless Children and Youth Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2004‐06‐08 ‐‐ Transferability Authority Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2004‐05‐ ‐‐ Unsafe School Choice Option Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2004‐04‐23 ‐‐ Parental Involvement: Title I, Part A, Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2004‐03‐09 ‐‐ NCLB Policy Letters to State –School Improvement ‐ Delay in Identifying Schools for School Improvement . 2004‐03‐04 ‐‐ Serving Preschool Children Under Title I Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2004‐03‐01 ‐‐ Title I Paraprofessionals Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2004‐01‐22 ‐‐ Guidance Concerning State and Local Responsibilities under the Gun‐Free Schools Act . 2004‐01‐ ‐‐ Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act―State Grants―Guidance for State and Local Implementation of Programs . 2003‐10‐23 ‐‐ Title I, Part C ‐‐ Migrant Education Program Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐10‐17 ‐‐ Title I Services to Eligible Private School Children Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐09‐12 ‐‐ Report Cards Title I Part A, Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐09‐30 ‐‐ William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐08‐21 ‐‐ Non‐Regulatory Guidance: Local Educational Agency Identification and Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and Schools . 2003‐07‐14 ‐‐ Letter on the Participation of Private School Students in Federally‐Funded Programs . 2003‐06‐24 ‐‐ Rural Education Achievement Program . 2003‐05‐23 ‐‐ State Educational Agency Procedures for Adjusting Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grant Allocations . 2003‐03‐17 ‐‐ Early Reading First Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐03‐10 ‐‐ Standards and Assessments Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐02‐20 ‐‐ Joint Education/Agriculture Letter Providing Guidance on Implementation of the New Requirements of Title I by Schools that Operate School Lunch Programs ‐‐ Title I, Part A Program • Follow‐up to: Joint Education/Agriculture Letter Providing Guidance on Implementation of the New Requirements of Title I by Schools that Operate School Lunch Programs ‐‐ Title I, Part A Program (Issued on December 17, 2002) . 2003‐02‐26 ‐‐ 21st Century Community Learning Centers Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2003‐02‐25 ‐‐ Title III State Formula Grant Program ‐Standards, Assessments and Accountability Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2002‐08‐28 ‐‐ State Grants for Innovative Programs―Title V, Part A, Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2002‐08‐01 ‐‐ Comprehensive School Reform Program Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2002‐04‐01 ‐‐ Reading First Program Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2002‐03‐11 ‐‐ Enhancing Education through Technology (Ed Tech) Program Non‐Regulatory Guidance . 2001‐01‐19 – Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students or Third Parties . 2000‐07‐25 ‐‐ Prohibited Disability Harassment (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantú and Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Judith E. Heumann) . 1998‐07‐23 ‐‐ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Athletic Scholarships (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantú, enclosing July 23, 1998 letter from Dr. Mary Frances O'Shea, OCR’s National Coordinator for Title IX Athletics, to Bowling Green State University) . 1994‐03‐10 ‐‐ Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance . 1991‐09‐27 ‐‐ Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited‐English Proficiency . 1985‐12‐03 ‐‐ Policy Regarding the Treatment of National Origin Minority Students Who Are Limited English Proficient (originally issued December 3, 1985; reissued April 6, 1990) . 1970‐07‐18 ‐‐ Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin . Grants & Contracts 2007‐10‐19 – Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education . 2007‐06‐05 ‐‐ Extension of Liquidation Periods and Related Accounting Adjustments for Grantees under Department of Education State‐Administered Programs . Higher Education 2009‐12‐24 – Guidance for Grantees and Auditors: State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program 2009‐12‐01 ‐ Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Phase II of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund . 2009‐10‐ ‐‐ Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and H1N1 . 2009‐09‐ ‐‐ Guidance on Flexibility and Waivers for SEAs, LEAs, Postsecondary Institutions, and Other Grantee and Program Participants in Responding to Pandemic Influenza (H1N1 Virus) . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program for the Insular Areas . 2009‐05‐01 – Guidance on the Maintenance‐of‐Effort Requirements in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program . 2009‐04‐01 ‐‐ Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program • Modifications to Questions in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (April 7, 2009) • Modifications to Questions in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (May 11, 2009) • Modification to the Answer to Question III‐B‐1 in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (July 6, 2009) • Supplement to Section IV The Government Services Fund in the April 2009 Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program (October 2, 2009) . 2008‐09‐17 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding Athletic Activities Counted for Title IX Compliance . 2008‐08‐28 – Dear Colleague Letter – Non‐Regulatory Guidance Regarding the Use of Race in Postsecondary Education Student Admissions, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . 2007‐10‐19 – Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education . 