document_title: Kiwifruit

question_text: what was named first the kiwi bird or fruit

text: Kiwifruit

text: Etymology[edit]

text: Early varieties were described in a 1904 nurseryman's catalogue as having "...edible fruits the size of walnuts, and the flavour of ripe gooseberries",[5] and Europeans called it Chinese gooseberry.[1] In 1962, New Zealand growers began calling it "kiwifruit" for export marketing, a name becoming commercially adopted in 1974.[1] The word kiwifruit and the shortened kiwi, have been used since around 1966, when the fruit was first imported from New Zealand to the United States.[6][7] Kiwifruit has since become a common name for all commercially grown fruit from the genus Actinidia.[1][8] In New Zealand, the shortened word, "kiwi", is seldom used to refer to the fruit, as it usually refers to the kiwi bird or the Kiwi people.[6][7]

text: History[edit]

text:
Kiwifruit

"Kiwifruit" in Traditional (top) and Simplified (bottom) Chinese characters

Traditional Chinese
獼猴桃

Simplified Chinese
猕猴桃

Literal meaning
"macaque peach"

[show]Transcriptions

Standard Mandarin

Hanyu Pinyin
míhóutáo

IPA
[mǐ.xǒu.tʰǎu]

Yue: Cantonese

Jyutping
mei4-hau4-tou4

text: Kiwifruit is native to north-central and eastern China.[1] The first recorded description of the kiwifruit dates back to the 12th century China during the Song dynasty.[9] Cultivation of the fuzzy kiwifruit spread from China in the early 20th century to New Zealand, where the first commercial plantings occurred.[1] Although kiwifruit is a national fruit of China, until recently, China was not a major producing country of kiwifruit, as it was traditionally collected from the wild.[10] The fruit became popular with American servicemen stationed in New Zealand during World War II and later exported to California using the names "Chinese gooseberry" and "melonette".[1][7] In 1962, New Zealand growers began calling it "kiwifruit" to give it more market appeal, and a California-based importer named Frieda Caplan subsequently used that name when introducing the fruit to the American market.[1][9]

text: In Italy, kiwifruit cultivation began in 1970, growing to rank second in production behind China in 2014.[11]

text: Cultivars[edit]

text: The genus Actinidia contains around 60 species. Though most kiwifruit are easily recognized as kiwifruit (due to basic shape) their fruit is quite variable. The skin of the fruit varies in size, shape, hairiness, and color. The flesh varies in color, juiciness, texture, and taste. Some fruits are unpalatable while others taste considerably better than the majority of the commercial varieties.[1][14]

text: The most common kiwifruit is the fuzzy kiwifruit, from the species A. deliciosa. Other species that are commonly eaten include golden kiwifruit (A. chinensis), Chinese egg gooseberry (A. coriacea), hardy kiwifruit (A. arguta), Arctic kiwifruit (A. kolomikta), purple kiwifruit (A. melanandra), silver vine (A. polygama), hearty red kiwifruit (A. purpurea).[14]

text: Fuzzy kiwifruit[edit]

text: Almost all kiwifruit sold belong to a few cultivars of fuzzy kiwi (Actinidia deliciosa): 'Hayward', 'Blake', and 'Saanichton 12'.[2] They have a fuzzy, dull-brown skin, and bright-green flesh. The familiar cultivar 'Hayward' was developed by Hayward Wright in Avondale, New Zealand, around 1924.[14] It was initially grown in domestic gardens, but commercial planting began in the 1940s.

text: 'Hayward' is the most commonly available cultivar in stores. It is a large, egg-shaped fruit with a sweet flavor. 'Saanichton 12', from British Columbia, is somewhat more rectangular than 'Hayward' and comparably sweet, but the inner core of the fruit can be tough. 'Blake' can self-pollinate, but it has a smaller, more oval fruit and the flavor is considered inferior.[2][14]

text: Kiwi berries[edit]

text: Kiwi berries are edible berry- or grape-sized fruits similar to the fuzzy kiwifruit in taste and appearance, but with thin, smooth green skin. They are primarily produced by three species of kiwifruit; hardy kiwi (Actinidia arguta), Arctic beauty (A. kolomikta), and silver vine (A. polygama). They are fast-growing, climbing vines, durable over their growing season. They are referred to as kiwi berry, baby kiwi, dessert kiwi, grape kiwi, or cocktail kiwi.[15]

text: The cultivar 'Issai' is a hybrid of hardy kiwi and silver vine which can self-pollinate. Grown commercially because of its relatively large fruit, Issai is less hardy than most hardy kiwi.[16][17]

text: Golden kiwifruit[edit]

