Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000US230,000

EDCI 2700 : Midterm Study Guide

19 views14 pages
azuremammoth471
15 Mar 2019
School
LSU
Department
Curriculum & Instruction
Course
EDCI 2700
Professor
All

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Why might we want to know how many students are classified as having a disability? children who are gifted. Is labeling a necessary practice for serving students with disabilities: it is required under idea that to be eligible for special education services, a student must be labeled, pros: Recognizes meaningful differences in learning or behavior and is a first and necessary step in responding responsibility to those differences. Provides access to accommodations and services: may lead to more acceptance of atypical behavior by peers. Helps professionals communicate and disseminate research findings: makes special needs more visible, cons, may stigmatize (worthy of disgrace or great disapproval) the child. Focuses on what student cannot do and lead to peer rejection: may negatively affect self-esteem, may cause others to have low expectations for the student. Disproportionate number of culturally diverse groups are labeled. Suggest that there is something wrong with the child. Basis for keeping children out of the regular classroom.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers

Related Documents

EDCI 2700 Chapter : Ch 2 Planning And Providing Services
azuremammoth471
EDCI 2700 Chapter : Day 1 Denny
azuremammoth471
EDCI 2700 Chapter : Chapter 2
azuremammoth471

Related Questions

The opportunity cost of going to college is almost never discussed, yet it is quite high, so high that it is seriously impacting the broader American economy. For non-economists, “opportunity cost” is one of the most important concepts in economics. Because of scarcity we only have limited resources, and when we use those resources to do something like go to college, we cannot use them for other things that we also believe are desirable.

By far the most important resource we use in producing goods and services is labor or “human capital.” Based on what we pay owners of resources, we can say that roughly two-thirds of all production of goods and services is attributable to direct human effort – work. When kids go to college, they forego entering the labor force in a major, full-time manner. When six or seven percent of the entire American population is in college, that means a significant reduction in work effort occurs because otherwise highly productive persons in the physical prime of their lives are only lightly utilized in making things or providing services.

Today, only slightly over 59 of every 100 Americans of working age actually work, down from almost 66 in 2000. If we had the employment-population ratio of 15 years ago, we would have at least 16 million more working Americans today – an increase of over 10 percent. Our output would be probably the better part of a trillion dollars higher. The push for “college for all” is one reason we have less work effort today (to be sure, the modern welfare state has also lowered work incentives a lot for other reasons).

The college for all crowd says higher education augments one’s human capital, and we forego output today from working to bolster output tomorrow from more productive workers. And, no doubt, that is sometimes true. We have many productive engineers and accountants who gained important skills in college, for example. But is that necessarily true of all college graduates, particularly when Arum and Roksa tell us that graduating college seniors typically have only marginally better critical reasoning skills that freshman? And when over 40 percent of those entering four year colleges fail to graduate in six years? What if millions of those who do graduate take jobs similar to those without that college education? What if the debt incurred to pay for the college leads many to delay marrying, delay buying houses? There is evidence that to some extent the push for college has led to all of these unintended consequences.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has published great work showing that there is a very severe underemployment problem amongst college graduates, and other equally good research demonstrating what many of us have been saying for years: the student financial aid programs such as subsidized student loans, have pushed up the cost of college. Now a sister Federal Reserve Bank, namely Philadelphia, is jumping into the act.

The Philly Fed in a new study shows that high student loan debt is preventing young potential entrepreneurs from starting new businesses – they cannot afford the necessary debt. Opportunity cost again: if I borrow a lot to go to college, I cannot afford to borrow to start a business.

Enrollment in all forms of higher education today are up roughly 50 percent or seven million from what they were in 1990. What if enrollments had only risen proportionate to population growth – we would have three or four million fewer enrolled in college today. Would our nation be better or worse off? No one knows for sure, but the continued rise in the proportion of Americans with a college education has been accompanied by a sharp reduction in the rate of economic growth. I bet we would have fewer underemployed recent graduates. I bet we would have less than 17 percent delinquency rates on college loans, and far less than a trillion dollars in loan debt. I bet we would have a higher rate of labor force involvement and entrepreneurial activity among the young. And I bet we would be spending tens of billions less on higher education, and at least a little bit more on capital goods investment, highway construction, et cetera. In short, I suspect we would have been better off as a nation.

Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, teaches at Ohio University, and is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Question :

This is a short article discussing the concept of opportunity cost and college. Provide your views on this topic.Do you agree/disagree with the article? Why? What are your thoughts on the current employment landscape of college graduates? Provide any insight on this topic on a specific industry, your own experience, or the experiences of people that you know who have already graduated.

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each paragraph!

The Undeserving Rich

By Paul Krugman
Published in the New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014

The reality of rising American inequality is stark. Since the late 1970s, real wages for the bottom half of the workforce have stagnated or fallen, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have nearly quadrupled (and the incomes of the top 0.1 percent have risen even more). While we can and should have a serious debate about what to do about this situation, the simple fact  American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society shouldn't be up for argument.

But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair's famous dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But it also, I think, reflects distaste for the implications of the numbers, which seem almost like an open invitation to class warfare or, if you prefer, a demonstration that class warfare is already underway, with the plutocrats on offense.

The result has been a determined campaign of statistical obfuscation. At its cruder end, this campaign comes close to outright falsification; at its more sophisticated end, it involves using fancy footwork to propagate what I think of as the myth of the deserving rich.

For an example of de facto falsification, one need look no further than a
recent column by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal, which first accused President Obama (wrongly) of making a factual error, then proceeded to assert that rising inequality was no big deal because everyone has been making big gains. Why, incomes for the bottom fifth of the U.S. population have risen 186 percent since 1979!

If this sounds wrong to you, it should: that's a nominal number, not corrected for inflation. You can find the inflation-corrected number in the same Census Bureau table; it shows incomes for the bottom fifth actually falling. Oh, and for the record, at the time of writing this elementary error had not been corrected on The Journal's website.

O.K., that's what crude obfuscation looks like. What about the fancier version?

I've noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is basically the result of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving rich.

The story goes like this: America's affluent are affluent because they made the right lifestyle choices. They got themselves good educations, they got and stayed married, and so on. Basically, affluence is a reward for adhering to the Victorian virtues.

What's wrong with this story? Even on its own terms, it postulates opportunities that don't exist. For example, how are children of the poor, or even the working class, supposed to get a good education in an era of declining support for and sharply rising tuition at public universities? Even social indicators like family stability are, to an important extent, economic phenomena: nothing takes a toll on family values like lack of employment opportunities.

But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other, are only doing O.K. The big winners are a much smaller group. The Occupy movement popularized the concept of the 1 percent, which is a good shorthand for the rising elite, but if anything includes too many people: most of the gains of the top 1 percent have in fact gone to an even tinier elite, the top 0.1 percent.

And who are these lucky few? Mainly they're executives of some kind, especially, although not only, in finance. You can argue about whether these people deserve to be paid so well, but one thing is clear: They didn't get where they are simply by being prudent, clean, and sober.

So how can the myth of the deserving rich be sustained? Mainly through a strategy of distortion by dilution. You rarely see apologists for inequality willing to talk about the 1 percent, let alone the really big winners. Instead, they talk about the top 20 percent, or at best the top 5 percent. These may sound like innocent choices, but they're not, because they involve lumping in married lawyers with the wolves of Wall Street. The DiCaprio movie of that name, by the way, is wildly popular with finance types, who cheer on the title character another clue to the realities of our new Gilded Age.

Again, I know that these realities make some people, not all of them hired guns for the plutocracy, uncomfortable, and they'd prefer to paint a different picture. But even if the facts have a well-known populist bias, they're still the facts and they must be faced.

Argue either in favor or against the estate tax. Then, respond to at least two other students' posts in the following manner:

Support one student’s argument with additional information or examples.

Counter one student’s argument with information and/or examples.

