IDEA Series: The Segregation Of Students With Disabilities
IDEA SeriesThe Segregation of Studentswith DisabilitiesNational Council on DisabilityFebruary 7, 2018
National Council on Disability (NCD)1331 F Street NW, Suite 850Washington, DC 20004(IDEA Series) The Segregation of Students with DisabilitiesNational Council on Disability, February 7, 2018Celebrating 30 years as an independent federal agencyThis report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability(NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the followinginformation:ncd@ncd.gov Email202-272-2004 Voice202-272-2022 FaxThe views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this andall NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
National Council on DisabilityAn independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congressto enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.Letter of TransmittalFebruary 7, 2018President Donald J. TrumpThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20500Dear Mr. President:On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit this report titled TheSegregation of Students with Disabilities. This report is part of a five-report series on the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that describes the legal and scientific basis for an inclusiveversus segregated education, summarizes national patterns for educating students with disabilitiesin general education classes, examines federal and state guidance, and state compliance withfederal mandates, describes effective educational practices for reducing segregation, and providesfindings and recommendations for improvement.As you know, the right of students with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate publiceducation in the least restrictive environment is solidly rooted in the guarantee of equal protectionunder the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution. In enacting IDEA, Congress sought toend the long history of segregation and exclusion of children with disabilities from the Americanpublic school system. IDEA requires that students with disabilities be educated to the maximumextent possible with students without disabilities. However, many students with disabilities remainsegregated in self-contained classrooms or in separate schools, with limited or no opportunities toparticipate academically and socially in general education classrooms and school activities. Many donot have access to the same academic and extracurricular activities and services provided to otherstudents. Frequently, these students leave school unprepared for adult life in the community.NCD stands ready to assist the Administration in ensuring the right to a free and appropriate publiceducation for students with disabilities as set forth in IDEA.Respectfully,Clyde E. TerryChairperson(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker ofthe U.S. House of Representatives.)1331 F Street, NW202-272-2004 Voice Suite 850202-272-2074 TTY Washington, DC 20004202-272-2022 Fax www.ncd.gov
2National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability Members and StaffMembersClyde E. Terry, ChairpersonBenro T. Ogunyipe, Vice ChairpersonBilly W. AltomRabia BeltJames T. BrettBob BrownDaniel M. GadeWendy S. HarbourNeil RomanoStaffVacant, Executive DirectorJoan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of PolicyAmy Nicholas, Attorney AdvisorAmged Soliman, Attorney AdvisorAna Torres-Davis, Attorney AdvisorAnne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & OutreachPhoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs SpecialistLisa Grubb, Director of Operations and AdministrationStacey S. Brown, Staff AssistantKeith Woods, Financial Management AnalystThe Segregation of Students with Disabilities3
4National Council on Disability
AcknowledgmentsThe National Council on Disability thanks Selene Almazan, Denise Marshall, and Melina Latona of theCouncil of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; and Carol Quirk of the Maryland Coalition for InclusiveEducation, for the research conducted in developing this report.The Segregation of Students with Disabilities5
6National Council on Disability
ContentsAcknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Key Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Acronym Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Research Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Qualitative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Policy Analysis and Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Literature, Case Law, and Legislative Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Quantitative Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16National Data Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Chapter 1: Legal Foundation for Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Early Litigation and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17The Right to a Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18The LRE Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Placement Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Chapter 2: National Placement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Placement Practices across States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Disproportionate Placement Practices across Disability Labels . . . . . . . . . 24Disproportionate Placement across Racial/Ethnic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Chapter 3: Federal and State Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Federal Policy Letters and Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27State Regulations and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Monitoring and Technical Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32The Segregation of Students with Disabilities7
Chapter 4: Challenges to Inclusive General Education Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Continuum of Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Attitudes and Beliefs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Organizational Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Organizational and Workforce Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Chapter 5: The Research Base: Why Include Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Benefits to Students with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Benefits to Students without Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Opportunity to Learn: Special Versus Regular Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Chapter 6: The Research Base: Strategies That Promote EffectiveInclusive Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Universal Design for Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Cooperative Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Differentiated Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Data-Based Instructional Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Peer-Assisted Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Culturally Responsive Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Multi-Tiered System of Supports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Chapter 7: Findings and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45ED Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49National and State Placement Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538National Council on Disability
Executive SummaryThe legal and scientific basis for specialare expected to only remove the student toeducation services points to the positivethe extent needed to implement the student’soutcomes for students with disabilitiesindividual plan and meet individually designedwhen they receive an inclusive versusgoals. Further, research demonstrates thatsegregated education. Yet nationally, studentsinclusive education results in the best learningwith disabilities, in particular students of coloroutcomes; there is no research that supports theand students in urban settings, as well asvalue of a segregated special education class andstudents with specific disability labels (such asschool. The emerging picture, however, is one inautism or intellectual disability), continue to bewhich the opportunity for students to participateremoved from general education, instructional,in their neighborhood school alongside theirand social opportunities and to be segregatedpeers without disabilities is influenced more bydisproportionately when compared to Whitethe zip code in which they live, their race, andstudents who live in suburban and rural areas anddisability label, than by meeting the federal lawthose who have less intensive academic supportdefining how student placements should beneeds.made. While there are states and examples ofKey Findingsschools that are indeed meeting the learningneeds of students—even those with extensiveFor this report, national student placementsupport needs—that is more the exception thanpatterns, as well as federal and state policies,the rule. While the Federal Government monitorswere reviewed to understand the state of specialand reviews state performance on a numbereducation service delivery and administrativeof indicators, including placement practices,guidance. This was supplemented by a review ofthere does not appear to be sanctions or strongresearch and input from families and educatorsguidance that directs states to attend to thisabout their experiences in educating studentsconcern.with disabilities. We found that, although statesare required to first consider that a student withKey Recommendationsa disability should attend the school that theyIt is recommended that Congress support fullwould attend if they did not have a disability andfunding for special education, and that anyonly if the student’s needs cannot be met, thisfunding authorized by Congress emphasize theconsideration was not always present. Statesdelivery of special education services in generalThe Segregation of Students with Disabilities9
education settings. Further, discretionary grantscenters and significant projects should ensurefor research and development should establishthat recipients plan to:expectations for inclusive school practices,particularly those that address personnel service providers to implement effectivedevelopment and organizational changes toschoolwide, equity-based educationalsustain effective education services that addressservices; andthe needs of all students in an equitable mannerto achieve equitable outcomes. This report10prepare teachers, administrators, and related build state and local capacity for sustainablealso recommends that the U.S. Department ofinclusive education practices. States shouldEducation (ED) stand boldly in its support ofbe expected to carefully analyze theirinclusive education, and maintain data collectionplacement data, and consider it with respecton the amount of time students spend into disproportionate placement practices forgeneral education and the location of studentstudents by disability label and race, acrossplacements. Funding opportunities for nationaltheir local jurisdictions.National Council on Disability
Acronym GlossaryAPRannual performance reportASLAmerican Sign LanguageCOPAACouncil of Parent Attorneys and AdvocatesDCLDear Colleague LetterDOJUS Department of JusticeEDUS Department of EducationEHAEducation for All Handicapped Children ActFAPEfree appropriate public educationHHSUS Department of Health and Human ServicesIDEAIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActIEPindividualized education programIESInstitute for Educational SciencesLEAlocal education agencyLREleast restrictive environmentMTSSmulti-tiered system of supportsNCDNational Council on DisabilityOCROffice for Civil RightsOSEPOffice of Special Education ProgramsOSERSOffice of Special Education and Rehabilitative ServicesPALpeer-assisted learningPBISpositive behavior interventions and supportsRJrestorative justiceRPrestorative practicesRTIresponse to interventionUDLuniversal design for learningThe Segregation of Students with Disabilities11
Just as the law does not define specialeducation as a place, but rather theconfiguration of services and supports asdefined in a student’s IEP, inclusion is nota place, but rather a systemic approachto uniquely addressing student learningand social engagement within the sameinstructional frameworks and settingsdesigned for the whole school community.12National Council on Disability
IntroductionEducation is universally accepted as atheir unique needs and prepare them for furtherhuman right and the means to transformeducation, employment, and independent living.lives, especially for children who areWhen EHA was amended as the Individualsmarginalized by mainstream society. Educationwith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997is critical for closing the opportunity gap forand 2004, each amendment required states thatdisenfranchised children, particularly childrenaccepted IDEA funding to ensure that all studentsliving in poverty or remote areas with limitedwith disabilities receive a free and appropriateresources, children with disabilities, and childrenpublic education, and that they do so in the leastfrom diverse cultures and racial backgrounds.1restrictive environment (LRE).4 To ensure theseChildren and youth with disabilities andstandards are met, the U.S. Department oftheir parents have long fought for equal accessEducation (ED) obliges each state to submit anto education. As late as the 1960s, it wasannual performance report (APR) that details thestandard for students with disabilities to beextent to which their local education agenciescompletely excluded from the public education(LEAs) comply with federal requirementssystem. In the 1960s and 1970s, parents beganand demonstrate results for children withsuccessfully asserting that their children coulddisabilities, including placement, academic,learn and demanded that their children’s right toand behavioral data for all students and acrossan education be codified into law. As a result,various subgroups.5 Among the data collectedCongress sought “to end the long history ofis the extent to which preschool and school-agesegregation and exclusion of children withstudents with disabilities are educated alongsidedisabilities from the American public educationpeers without disabilities in “regular” (i.e.,system,”2 and made a promise that every eligiblegeneral education) classes versus the amount ofchild, regardless of the nature or severity of thetime they are taught in segregated settings andchild’s disability, could go to school and learngroups only for students with disabilities.alongside their peers. In 1975, the Education forIn addition to a legal base for educatingAll Handicapped Children Act (EHA)3 was passed,students with disabilities alongside peers withoutwhich opened school house doors and mandateddisabilities, researchers and practitioners havefree and appropriate public education for childrensought to identify the most effective practiceswith disabilities, and the provision of specialfor teaching students with disabilities andeducation and related services designed to meetdemonstrate their impact. Using scientificThe Segregation of Students with Disabilities13
an accurate and current picture of what isResearch Questions Addressedin Reportexperienced by educators, families, and children1. To what extent are students withexplored:disabilities participating in, and beingremoved from, general educationopportunities with peers withoutdisabilities?2. What is the Federal Government’sresponse to states that are segregatingstudents with disabilities?3. What are the evidence-based practicesthat schools, districts, and states shouldwith disabilities. As part of the research, thefollowing global research questions were1. To what extent are students with disabilitiesparticipating in, and being removed from,general education opportunities with peerswithout disabilities?2. What is the Federal Government responseto states that are segregating students withdisabilities?3. What are the evidence-based practicesimplement to include students withthat schools, districts, and states shoulddisabilities in general education andimplement to include students withminimize unnecessary removal?disabilities in general education andminimize unnecessary removal?methods as well as documenting practices,a body of literature points to instructionalTo address these questions, the National Councilmethodology that is most effective in teachingon Disability (NCD) research team conductedstudents with a variety of educational needs.a mixed-methods study gathering stakeholderWith an interest in promoting effective strategies,perspectives, as well as policy and quantitativeED funds demonstration projects, research,information. With this information, we describetechnical assistance centers, personnelexperiences for these populations of students,preparation projects, and parent centers toidentify any potential gaps in services, policy, andpromote the most successful and equitableresearch, and make recommendations particularlypractices.as they relate to the placement and participationThis report describes the legal and scientificbasis for an inclusive versus segregated14Research Methodsof students with disabilities in general education.education, summarizes national patterns forQualitative Analysiseducating students with disabilities in generalTo gather stakeholder perspectives, the NCDeducation classes, examines federal and stateresearch team conducted interviews, and heldguidance and state compliance with federalfour regional forums and one national forum.mandates, and describes effective educationalSpecifically, we conducted semistructuredpractices for reducing segregation. Inputinterviews with state and local educators,from stakeholders was collected to provideparents, students or adults with disabilities,National Council on Disability
attorneys, and educational advocates toIn all settings, NCD used a semistructureddetermine current challenges to the placementquestion protocol to gain perspectives aboutand participation of students with disabilities inparent and child experiences with IDEA. Datageneral education.were recorded and transcribed to identify themesIn the second phase of research, we gatheredperspectives from parents and students throughfour regional forums in California, Illinois, Texas,among the experiences (see Appendix forprotocols).the Council of Parent Attorneys and AdvocatesPolicy Analysis and LiteratureReview(COPAA)’s member network, local parentFederal law is interpreted by federal agencies innetworks, and state and national partners in theregulations, policy letters, and other guidanceforum locations. In total, 72 people participateddocuments. In addition, ED issues individualin the regional forums. Thirty percent of regionalletters to states regarding their complianceforum participants were COPAA