text: The golden kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis) has a smooth, bronze skin, with a beak shape at the stem attachment. Flesh color varies from bright green to a clear, intense yellow. This species is sweeter and more aromatic in flavor; the flavor is reminiscent of some subtropical fruit. Its short storage life currently limits its commercial potential.[citation needed] One of the most attractive varieties has a red 'iris' around the center of the fruit and yellow flesh outside. The yellow fruit fetches a higher market price and, being less hairy than the fuzzy kiwifruit, is more palatable for consumption without peeling.[14]

text: A commercially viable[18] variety of this red-ringed kiwifruit, patented as the EnzaRed™, is a cultivar of the Chinese hong yang variety.[12][13]

text: Hort16A is a golden kiwifruit marketed worldwide in decreasing volumes because this variety suffered significant losses in New Zealand from late 2010 to 2013 due to the PSA bacterium.[19] A new variety of golden kiwifruit, 'Gold3', has been found to be more disease-resistant and most growers have now grafted over to this variety.[20] The Gold3 variety, marketed by Zespri as 'SunGold', is not quite as sweet as the previous Hort16A, with a hint of tanginess,[21] and lacks the Hort16A's usually slightly pointy tip.

text: Cultivation[edit]

text: Kiwifruit can be grown in most temperate climates with adequate summer heat. Where fuzzy kiwifruit (A. deliciosa) is not hardy, other species can be grown as substitutes.

text: Breeding[edit]

text: Often in commercial farming, different breeds are used for rootstock, fruit bearing plants, and pollinators.[1] Therefore, the seeds produced are crossbreeds of their parents. Even if the same breeds are used for pollinators and fruit bearing plants, there is no guarantee that the fruit will have the same quality as the parent. Additionally, seedlings take seven years before they flower, so determining whether the kiwi is fruit bearing or a pollinator is time consuming.[22] Therefore, most kiwifruits, with the exception of rootstock and new cultivars, are propagated asexually.[22] This is done by grafting the fruit producing plant onto rootstock grown from seedlings or, if the plant is desired to be a true cultivar, rootstock grown from cuttings of a mature plant.[22]

text: Pollination[edit]

text: Most of the plants require a male plant to pollinate a female plant for the female plant to produce fruit (dioecious). For a good yield of fruit, one male vine for every three to eight female vines is required.[1] Other varieties can self pollinate, but they produce a greater and more reliable yield when pollinated by male kiwifruit vines.[1]

text: Kiwifruit is notoriously difficult to pollinate, because the flowers are not very attractive to bees. Some producers blow collected pollen over the female flowers. Generally, the most successful approach, though, is saturation pollination, where the bee populations are made so large (by placing hives in the orchards at a concentration of about 8 hives per hectare) that bees are forced to use this flower because of intense competition for all flowers within flight distance.[1] This is also increased by using varieties specifically developed for pollination.[1]

text: Maturation and harvest[edit]

text: Kiwifruit is picked by hand, and commercially grown on sturdy support structures, as it can produce several tonnes per hectare, more than the rather weak vines can support. These are generally equipped with a watering system for irrigation and frost protection in the spring.

text: Kiwifruit vines require vigorous pruning, similar to that of grapevines. Fruit is borne on one-year-old and older canes, but production declines as each cane ages. Canes should be pruned off and replaced after their third year. In the northern hemisphere the fruit ripens in November, while in the southern it ripens in May. Four year-old plants can produce up to 14,000 lbs per acre while Eight year-old plants can produce 18,000 lbs per acre. The plants produce their maximum at 8 to 10 years old. The seasonal yields are variable, a heavy crop on a vine one season generally comes with a light crop the following season.[1]

text: Storage[edit]

text: Fruits harvested when firm will ripen when stored properly for long periods. This allows fruit to be sent to market up to 8 weeks after harvest.[1]

text: Firm kiwifruit ripen after a few days to a week when stored at room temperature, but should not be kept in direct sunlight. Faster ripening occurs when placed in a paper bag with an apple, pear, or banana.[23] Once a kiwifruit is ripe, however, it is preserved optimally when stored far from other fruits, as it is very sensitive to the ethylene gas they may emit, thereby tending to over-ripen even in the refrigerator.[23] If stored appropriately, ripe kiwifruit normally keep for about one to two weeks.[23]

text: Pests and diseases[edit]

text: Pseudomonas syringae actinidiae (PSA) was first identified in Japan in the 1980s. This bacterial strain has been controlled and managed successfully in orchards in Asia. In 1992, it was found in northern Italy. In 2007/2008, economic losses were observed, as a more virulent strain became more dominant (PSA V).[24][25][26] In 2010 it was found in New Zealand's Bay of Plenty kiwifruit orchards in the North Island.[27]

text: Scientists reported they had worked out the strain of PSA affecting kiwifruit from New Zealand, Italy, and Chile originated in China.[28]

text: Production[edit]

text:
Top kiwifruit-producing countries in 2016
(in metric tons)

