Search

This paper presents Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now's (ConnCAN's) annual report for 2011. For those who believe that Connecticut's public education system is in need of major repair, 2011 was a tough year. Despite the best efforts and bold intentions of ConnCAN and other like-minded individuals and organizations, the status quo ultimately prevailed. Connecticut has maintained its worst-in-the-nation achievement gap for years. And while the state has seen major increases in both education spending and the number of full-time public school employees since 2003, student enrollment and achievement have remained flat. An estimated 9,000 students in Connecticut's Class of 2011 did not graduate--nearly enough to fill UConn's Gampel Pavilion, home of the Huskies basketball teams. Connecticut has a serious problem on its hands, and it did not come close to fixing it in 2011. During its 2011 campaign, "Get Smart Connecticut," ConnCAN produced and distributed valuable original research to Connecticut citizens, shored up legislative allies, and compelled the media to put a spotlight on Connecticut's broken public education system. Its goals were ambitious, and it pushed relentlessly for a breakthrough until the very last day of the legislative session. But in the end, as ConnCAN said to advocates in their final campaign report, "we got bupkis." ConnCAN's only major win on behalf of Connecticut's students in 2011 was stopping a bill that would have severely jeopardized any chance of ever having rigorous teacher evaluations in Connecticut. (Contains 12 sources.) [For "Good Does Not Equal Good Enough: 2010 ConnCAN Annual Report," see ED535276.]

The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) kicked off 2010 with its legislative campaign, "Our Race to the Top." This campaign resulted in the passage of a slate of progressive education reform bills. During the summer months, it ran the "Vote for Ed" campaign, which put the issue of Connecticut's struggling public education system front and center in the governor's race. In the final months of the year, ConnCAN partnered with DonorsChoose.org on a giving project that raised thousands of dollars for innovative public school classrooms across the state. In this annual report, readers will find a recap of the significant progress ConnCAN made in 2010. [For "We Will Not Rest: ConnCAN 2009 Annual Report," see ED535277.]

Section 508 Subpart B 1194.21 outlines requirements for operating system and software development in order to create a product that is accessible to users with various disabilities. This portion of Section 508 contains a variety of standards to enable those using assistive technology and with visual, hearing, cognitive and motor difficulties to access all information provided in software. The focus on requirements was limited to the Microsoft Windows® operating system as it is the predominant operating system used at this center. Compliance with this portion of the requirements can be obtained by integrating the requirements into the software development cycle early and by remediating issues in legacy software if possible. There are certain circumstances with software that may arise necessitating an exemption from these requirements, such as design or engineering software using dynamically changing graphics or numbers to convey information. These exceptions can be discussed with the Section 508 Coordinator and another method of accommodation used.

Even though alcoholic beverages fall under the definition of “food” in the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate such beverages’ ingredient and nutrition labeling as it does for other foods. Instead, jurisdiction over alcoholic beverage labeling falls to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), a division of the Department of Treasury. The present system of divided jurisdiction is the product of a series of historically contingent events and inter-agency conflicts, and it has caused confusion and friction in this regulatory area for four decades and counting. This paper explores some of the current issues in alcoholic beverage labeling jurisdiction. It begins by reviewing the history of such jurisdiction, how TTB came to have exclusive control over alcoholic beverage labeling, and the failed attempts to reform the system. It then examines two recent events that have called for cooperation between FDA and TTB: the public outcry over the health hazards of caffeinated alcoholic beverages, and the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act’s requirement for calorie labeling on restaurant menus. In the former case, the two agencies were able to work together to take concerted action, yet in the latter case they found themselves at odds. This paper examines the differences between the two situations and analyzes some administrative strategies that might be able to encourage more successful cooperation and reduce the risks of regulatory arbitrage.