Student 1 answer : Samantha

Samantha Caterina 5 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

The estate tax is very tricky, it can be argued both ways, for and against. For arguments sake I would be in favor of the estate tax. Currently for 2017 the federal estate tax threshold is 5.49 million. This is only targeting the wealthiest of people. The estate tax will tax any amount of an estate above this. It makes up for a small portion of the total tax collected by the federal government but it is still a substantial amount. The estate tax can be different in each state therefore being taxed more if the threshold is smaller. It is argued that the successful decedent should not be penalized for being successful I would not agree this is true. They are no longer the owner of the estate and the money would just be passed to a beneficiary. The beneficiary then has the rights to do what they please with the money. This can cause the beneficiaries to become non-productive members of society. If the estate tax was taken out tax would have to be made up somewhere, therefore cause middle class taxpayers to pay more taxes. The estate tax does not target the average person only the wealthiest are affected by it. I do not think the estate tax needs to be taken out of order.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/10/06/guest-post-pros-and-cons-of-the-federal-estate-tax/#6e3c8eb975a6

Student answer Andrea:

Andrea Robinson-Parker 4 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

The estate tax was once known as the death tax, there is a pun in there somewhere. Firstly, it is associated with the inheritance of a dead relative and secondly, it can be the death of small family businesses. I believe that this tax is essential for our country to survive. Bob Rywick, in his article, Pros and Cons of the Federal Estate Tax argues both sides of the coin. I agree with his pro stance and here is why:

Revenue from the estate tax will create around $200 billion revenue in the next several years. There has been a great increase in wealth in the recent past and this number may climb.

The estate tax will help to dilute the concentration of wealth. This concentration can be damaging to our free democratic society.

Many wealthy people donate large sums to charities each year to lower their tax bracket. If there was no estate tax, these donations would most likely drop off significantly.

Small business, (making less than $5,000,000) will not be affected. There are also rules set in place to protect farms regarding the valuation of farm land.

Less than 2/10 of 1% of the descendants dying each year will be affected by this tax, based on the current exemption amount.

Lastly, I personally believe that estate planning can alleviate some of these taxes. Estate taxes should not be confused with gift taxes. This is an option that can protect inheritances.

Student Answer

Lakisha Minniefield 3 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

I am against “estate tax” and feel that when the property value goes up, it will increase my mortgage payment each year. I agree with Justin Haskins article regarding scrapping property taxes because as a property owner, charging fees for a specific service should be allowable. Also, property owners should be able to choose where the property taxes should be allocated especially when it comes down to our public education. I have two children who are autistic and in the past it was very difficult to find a school who had the staff to supply all of their educational special needs. Even though we live in the best neighbors that were very costly, the schools zone in the area had 2 out of 10 rating so I would have to transfer my children our of the district in order to get better services. Currently, my husband is getting ready for retirement out of the military and we have looked at all 50 states within the United States to see which state would give us the most exemptions when purchasing a home. The state we chose to move back to is Texas because of the no state property taxes. Property tax for the state of Texas brings in the most money of all taxes available to local government to pay for schools, roads, police and firemen, emergency response services, libraries, parks and other services provided by local government. The state also has a variety of partial or total (absolute) exemptions from appraised property values used to determine local property taxes. A partial exemption removes a percentage or a fixed dollar amount of a property's value from taxation. A total (absolute) exemption excludes the entire property from taxation. Since we will be on a fixed income, Texas property tax exemptions for disabled veterans was the best out of all 50 states. However, we will still have to look for a county with low property tax rate. Since I am already a disabled veteran, Texas has a property tax exempt chart for qualifying disabled veterans.

The exemption amount that a qualified disabled veteran receives depends on the veteran's disability rating from the branch of the armed service.

Disability Exemption

Disability Rating

Exemption Amount Up To

10% to 29%

$5,000 from the property's value

30% to 49%

$7,500 from the property's value

50% to 69%

$10,000 from the property's value

70% to 100%

$12,000 from the property's value

*The Texas Comptroller website lists all of the benefits for disabled veterans regarding property tax exemptions.

Even as a disabled veteran, I would still have to pay property tax but the exemption will only exempt the amount of the disability rating off the value of property. Disabled veterans who are 100% total and permanently disable will be exempt from paying all property taxes. Financially, my family will still have to find a home affordable in a safe neighborhood, public education is rated above 7 out of 10 and choose a county that property taxes are low.

Reference:

https://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxes