Graduate Studies Reports Access
Graduate Course Proposal Form Submission Detail - EEX7516
Tracking Number - 2639
Edit function not enabled for this course.
Current Status:
Approved by SCNS - 2012-06-15
Campus: Tampa
Submission Type: New
Course Change Information (for course changes only):
Comments: to GC 4/2/12; to USF Syst 4/5/12; to GC 4/16/12; to SCNS 4/16/12. Apprd eff 6/1/12. Sub as 7452; Apprd as 7516
Detail Information
- Date & Time Submitted: 2011-10-10
- Department: Special Education
- College: ED
- Budget Account Number: 172800
- Contact Person: Jeannie Kleinhammer-Tramill
- Phone: 8139743410
- Email: pjkleinhamme@usf.edu
- Prefix: EEX
- Number: 7516
- Full Title: Critical Analysis of Compensatory, Remedial, Special Education
- Credit Hours: 3
- Section Type: D -
Discussion (Primarily)
- Is the course title variable?: N
- Is a permit required for registration?: N
- Are the credit hours variable?: N
- Is this course repeatable?:
- If repeatable, how many times?: 0
- Abbreviated Title (30 characters maximum): Critical Analysis: SPED
- Course Online?: C -
Face-to-face (0% online)
- Percentage Online: 0
- Grading Option:
R - Regular
- Prerequisites: None
- Corequisites: None
- Course Description: The purpose of this course is to engage students in intensive study of the relationship between social policy and educational services for students who have been marginalized because of disability, race, poverty, and/or native language.
- Please briefly explain why it is necessary and/or desirable to add this course: Needed for program/concentration/certificate change
- What is the need or demand for this course? (Indicate if this course is part of a required sequence in the major.) What other programs would this course service? This course reflects and supports our new C & I concentration.
- Has this course been offered as Selected Topics/Experimental Topics course? If yes, how many times? Yes, 2 times
- What qualifications for training and/or experience are necessary to teach this course? (List minimum qualifications for the instructor.) Doctorate
- Objectives: The intended outcome of this course is to facilitate development of educational policy leaders who demonstrate understanding of the following concepts:
1. The marginalization of particular children and youth can occur as a function of economic, social, and political conditions as well as existing technical knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs about the malleability or intractability of conditions that inhibit learning.
2. The goals of educational policy often exist in dynamic tension between equity, excellence, and locus of control of the aims and ends of schooling.
3. Educational policy development often results in the formation of new administrative and professional bureaucracies, and advocacy may inadvertently be directed toward protecting these bureaucracies rather than improving the educational lives of children.
4. Educational policy development and policy implementation reflect agendas that may, by design, relieve or exacerbate social problems.
5. Educational policy leadership requires critical awareness of the interplay between extant social conditions for children and families, public beliefs about and expectations for children and schools, and considerations and consequences of policy formation.
6. Educational policy has forever (the last 26 years since the Nation at Risk (1983) argued it is not a matter of financial support but educators either not prepared or not willing to teach marginalized students. An essential question is that Can educational reform be confined to education and educators alone? And how can educational support of an un-equitable system ever get equalized?
- Learning Outcomes: Students will demonstrate knowledge in the following areas:
1. The marginalization of particular children and youth can occur as a function of economic, social, and political conditions as well as existing technical knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs about the malleability or intractability of conditions that inhibit learning.
2. The goals of educational policy often exist in dynamic tension between equity, excellence, and locus of control of the aims and ends of schooling.
3. Educational policy development often results in the formation of new administrative and professional bureaucracies, and advocacy may inadvertently be directed toward protecting these bureaucracies rather than improving the educational lives of children.
4. Educational policy development and policy implementation reflect agendas that may, by design, relieve or exacerbate social problems.
5. Educational policy leadership requires critical awareness of the interplay between extant social conditions for children and families, public beliefs about and expectations for children and schools, and considerations and consequences of policy formation.
6. Educational policy has forever (the last 26 years since the Nation at Risk (1983) argued it is not a matter of financial support but educators either not prepared or not willing to teach marginalized students. An essential question is that Can educational reform be confined to education and educators alone? And how can educational support of an un-equitable system ever get equalized?
- Major Topics: 1. The status of remedial, compensatory, and special education
2. Historical Perspectives, The Early Years, 1800s – 1920s;
3. Historical Perspectives, Hot and Cold Wars and Great Depression I, 1920’s – 1950’s
4. Historical Perspectives, Sputnik and Brown, 1950s
5. Historical Perspectives, Coleman, Kennedy, Johnson, the Great Society, Compensatory and Remedial Education, 1960s
6. Historical Perspectives, Peace, Geraldo, Legalism, mainstreaming, and the EHA, 1970s
7. Historical Perspectives, Reaganomics, A Nation at Risk, the Regular Education Initiative, Effective Schools, 1980s
8. Historical Perspectives, Systems Change and National Education Goals, 1990s
9. Historical Perspectives, NCLB, Federalization, Self-Determination, Abelism, and Professions in Crisis, 2000s
10. Current policy contexts juxtaposed to historical foundations
- Textbooks:
- Course Readings, Online Resources, and Other Purchases: Additional Course Readings:
Books
Illich, I., Zola, I.K., McKnight, J., Caplan, J., Shaiken, H. (1977). Disabling professions. London: Marlan Boyars, Ltd.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue. New York: Basic Books, Harper Collins.
Martin, W.E. (1999). Brown v. Board of Education: A brief history with documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, pp. 102-109; 121-198.
Sarason, S. B. , & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan, pp 1-106; 135-236; 296-418.
Reports, Monographs, Articles, and Chapters
Allington, R. (1992)
Allington, R. (2007).
Author. (January, 1994). Compensatory education: Traditional responses and current tensions. In Education Reforms and Students at Risk: A Review of the Current State of the Art, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, available online at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdReforms/chap7a.html
Bell, T. (1992). Perspective on a Nation at Risk. Phi Delta Kappan, pp.
Bohner, J. A. (1995). The unmaking of school reform. In J.F. Jennings, Ed. National Issues in Education: Goals 2000 and School-to-Work. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa International.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk. New York: The Carnegie Foundation.
Dorn, S.; Fuchs, D; & Fuchs, L.S. (1996). A historical perspective on special education reform, Theory into Practice, 35(1), 12-19.
Deno, E. (1994). Special education as developmental capital revisited: A quarter century appraisal of means versus ends. Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 375-392.
Dunn, L. (1968). Special education: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children
Ellmore, R. & Fuhrman, S. (1995). Opportunity to learn standards. Teachers College Record, 96, 3.
Gottlieb, J.; Alter, M.; Gottlieb, B,; Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It isn’t justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 453-465.
Hehir, T. (1995).
Jennings, J.F. (1995). Introduction. In J.F. Jennings, Ed. National Issues in Education: Goals 2000 and School-to-Work. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa International.
Kennedy, E.M. (1993). The nation is at even greater risk now. In J.F. Jennings (Ed.) National issues in education: The past is prologue. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, pp. 19-32.
McDonnell, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1982). Educational policy and the role of states. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, ERIC Document 218742.
O’Brien (2007). What happened to the promise of Brown? An organizational explanation and an outline for change. Teachers College Record, pp. 1875-1901.
O’Day, J. (1995). Systemic reform and Goals 2000. In J.F. Jennings, Ed. National Issues in Education: Goals 2000 and School-to-Work. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa International.
Riley, R. (1995). Reflections on Goals 2000. Teachers College Record, 96(3).
Smith, M. & Scoll, B. (1995). The Clinton human capital agenda for education. Teachers College Record, 96(3).
Recommended Readings
Articles available under “Assignments” in Blackboard are recommended unless listed above.
Borman, G.D.; Stringfield, S.C.; & Slavin, R.E. (2001). Compensatory Education at the Crossroads. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (Coleman) report. Portions may be available at http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fwebapp%2Eicpsr%2Eumich%2Eedu%2Fcocoon%2FICPSR%2DSTUDY%2F06389%2Exml++%09
(NOTE – YOU MAY NEED TO COPY AND PASTE THIS URL IN YOUR BROWSER).
