# data[].attributes.body
Upon completion of a Master of Education in Counseling, I will continue my role as a middle school counselor at Junction Independent School District. My goal in the future is to become a high school counselor.

# data[].attributes.body
An interesting article about special education and legal issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ruling is new setback for DeVos' Ed. Dept.

The U.S. Department of Education made an "arbitrary and capricious" decision when it decided last year to delay an Obama-era rule that would change the way states monitor how minority students are identified and served in special education, a federal judge in Washington has ruled.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision March 7 vacated the Education Department's delaying action because, she ruled, it is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. That statute governs how federal agencies propose and implement regulations.

The decision is a win for the Council for Parent Advocates and Attorneys, which sued the Education Department after it announced the delay last June. COPAA said that putting the rules on hold would cut down on the number of districts that would be required to review their policies, practices, and procedures around special education identification and services for minority students.

"Today is a victory for children, especially children of color and others who are at risk for being inappropriately identified for special education," said COPAA's executive director, Denise Marshall, in a statement.

Education Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Hill said the department is reviewing the ruling.

The "Equity in IDEA" rules that are at the center of this decision are complex. The political moves around them are complicated, as well.

Federal Requirements

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act requires states to monitor how districts identify minority students for special education, discipline them, or place them in restrictive settings. Districts found to have "significant disproportionality" in one or more of these areas must set aside 15 percent of their federal special education funding to spend on remedies.

The law says that states are in charge of determining how significant a problem must be before it merits the set-aside. And, just a fraction of the nation's school districts have ever been identified as having problems severe enough to require a federal set-aside.

The Obama administration aimed to change that. Implemented in December 2016, in the last weeks of President Barack Obama's second term, the rule would have created a more consistent, standardized evaluation process. As a result, more school districts around the country were expected to have to use part of their federal funds on remedying significant disproportionality.

When the department, under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, announced the delay, it said that "we are concerned the 2016 significant disproportionality regulations could result in de facto quotas, which in turn could result in a denial of services based on a child's ethnic or racial status/group. The secretary is concerned that the regulations will create an environment where children in need of special education and related services do not receive those services because of the color of their skin."

Another Reversal

In her ruling last week, however, the judge said that the Education Department already thoroughly examined the concerns around quotas back in 2016, when it put the rule in place. The department can't just decide to reject those conclusions two years later, she indicated in her decision.

"The government did not explain why it had changed its position that the 2016 safeguards would be effective. Instead, it concluded that the 2016 regulations could incentivize the use of quotas-a conclusion that was contrary to and inconsistent with its prior determination," the ruling stated.

This is a second reversal for the Education Department on a policy connected to students with disabilities. In 2018, the Education Department's office for civil rights started closing hundreds of disability-related complaints, following new guidelines that said such cases would be dismissed when they represent a pattern of complaints against multiple recipients.

The office enforces laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which prohibit public entities from discriminating against individuals based on disability. It also enforces Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and other laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, race, color, or national origin.

Facing a lawsuit from advocates, the department changed that policy in November to get rid of the "pattern of complaints" dismissal guidelines. It also committed to conducting investigations of complaints that were previously dismissed under the policy change.

Clashes With Advocates

Many special education advocates have been highly critical of DeVos, starting from her confirmation hearing when she faced pointed questioning about the IDEA and seemed at first to suggest that states could follow the federal law at their discretion. (The IDEA is not discretionary law.)

In 2017, as a part of an administration-wide effort to sweep away "outdated, unnecessary or ineffective regulations," the Education Department identified dozens of pieces of guidance that should be eliminated. Most of the documents were simply old and had expired, but the reaction in some corners was furious.

The Education Department responded to that by releasing an explanation of just why those particular documents were targeted for elimination.

Published in Print: March 13, 2019, as Feds Can't Delay Special Education Bias Rule, Judge Says

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feds Can't Delay Special Education Bias Rule, Judge Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education made an "arbitrary and capricious" decision when it decided last year to delay an Obama-era rule that would change the way states monitor how minority students are identified and served in special education, a federal judge in Washington has ruled. U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
A popular topic in regards to legal and ethical issues, was this interesting article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dive Brief:

Fifty people have been charged in an alleged nationwide conspiracy to exploit an admissions pathway designed for student athletes in order to buy access to elite institutions, the Justice Department announced Tuesday .

