Social Policy Committee

League of Women Voters^®
of the Upper Valley

A new committee in the Upper Valley League, working to implement positions of the LWV of the United States which aim to: Secure equal rights and equal opportunity for all. Promote social and economic justice and the health and safety of all Americans

Overview. Immigration. No Child Left Behind.

Overview

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
Equal Rights: Support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and efforts to bring laws into compliance with the goals of the ERA.
Education, Employment, Housing: Support equal access to education, employment and housing.
FISCAL POLICY
Tax Policy: Support adequate, flexible funding of federal government programs through an equitable tax system that is progressive overall and that relies primarily on a broad-based income tax; promote responsible deficit policies; support a federal role in providing mandatory, universal, old-age, survivors, disability and health insurance.
Federal Deficit: Promote responsible deficit policies.
Funding of Entitlements: Support a federal role in providing mandatory, universal, old-aage, survivors, disability and health insurance.
HEALTH CARE
Promote a health care system for the United States that provides access to a basic level of quality care for all U.S. residents and controls health care costs.
MEETING BASIC HUMAN NEEDS
Support programs and policies to prevent or reduce poverty and to promote self-sufficiency for individuals and families.
Income Assistance: Support income assistance programs, based on need, that provide decent, adequate standards for food, clothing and shelter.
Support Services: Provide for essential support services.
Housing Supply: Support policies to provide a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.
CHILD CARE
Support programs, services and policies, at all levels of government to expand the supply of affordable, quality child care for all who need it.
EARLY INTERVENTIION FOR CHILDREN AT RISK
Support policies and programs that promote the well being, development and safety of all children.
VIOLENCE PREVENTION
Support violence prevention programs in all communities.
GUN CONTROL
Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons. Support regulation of firearms for consumer safety.
URBAN POLICY
Promote economic health of cities and improve the quality of urban life.

Immigration Study - 2007

Immigration Study
Get a great introduction to the complex immigration issues by reading the 8 excellent background papers prepared by LWV-US.
Easy reading, download unnecessary....
Plan to attend the two meetings on this subject (see calendar), and participate in consensus discussion. We expect a heated exchange!

Title Date Link PDF

Economic Aspects of Authorized and Unauthorized Immigration Jan 10, 2007 link pdf (67K)

Effects Of Global Interdependence On Migration Jan 19, 2007 link pdf (65K)

Federal Immigration Policy: Enforcement Issues Mar 22, 2007 link pdf (233K)

Immigration and the Economy Jan 10, 2007 link pdf (37K)

Immigration Policy: Family Reunification Apr 05, 2007 link pdf (100K)

Immigration: Diversity and Inclusion Mar 07, 2007 link pdf (1.2Mb)

Overview: Federal Immigration Policy and Proposed Reforms Jan 10, 2007 link pdf (359K)

What Motivates Immigration to America? Mar 27, 2007 link pdf (72K)

No Child Left Behind Act

Summary of remarks by Committe Chair Barbara Taylor, fall of 2004
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a piece of legislation that dates back to the middle 1960s. It was re-christened by the Bush administration from its frankly less exciting name of Chapter I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
This legislation was a product of the Johnson Administration's Great Society legislation and was aimed at children who lived in areas of the country called "impact areas" where the reading and math results of children in public and private schools fell below the then-acceptable standards of achievement (ie. One grade improvement for one year of education.)
The program was funded from year to year on the basis of results which eventually indicated consistent improvement. Along with the remediation, schools were given the option of choosing to receive psychological services in the form of guidance counselors, social workers and psychologists.
NCLB. was renamed and "adjusted" by the Bush Administration to include benefits and penalties for adherence to the legislation which included some staff reinforcement as well as the penalty of having federal funds rescinded or limited for noncompliance.
Up until the 2004 election, there were small forays into interpretation of guidelines and results. Administrators reported that they were hopeful that a new administration, either Republican or Democratic, would further clarify the changes and/or heed their requests for greater clarification and more money to implement the changes that were mandated.
Recent news articles indicate that there is trouble in Paradise--officials who have spent money to publicize the program in strange ways, suits in court by districts throughout the country to clarify the cutoff test scores, excluding special education students or limiting their test results so that they do not impact so heavily on decision making and more.
So the story is still being told. More as we see what is happening.
Additional notes by Ruth Ann Groh
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is something the law attempts to measure through a mandated testing program. It assumes that testing measures learning. The direction of education in the United States is what is of concern.
A Nation At Risk, a report published in 1983 by the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education, led to testing programs and teacher opposition.
Brookings Institution studies help us understand controversies over the implementation of this law, for example "No Child Left Behind and the 2004 Campaign" in which author Tom Loveless says,
"The three main criticisms of NCLB are that it
is inadequately funded,
unfairly holds schools accountable for student performance, and
requires an onerous amount of student testing. "
The article is online at http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/loveless/20040108.htm
Vermont educators wary of 'No Child' testing flexibility
'Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., agreed that Spellings was vague and said administrative steps did not solve what he called the fundamental problems in NCLB.
"I appreciate Secretary Spellings' acknowledging what many of us have been pointing out for some time -- that a rigid, one-size-fits-all federal approach to education constrains the abilities of states like Vermont," he said. "Her offer of some greater flexibility is a constructive gesture, and I hope that she will follow through on it."
'Leahy added, "But an offer of administrative flexibility does not change NCLB's misguided focus on standardized testing and does nothing to ensure that schools receive the resources they need to truly improve." '
See the Rutland Herald article at: http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005504170341

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: July 16, 2010 07:47 PDT.