Rank
Country
Production
(Tonnes)

1
 China
2,390,287

2
 Italy
523,595

3
 New Zealand
434,048

4
 Iran
294,413

5
 Chile
225,797

6
 Greece
182,589

7
 France
65,036

8
 Turkey
43,950

9
 United States
28,300

10
 Japan
25,600

World
4,274,840

Source: UN Food & Agriculture Organization[29]

text: China is the largest producer of kiwifruit, growing almost five times as much as second-placed Italy in 2016. Other major producers include New Zealand, Chile and Greece.

text: Kiwifruit exports rapidly increased from the late 1960s to early 1970s in New Zealand. By 1976, exports exceeded the amount consumed domestically.[30] Outside of Australasia, all New Zealand kiwifruits are now marketed under the brand-name label Zespri.[31]

text: In the 1980s, countries outside New Zealand began to export kiwifruit.[32] In Italy, the infrastructure and techniques required to support grape production were adapted to the kiwifruit. This, coupled with being very close to the European kiwifruit market, led to Italians becoming the leading producer of kiwifruit in the early 2000s. The growing season of Italian kiwifruit does not overlap much with the New Zealand or the Chilean growing seasons, therefore direct competition between New Zealand or Chile was not much of a factor.[33]

text: Although kiwifruit is a national fruit of China, until recently, China was not a major producing country of kiwifruit until lately, as it was traditionally collected from the wild.[10] In China, it is grown mainly in the mountainous area upstream of the Yangtze River, as well as Sichuan.[34]

text: Human consumption[edit]

text:
Kiwifruit, Zespri SunGold, raw

Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)

Energy
262 kJ (63 kcal)

Carbohydrates

15.8 g

Sugars
12.3 g

Dietary fiber
1.4 g

Fat

0.28 g

Protein

1.02 g

Vitamins

Vitamin A equiv.
lutein zeaxanthin

24 μg

Thiamine (B1)

(0%)
0 mg

Riboflavin (B2)

(6%)
0.074 mg

Niacin (B3)

(2%)
0.231 mg

Pantothenic acid (B5)

(2%)
0.12 mg

Vitamin B6

(6%)
0.079 mg

Folate (B9)

(8%)
31 μg

Vitamin B12

(3%)
0.08 μg

Choline

(0%)
1.9 mg

Vitamin C

(194%)
161.3 mg

Vitamin E

(9%)
1.4 mg

Vitamin K

(6%)
6.1 μg

Minerals

Calcium

(2%)
17 mg

Copper

(8%)
0.151 mg

Iron

(2%)
0.21 mg

Magnesium

(3%)
12 mg

Manganese

(2%)
0.048 mg

Phosphorus

(4%)
25 mg

Potassium

(7%)
315 mg

Selenium

(1%)
0.4 μg

Sodium

(0%)
3 mg

Zinc

(1%)
0.08 mg

Other constituents

Water
82 g

link to USDA Database entry

Units
μg = micrograms • mg = milligrams
IU = International units

Percentages are roughly approximated using US recommendations for adults.
Source: USDA Nutrient Database

text:
Kiwifruit, green, raw

Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)

Energy
255 kJ (61 kcal)

Carbohydrates

14.66 g

Sugars
8.99 g

Dietary fiber
3 g

Fat

0.52 g

Protein

1.14 g

Vitamins

Vitamin A equiv.
lutein zeaxanthin

122 μg

Thiamine (B1)

(2%)
0.027 mg

Riboflavin (B2)

(2%)
0.025 mg

Niacin (B3)

(2%)
0.341 mg

Pantothenic acid (B5)

(4%)
0.183 mg

Vitamin B6

(5%)
0.063 mg

Folate (B9)

(6%)
25 μg

Vitamin B12

(0%)
0 μg

Choline

(2%)
7.8 mg

Vitamin C

(112%)
92.7 mg

Vitamin E

(10%)
1.46 mg

Vitamin K

(38%)
40.3 μg

Minerals

Calcium

(3%)
34 mg

Copper

(7%)
0.13 mg

Iron

(2%)
0.31 mg

Magnesium

(5%)
17 mg

Manganese

(5%)
0.098 mg

Phosphorus

(5%)
34 mg

Potassium

(7%)
312 mg

Selenium

(0%)
0.2 μg

Sodium

(0%)
3 mg

Zinc

(1%)
0.14 mg

Other constituents

Water
83 g

Link to USDA Database entry

Units
μg = micrograms • mg = milligrams
IU = International units

Percentages are roughly approximated using US recommendations for adults.
Source: USDA Nutrient Database