2007‐03‐17 ‐‐ Transition of Students with Disabilities from High School to Postsecondary Institutions (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Stephanie J. Monroe, enclosing a “Dear Parent” letter and an OCR pamphlet entitled "Transition of Students with Disabilities to Postsecondary Education: A Guide for High School Educators”) . 2006‐12‐01 ‐‐ FP‐06‐16 ‐ Update on Consolidation Loan Issues . 2006‐10‐20 – GEN‐06‐18 ‐ Implementation of "Academic Year" Definition in the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National SMART Grant Programs . 2006‐10‐06 ‐‐ FP‐06‐15 ‐ Payment of Special Allowance on Loans Made or Acquired with Funds from a Tax‐Exempt Obligation . 2006‐05‐03 ‐‐ GEN‐06‐08 ‐ Additional Implementation Guidance ‐‐ Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) Programs . 2006‐05‐02 ‐‐ GEN‐06‐07 ‐ Notification and extension of guidance to assist Title IV participants affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita . 2004‐09‐13 ‐‐ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and Religious Discrimination in Schools and Colleges (“Dear Colleague” letter from Kenneth L. Marcus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights) . 2004‐02‐24 ‐‐ GEN‐04‐04/FP‐04‐03 ‐ General guidance for helping Title IV participants affected by a disaster . 2002‐05‐28 ‐‐ GEN‐02‐03/CB‐02‐08/G‐02‐334/L‐02‐228―New Total and Permanent Disability Discharge Procedures for Title IV Loans‐Effective July 1, 2002 . 2001‐01‐19 – Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students or Third Parties . 2000‐07‐25 ‐‐ Prohibited Disability Harassment (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantú and Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Judith E. Heumann) . 1998‐07‐23 ‐‐ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Athletic Scholarships (“Dear Colleague” letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantú, enclosing July 23, 1998 letter from Dr. Mary Frances O'Shea, OCR’s National Coordinator for Title IX Athletics, to Bowling Green State University) . 1994‐03‐10 ‐‐ Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance . 1994‐01‐31 ‐‐ Notice of Application of Supreme Court Decision in United States v. Fordice . Research & Statistics 2007‐10‐19 – Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education . Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 2010‐10‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard . 2010‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations and Reevaluations . 2009‐12‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities During an H1N1 Outbreak . 2009‐11‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Serving Children with Disabilities Eligible for Transportation . 2009‐10‐ ‐‐ Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and H1N1 . 2009‐09‐ ‐‐ Guidance on Flexibility and Waivers for SEAs, LEAs, Postsecondary Institutions, and Other Grantee and Program Participants in Responding to Pandemic Influenza (H1N1 Virus) . 2009‐08‐ ‐‐ Implementing Response to Intervention (RTI) Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Disproportionality . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement . 2009‐06‐ ‐‐ Questions and Answers on Secondary Transition . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for Title I, Part B of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2009‐04‐01 – Guidance – Funds for the State Independent Living Grants Program and Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind Program ‐‐ Title VII, Chapter 1, Part B, and Title VII, Chapter 2 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, ‐‐ Made Available Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . 2008‐07‐28 – Guidance on Coordinated Early Intervening Services . 2008‐02‐01 – Guidance on Homeless Children with Disabilities . 2007‐10‐19 – Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education . 2005‐11‐21 ‐‐ TAC‐06‐01‐‐Factors State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies Should Consider When Determining Whether a Job Position Within a Community Rehabilitation Program is Deemed to be in an "Integrated Setting" for Purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program . 2003‐08‐08 ‐‐ PD‐03‐06‐‐Whether Centers that do not Receive Title VII, Part C Grants are Included as Centers for Independent Living Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the Implications for SILC Composition, Network of Centers, and Part B and Part C Funding . 2002‐09‐26 ‐‐ TAC‐02‐02‐‐Documents to Submit when Requesting a Waiver or Modification of the State's Maintenance of Effort Requirements under the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program . 2002‐07‐03 ‐‐ PD‐02‐03‐‐Satellite Centers for Independent Living . 2001‐01‐17 ‐‐ PD‐01‐03‐‐Implementation of Informed Choice . 1997‐08‐19 ‐‐ PD‐97‐04‐‐Employment Goal for an Individual with a Disability . 1997‐02‐24 ‐‐ TAC‐97‐01‐‐What a Designated Client Assistance Program Agency Must Do to Satisfy the Mediation Procedures Requirement . 1977‐07‐26 ‐‐ PI‐77‐26‐‐RSA Policy Statement of Interpretation of State VR Organizational Requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (PI‐75‐31, dated June 3, 1975) . 1975‐06‐03 ‐‐ PI‐75‐31‐‐RSA Policy Statement on Interpretation of State VR Organizational Requirements of the Rehabilitation Act as amended . Documents Withdrawn from List During the Past Year 2010‐01‐20 ‐‐ Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Addendum to the SIG FAQs (Revised 02‐02‐2010) (superseded by 2010‐05‐24 ‐‐ Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) 2009‐12‐18 – Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (superseded by 2010‐01‐20 ‐‐ Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) Available Sub Topics 1) How policies can alter the course of education' 2) How are policies made' Through what process' Who enforces these polices and how' 3) The comparison of it in many different countries. 4) Examples of positive and inefficient policies. 5) Studies that supported shaping an ideal education policy.