Among those charged are 33 parents, including several high-profile executives, actresses, business owners, a lawyer and a fashion designer, as well as several college athletics coaches and at least one athletics director. Two test administrators were also charged. Students and the universities were not charged, The New York Times reported .

Parents paid a California college prep firm to raise students' standardized test scores, create fake athletics profiles and pay off coaches to slot the students as recruits - all but ensuring their admission. The firm's head received about $25 million from parents between 2011 and February 2019 to "bribe coaches and university administrators," which he said opened a "side door" to elite colleges.

Dive Insight:

The indictment swept through the mainstream media like a hurricane on Tuesday - what with the cinematic cocktail of fabulously wealthy parents, the pull of exclusive universities, the sometimes-warped world of college athletics, hefty bribes and unsubtle efforts to game college entrance exams. Perhaps seeing the irony, the feds even called it "Operation Varsity Blues."

All this happened at a time when many institutions are responding to market pressure to stem tuition increases and offer bigger discounts to low- and middle-income students.

In addition to the $25 million for bribes, parents generally paid the admissions company between $15,000 and $75,000 per college entrance exam to either have someone take the tests in place of their children or change their answers after, according to court documents . The amounts were typically paid through a nonprofit set up to receive them as tax-free donations.

While certainly extreme, the parents' methods are "manifestations of a common desperation," Joe Pinsker wrote for The Atlantic. Affluent parents can afford to send their kids to good colleges, and so face the pressure to do so. And in many fields, having attended more selective institutions can open doors that lead to higher lifetime earnings, though Pinkser noted research shows that may not always be the case.

That brings up higher ed's fraught relationship with rankings. More institutions (and industry observers) eschew them as they seek to diversify their value proposition away from selectivity, yet many continue to tout their spot on lists such as U.S. News & World Report's. And prospective students and their families still see them as reliable guides .

The colleges involved in this scandal are highly ranked: The Justice Department named coaches from Georgetown University, Stanford University, the University of Southern California, the University of California Los Angeles, Wake Forest and Yale.

In response to the news, some expressed less in the way of surprise than of affirmation that obtaining entry to elite institutions often comes at great expense in the way of supports such as tutors, test prep and college consultants that some parents can afford and others can't.

In this case, parents paid to get their children placed on lists of recruited athletes - who are typically held to lower academic standards in exchange for the contribution of their athletic abilities - and could therefore more easily fly under the radar of admissions officers. The company fixing the deals went so far as to create fake profiles documenting the prospective students' athletic achievements.

Some colleges, like Stanford, have said they'll stop trading on selectivity during enrollment season. Many are making moves to equalize admissions by using the Common Application and removing requirements for standardized tests. And the U.S. News ranking has incorporated access-oriented indicators such as social mobility and graduation rates of Pell Grant recipients. More broadly, a debate over how elite institutions select and diversify their incoming classes is underway with several challenges to affirmative action.

Whether this scandal forces a larger discussion of access and equity at elite institutions is to be determined.

Last thought for today: elite colleges have been under attack from right (affirmative action) and left (equity/price) for some time now. Is today's scandal too much....is it a turning point to blow up the admissions system and start anew? I hope so, but probably not. Good night.
- Jeff Selingo (@jselingo) March 13, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal racketeering sting reveals 'side door' into elite colleges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty people have been charged in an alleged nationwide conspiracy to exploit an admissions pathway designed for student athletes in order to buy access to elite institutions, the Justice Department announced Tuesday . Among those charged are 33 parents, including several high-profile executives, actresses, business owners, a lawyer and a fashion designer, as well as several college athletics coaches and at least one athletics director.

# data[].attributes.headline
Step 2- Option 1- Top 5 According to a high school counselor

# data[].attributes.subject
Step 2- Option 1- Top 5 According to a high school counselor

# data[].attributes.body
I spoke with our high school counselor, Robin Gardner about current legal and ethical issues that are currently impacting her role.
As far as legal issues, she says there is always something impacting a counselor's work.
#1- current legal issues impacting your work- the huge emphasis on mental health right now is our country is greatly affecting counselors in the public education. Governor Abbott in wake of the church shooting outside San Antonio (Santa Fe) has demanded that school counselors focus more on social and mental issues with the students. This is extremely difficult as most counselors do not just get to counsel, as they are busy with testing, applications and classroom presentations, which leaves counseling behind. Also, many counselors feel inadequate to deal with the wide variety of "mental health" issues and need more training.
Along with mental health issues counselors are having to deal with prevention of bullying and with many of the regulations constantly changing due to cyber bullying local policies changing. The transgender issue is of course front and center, and counselors need additional training and support systems to navigate the legal laws.
#2-current legal or compliance requirements that are monitored- Mrs. Gardner commented that these are the current legal issues she is currently in check with: servicing gifted and talented, special education, and 504 students, following legal and ethical polices on bullying, mental health issues, making sure students meet graduation requirements, and monitoring the academic process.
#3- there were no changes or revisions in policies or rules that impact legal or ethical issues in the district.
#4- student or employee rights in relation to work- She stated that you have to be aware of confidentiality, self- awareness, and trust foundation building.
#5- staying current on legal issues in her field- She said she attends Region 15 workshops and updates, is a member of Lone Star Counselors and the Association of Texas Professional Educators.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading various articles, the issue that sparks my interest the most is how colleges will respond and be impacted by the college admissions scam.
This is interesting to me because I want to know how colleges will prevent this from happening in the future. Also, how will this impact the future of the students involved in the scam, but personally knew nothing about it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Step 4 Research Link from Academic Source

# data[].attributes.subject
Step 4 Research Link from Academic Source

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal investigation exposing illegal scams to gain admission to elite colleges is troubling on many levels. For one, it is a reminder that many families regard colleges as luxury brands to be purchased for validation and to advance their personal brand rather than place for transformative intellectual and personal development. Students and their families in search of the substantive values of education and not just status can avoid the competitive admissions frenzy by casting a wider net to consider nonelite colleges. In doing so, they will find gems in their backyards.

Unfortunately, even experts who want to improve access to quality higher education sometimes unintentionally reinforce the myth that only a certain subset of elite colleges offer students a quality education and a promising future. In a recent address, Catharine Bond Hill, president of Ithaka S+R and former president of Vassar College, proposed that elite private colleges should accept more students. In her estimation, increasing access to these colleges would better serve the public good by letting "more students benefit from the resources of the wealthiest colleges -- not just their endowments and their physical assets, but their academic programs and alumni networks." Increased access, according to this line of thinking, shifts the focus from the good of individual institutions to the good of society, a value central to liberal arts education.

Hill acknowledges that increasing the size of the student body may diminish the prestige of these institutions by diminishing "the amount of endowment per student." It may also affect their "ability to compete with other institutions on quality." It follows that more students on campus would affect campus climate and culture.

Hill appropriately recognizes the responsibility of higher education to contribute to public good in conjunction with our interest in maximizing the well-being of our institutions. Her solution, however, may perpetuate the problem she is trying to fix. Bringing more students interested in liberal arts institutions to a select few colleges diminishes the pool of students available to nonelite private liberal arts colleges. Some of these institutions perform extremely well with a fraction of the resources of elite colleges. A small dip in their enrollment could be devastating to the colleges and their local communities.

The call for elite colleges to accept more students implies that these colleges are the only ones capable of providing an excellent liberal arts education. Those of us who work at nonelite private colleges and universities know otherwise. In fact, nonelite private liberal arts colleges often have a bigger impact. Most students at elite colleges are highly credentialed, driven and bright. Those accepted on merit would likely succeed regardless of the school they attend. Students at nonelite colleges often have the same potential for development, but they may lack the experiences of students at elite colleges.

Transylvania University, my institution, is a good example of a highly effective nonelite college. Ninety-eight percent of our graduates who apply are accepted to medical school and law school. Those schools include Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Brown and Duke Universities. The student loan default rate among our graduates is 2 percent. Like our elite colleagues, we provide personalized education with a 10.5-to-one student-faculty ratio. Yet our tuition and fees amount to approximately $20,000 less than the elite privates. While the average endowment at the top 10 liberal arts colleges is $1.36 billion, ours is approximately $170 million. Between 2007 and 2017 the average endowment per student among the top 10 liberal arts colleges increased from $654,414 to $810,433. We could operate four of our colleges off the interest of a Williams or Amherst College endowment. Over the past 10 years, the top 25 liberal arts colleges have increased their net revenue by approximately 30 percent. Most of this increase is attributable to the interest on their endowments. Over the same time period, with a fraction of their endowment, we also have seen a 30 percent increase in net revenue. Hence, the assumption that students can only get an elite education at an elite school or that elite colleges are managed more effectively is misguided.

