The number of undocumented children in the U.S. is increasing in numbers and educational leaders must understand how to support their educational success by addressing their unique challenges. For this discussion, you will focus on the case study “In All Fairness” in Chapter 8. This case study focuses on the controversy surrounding legal and illegal immigrant families, children and public school attendance, as well as the concept of silent tracking.
address the assigned question. Use the text and one outside source to support your response to the questions (this can also be your shared resource).
Questions
Regarding the case of Michael…
1. Why would counselors place Michael in lower track classes even after he requested that he be placed in college prep courses?
2. Is this a form of discrimination?
3. Why would these types of incidents be difficult to confront?
4. What is one resource that you could share with your peers to support best practices working with students of color who may be victims of silent tracking?
5. Resources may be from yearly conferences, websites, leaders in the field, peer-reviewed journal articles, blogs, etc., that support the issue at hand. Through this collaborative effort, you will be able to add resources from multiple perspectives that you can later include in your final assignment.
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. China’s HDI value is 0.752 (2017), which puts the country in the high human development category at 86 out of 189 countries and territories, shared with Ecuador. Between 1990 and 2017, China’s HDI value increased from 0.502 to 0.752, an increase of 49.7%. Between 1990 and 2017, China’s life expectancy at birth increased by 7.1 years, mean years of schooling increased by 3.0 years and expected years of schooling increased by 5.0 years. China’s Gross National Income (GNI) per capita increased by about 898.7% between 1990 and 2017. In China, the central government has overall responsibility for national health legislation, policy, and administration. It is guided by the principle that every citizen is entitled to receive basic health-care services, with local governments (provinces, prefectures, cities, counties, and towns) responsible for providing them. Health insurance is also publicly provided and financed by local governments, therefore local governments play a major role in keeping the HDI value of China high by keeping facilities available to members of the local communities and their families. In addition, the Chinese deputy director general of basic education, Wang Dinghua stated: “We need to shift from a nation with large human resources to a nation with strong human resources.” To achieve that, China is doing more than just talking. It is working to implement a plan that it hopes will significantly improve its education. At the moment, China has an incredibly high internal immigration rate. It is seeing a mass migration of more than 300 million people leaving their homes in rural China to go to the country’s cities. Consequently, a large amount of government money goes to expanding urban centres and updating infrastructure to accommodate the booming population, therefore however, causing worry that there will be little to no space left for incoming students throughout china. Nonetheless, China still has an adult (15+) literacy rate of 96.4%, proving its education services well.
Australia’s HDI value for 2017 is 0.939, which, similar to China, put the country in the very high human development category, positioning it at 3 out of 189 countries and territories. Between 1990 and 2017, Australia’s HDI value increased from 0.866 to 0.939, an increase of 8.4%. Between 1990 and 2017, Australia’s life expectancy at birth increased by 6.2 years, mean years of schooling increased by 1.2 years and expected years of schooling increased by 5.5 years. Australia’s GNI per capita increased by about 56.7% between 1990 and 2017. Australia’s three levels of government are collectively responsible for providing universal health care: federal; state and territory; and local. The federal government mainly provides funding and indirect support to the states and health professions, subsidizing primary care providers through the Medicare Benefits Scheme (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and providing funds for state services. It has only a limited role in direct service delivery, as proven in the stimulus, Australia keeps a steady increase in funds towards national health-care provided by the federal government. State Governments have the majority of responsibility for public hospitals, ambulance services, public dental care, community health services, and mental health care. They contribute their own funding in addition to that provided by federal government. Finally, Local governments play a role in the delivery of community health and preventive health programs, such as immunization and the regulation of food standards. Furthermore, while states and territories are responsible under the Australian Constitution for school education, the Australian Government plays an important role in providing national leadership across important policy areas, including quality teaching, boost