members andand the results for children with disabilities,70 percent were non-COPAA members. Of theand compiles these outcomes into a publicly72 participants in the regional forum, 38 percentavailable report.7 The analysis of IDEA statewere parents or students of color.regulations and compliance, and a sampleand Virginia. NCD recruited participants throughForum input was supplemented with individualof state determinations were reviewed andinterviews with seven individuals from Maryland,viewed with respect to their placement data andTexas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Floridatrends over time. In addition, publicly availableabout their experiences with student placementstatues, policies, and guidance from a samplepractices and the factors that influence theof states were reviewed with respect to thesegregation and inclusion of students withkind of direction offered to local school districts,disabilities. Of these respondents, three wereparticularly as it relates to the placement andparents (two of whom actively advocated for theirparticipation of students with disabilities inown as well as other children with disabilities), onegeneral education.was a recent high school graduate with a disability,two were educators for more than 20 years. ALiterature, Case Law, and LegislativeReviewstructured questionnaire was used to ask eachLitigation and legislation related to placementinterviewee similar questions, and gave them therequirements and interpretation of the lawopportunity to expand based on their experiencewere reviewed and summarized, as well asand knowledge of the educational system.peer-reviewed research and descriptionsResponses were recorded verbatim in writing.of policies and practices affecting theone was a lawyer and educational advocate, andThe third phase of data collection was aneducation of students as published in aonline forum at COPAA’s national conference. Invariety of professional journals. Articlestotal, 58 people participated in the forum. Twenty-related to methods, influences, and impact ofthree percent were people of color. An additionalinclusive versus segregated placements are23 people responded through an email address.6summarized.The Segregation of Students with Disabilities15
Quantitative Datanetworks, and state and national partners inNational Data Reviewthe forum locations, and purposefully selectedIn addition to annual Reports to Congress, theU.S. Department of Education Office of SpecialEducation Programs (OSEP) regularly providesdata on students with disabilities through adata website.8 The most recent placement dataavailable, quantified by amount of time in andremoved from general education, was reviewedfor all states for the 2015–2016 school year.Further analysis of placement by disability labeland by race was reviewed and compared to datafrom the 2005–2006 school year. We providenarrative descriptions on placement patternsin the report, and the actual data is provided intables in the Appendix.LimitationsIn this study, NCD recruited participantsthrough COPAA’s member network, local parent16National Council on Disabilityinterview participants based on locationand position. Therefore, the qualitative dataidentified in the report should not be viewedas generalizable, but rather as perspectivesof individuals within those positions. Thequalitative data offers individual first-personperspectives to complement the quantitativeaspects of this report. The national dataregarding student placement is based onthe interpretation of “removal” from generaleducation settings by individual members ofschool teams, and might not accurately reflectthe intent of the Federal Government in itsefforts to determine if students are participatingin general education. It is, however, the onlyquantifiable measure that exists related toteaching students with disabilities acrossvarious setting configurations.
Chapter 1: Legal Foundation for InclusionEarly Litigation and LegislationIn 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v.Board of Education that separate schoolingfor African American children was not angroundwork to establish the right of studentswith disabilities to access a public education.The Right to a Public Educationequal education because separate educationalIn the wake of PARC and Mills, Section 504(a)facilities were inherently unequal. Ten yearsof the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was passed,later, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964and established that “[n]o otherwise qualifiedwas passed, holding that “[n]o person in theindividual with a disability in the UnitedUnited States shall, on the ground of race, color,States, . . . shall, solely by reason of her or hisor national origin, be excluded from participationdisability, be excluded from the participationin, be denied the benefits of, or be subjectedin, be denied the benefits of, or be subjectedto discrimination under any program or activityto discrimination under any program or activity9receiving Federalfinancial assistance.”receiving Federal10In both PARC and Mills, the judgesOn the heels of thesefinancial assistance orunder any program ordevelopments, advocatesagreed that local laws that excludedand parents of childrenchildren with disabilities from publicany Executive agencywith disabilities fought forschools were a violation of theor by the United Statesthe same kind of equalConstitution . . .Postal Service.”13 Inaccess to education. Theyactivity conducted by1975, Congress passednot only sought the right to attend school, butEHA, which would later be reauthorized asalso the right to participate in and benefit fromIDEA,15 mandating a free public education for alla quality education. Two landmark cases werechildren with disabil
Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist Lisa Grubb, Director of Operations and Administration Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
Idea 22 Idea 3 Idea 14 Idea 7 Idea 25 Idea 9 Idea 11 Idea 3 Idea 31 Idea 8 Idea 12 Idea 27 Idea 17 Idea 32 Idea 5 Idea 6 My Ideas Browse Following How it Works Log In/Sign Up New Visitor / Landing Page Validate and get insightful feedback on your business idea. Help other entrepreneurs with their business ideas. How it works Browse Sign Up .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