While Hill is prepared to sacrifice educational quality at elite colleges for the sake of the public good, she seems to dismiss nonelite colleges, which are often pillars of their communities. We have been in Lexington, Ky., for 240 years. Our surrounding neighborhood is among the poorest in the nation. Our employees use their wages to support their families and generate economic activity in the community. Our students integrate learning into tens of thousands of volunteer hours at organizations that serve those in our community who are struggling, such as the homeless and abused women. We hold college-prep programs for underresourced high school students and host the YMCA Black Achievers program on campus. We distribute fresh food to residents who live in a nearby food desert and provide tutoring to elementary school children.

In the interest of the public good, we should want more high-performing liberal arts colleges, not fewer. The reallocation we need is not more students at fewer colleges, but more support for highly functioning nonelite colleges. It has been demonstrated that there is no correlation between the prestige of a university and what a student learns, their happiness at college or how satisfied they are with their life after graduation. Therefore, higher education needs to stop promoting elitism in a world where wealthy parents are accused of breaking the law to get their children into elite colleges.

We are fortunate. We have a generous donor base, and our leading donors happen to be graduates of elite colleges. They choose to support us because they recognize the importance of what we do for our students and for our community. They understand that their gifts to us have a much bigger impact than yet another donation to the bloated endowments of their alma maters. Instead of flooding elite colleges with more students and diminishing the pool of students who can attend excellent nonelite colleges, we should educate the public about the substantive goods of higher education. This would lay the groundwork to expand upon the insight of our lead donors to create partnerships among elite colleges and qualified nonelite colleges to ensure the flourishing of both. In this way, all of the highly functioning colleges continue to educate students effectively while serving the broader public good.

As a graduate of Hill's former school, I know that my fellow alumni are passionate about our alma mater. We are also passionate about contributing to the public good. By harnessing this passion, we can build support for liberal arts education beyond our individual institutions, many of which have more resources than they can use well. Like our lead donors, we should encourage support for highly functioning, geographically diverse liberal arts colleges that fulfill the same mission as elite colleges. The alternative is to see excellent nonelite colleges threatened with extinction -- and the communities they serve threatened with blight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elite colleges need to be less elitist (opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The current admissions scandal is a reminder of the dangers of elitism in higher education that assumes limited role for nonelite institutions, writes Seamus Carey.

# data[].attributes.body
The recent college admissions scam involves a multitude of people. Some of these people are being accused of bribing college entrance exam administrators to allow cheating, and accused of paying large sums of money so that their child could attend an elite college ("Hollywood Stars Charged," 2019).
Elite colleges need to diminish the prestige of their institutions, so that  "average" students can attend these universities. This will allow for some of the urgency to dissolve among today's society to feel pressured for their children to attend an elite university. Unfortunately with these allegations of networking bribes and money, these elite colleges will see a decrease in enrollment (Carey, 2019).
The question is, what can we do as future educators to ensure that this situation does not happen again? As educators, we can promote a positive environment that encourages students to be passionate about any college they choose, elite or not. We need to educate our students that non-elite colleges can educate students, just like elite colleges can.
As a counselor, it is my job to educate students about the variety of college options they have. Teach students to be proud of the degree they earned. It does not matter which alma mater you are passionate about, as long as they are successful in life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Carey, S. (2019, March 15). Elite   colleges need to be less elitist (opinion). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/print/views/2019/03/15/elite-colleges-need-be-less-elitist-opinion
"Hollywood stars charged in college admissions scam: official." Gulf News [United Arab Emirates], 12 Mar. 2019. World History in Context, http://resolver.ebscohost.com.easydb.angelo.edu/openurl?sid=EBSCO%3aedsgit&genre=article&issn=15635899&ISBN=&volume=&issue=&date=20190312&spage=&pages=&title=Gulf+News+(United+Arab+Emirates)&atitle=Hollywood+stars+charged+in+college+admissions+scam%3aofficial.&aulast=Washington+Post&id=DOI%3a&site=ftf-live