Osgood, R.L. (2008). The history of special education: A struggle for equality in American public schools. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
- Student Expectations/Requirements and Grading Policy: For the grade of B, students will complete the following assignments:
• Class Participation (5%)
• Group Presentation (40%)
• Reviews and Critiques (20%)
• Policy Updates (5%)
• Personal Narrative (10%)
For the grade of A, students will complete the following in addition to the assignments above:
• Literature Review (optional) – (10%)
Grades will be determined based on the following scale:
A = 90 – 100 pts
B = 80 – 89 pts
C = 70 – 79 pts
D = 65 – 69 pts
F = Below 65
- Assignments, Exams and Tests: Content Outline
1. The status of remedial, compensatory, and special education
2. Historical Perspectives, The Early Years, 1800s – 1920s;
3. Historical Perspectives, Hot and Cold Wars and Great Depression I, 1920’s – 1950’s
4. Historical Perspectives, Sputnik and Brown, 1950s
5. Historical Perspectives, Coleman, Kennedy, Johnson, the Great Society, Compensatory and Remedial Education, 1960s
6. Historical Perspectives, Peace, Geraldo, Legalism, mainstreaming, and the EHA, 1970s
7. Historical Perspectives, Reaganomics, A Nation at Risk, the Regular Education Initiative, Effective Schools, 1980s
8. Historical Perspectives, Systems Change and National Education Goals, 1990s
9. Historical Perspectives, NCLB, Federalization, Self-Determination, Abelism, and Professions in Crisis, 2000s
10. Current policy contexts juxtaposed to historical foundations
Assignments, exams, and tests:
• Class Participation (5%)
• Group Presentation (40%)
• Reviews and Critiques (20%)
• Policy Updates (5%)
• Personal Narrative (10%)
For the grade of A, students will complete the following in addition to the assignments above:
• Literature Review (optional) – (10%)
- Attendance Policy: Course Attendance at First Class Meeting – Policy for Graduate Students: For structured courses, 6000 and above, the College/Campus Dean will set the first-day class attendance requirement. Check with the College for specific information. This policy is not applicable to courses in the following categories: Educational Outreach, Open University (TV), FEEDS Program, Community Experiential Learning (CEL), Cooperative Education Training, and courses that do not have regularly scheduled meeting days/times (such as, directed reading/research or study, individual research, thesis, dissertation, internship, practica, etc.). Students are responsible for dropping undesired courses in these categories by the 5th day of classes to avoid fee liability and academic penalty. (See USF Regulation – Registration - 4.0101,
http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/ogc%20web/currentreg.htm)
Attendance Policy for the Observance of Religious Days by Students: In accordance with Sections 1006.53 and 1001.74(10)(g) Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulation 6C-6.0115, the University of South Florida (University/USF) has established the following policy regarding religious observances: (http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/gc_pp/acadaf/gc10-045.htm)
In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary for USF to suspend normal operations. During this time, USF may opt to continue delivery of instruction through methods that include but are not limited to: Blackboard, Elluminate, Skype, and email messaging and/or an alternate schedule. It’s the responsibility of the student to monitor Blackboard site for each class for course specific communication, and the main USF, College, and department websites, emails, and MoBull messages for important general information.
- Policy on Make-up Work: All assignments are expected to be completed by the assigned due date. In cases of emergency, it is the student’s responsibility to contact the instructor to see if alternative arrangements may be made.
Academic Dishonesty:
Plagiarism is defined as "literary theft" and consists of the unattributed quotation of the exact words of a published text or the unattributed borrowing of original ideas by paraphrase from a published text. On written papers for which the student employs information gathered from books, articles, or oral sources, each direct quotation, as well as ideas and facts that are not generally known to the public-at-large, must be attributed to its author by means of the appropriate citation procedure. Citations may be made in footnotes or within the body of the text. Plagiarism also consists of passing off as ones own, segments or the total of another persons work.
Punishment for academic dishonesty will depend on the seriousness of the offense and may include receipt of an "F" with a numerical value of zero on the item submitted, and the "F" shall be used to determine the final course grade. It is the option of the instructor to assign the student a grade of "F" of "FF" (the latter indicating dishonesty) in the course.
Detection of plagiarism: It is very important to state in your syllabus that you plan to submit student assignments to SafeAssignment.com in order to detect plagiarism. This will give you the legal right to submit student assignments to SafeAssignment.com. If you plan to submit to Safe Assignment, use the statement below:
The University of South Florida has an account with an automated plagiarism detection service which allows instructors to submit student assignments to be checked for plagiarism. I reserve the right to 1) request that assignments be submitted to me as electronic files and 2) electronically submit to SafeAssignment.com, or 3) ask students to submit their assignments to SafeAssignment.com through myUSF. Assignments are compared automatically with a database of journal articles, web articles, and previously submitted papers. The instructor receives a report showing exactly how a student’s paper was plagiarized.
- Program This Course Supports: PH.D. Program Curriculum and Instruction-Special Education
- Course Concurrence Information: This course will not service other programs.
- if you have questions about any of these fields, please contact chinescobb@grad.usf.edu or joe@grad.usf.edu.