text: Kiwifruit may be eaten raw, made into juices, used in baked goods, prepared with meat or used as a garnish.[1] The whole fruit, including the skin, is suitable for human consumption; however, the skin is often discarded due to its texture.[citation needed] Sliced kiwifruit has long been used as a garnish atop whipped cream on pavlova, a meringue-based dessert. Traditionally in China, kiwifruit was not eaten for pleasure, but was given as medicine to children to help them grow and to women who have given birth to help them recover.[1]

text: Raw kiwifruit contains actinidain (also spelled actinidin) which is commercially useful as a meat tenderizer[35] and possibly as a digestive aid.[36] Actinidain also makes raw kiwifruit unsuitable for use in desserts containing milk or any other dairy products because the enzyme digests milk proteins. This applies to gelatin-based desserts, as well, as the actinidain will dissolve the proteins in gelatin, either liquefying the dessert or preventing it from solidifying.

text: Nutrition[edit]

text: In a 100-gram amount, green kiwifruit provides 61 calories, is 83% water and 15% carbohydrates, with negligible protein and fat (table). It is particularly rich (20% or more of the Daily Value, DV) in vitamin C (112% DV) and vitamin K (38% DV), has a moderate content of vitamin E (10% DV), with no other micronutrients in significant content. Gold kiwifruit has similar nutritional value, although only vitamin C has high content in a 100 gram amount (194% DV, table).

text: Kiwifruit seed oil contains on average 62% alpha-linolenic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid.[37] Kiwifruit pulp contains carotenoids, such as provitamin A beta-carotene,[38] lutein, and zeaxanthin.[39]

text: Allergies[edit]

text: The actinidain found in kiwifruit can be an allergen for some individuals, including children.[40][41][42] The most common symptoms are unpleasant itching and soreness of the mouth, with wheezing as the most common severe symptom; anaphylaxis may occur.[40][41]


document_title: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

question_text: when was the elementary and secondary education act created

root

text: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

text: Historical context[edit]

text: On January 25, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson Congressional to improve education opportunities for America's children. Wary of popular fears regarding increased federal involvement in local schools, the Johnson administration advocated giving local districts great leeway to use the new funds, which were to be first distributed as grants to each state. Shortly thereafter, Carl D. Perkins (D-KY), the chair of the General Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor introduced H.R. 2362. With the Johnson administration's support, and after significant wrangling over the structure of the bill's funding formula committee, the full committee voted 23–8 to report it on March 2, 1965. Following a failed attempt to derail the bill by Representative Howard K. Smith (D-VA), the House passed H.R. 2362 on March 26, 1965 in a 263–153 roll-call vote.[4]

tag: p

text: As the Senate prepared to consider the education bill, S. 370, Democratic leaders urged their colleagues to pass it without amendment, so as to avoid throwing it back to the House for reconsideration. S. 370 was assigned to the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, which subsequently reported the bill to the Senate floor with unanimous support. During the Senate debates, several amendments were introduced, though none passed. The Senate passed the bill in a 73–18 vote on April 7, 1965.[4]

text: President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law two days later on April 9, 1965.[4]

text: Sections of the original 1965 Act[edit]

text:
Title I – Financial Assistance To Local Educational Agencies For The Education Of Children Of Low-Income Families
Title II – School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials
Title III – Supplementary Educational Centers and Services
Title IV – Educational Research And Training
Title V – Grants To Strengthen State Departments Of Education
Title VI – General Provisions

tag: ul

text: New Titles Created by Early Amendments to 1965 Law

text: Title VI – Aid to Handicapped Children (1965 title VI becomes Title VII)[5]

text: Title VII – Bilingual Education Programs (1966 title VII becomes Title VIII)

text: Title I[edit]

text: It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article titled Title I (education). (Discuss) (April 2018)

tag: table

text: Overview[edit]

text: Title I ("Title One"), a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965, is a program created by the U.S. Department of Education to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families. Funding is distributed first to state educational agencies (SEAs) which then allocate funds to local educational agencies (LEA's) which in turn dispense funds to public schools in need.[6] Title I also helps children from families that have migrated to the United States and youth from intervention programs who are neglected or at risk of abuse. The act appropriates money for educational purposes for the next five fiscal years until it is reauthorized.[7] In addition, Title I appropriates money to the education system for prevention of dropouts and the improvement of schools; these appropriations are carried out for five fiscal years until reauthorization.[7][8]

text: According to the National Center for Education Statistics, to be an eligible Title I school, at least 40% of a school's students must be from low-income families who qualify under the United States Census's definition of low-income, according to the U.S. Department of Education.[6][9]

text: Title I mandates services both to eligible public school students and eligible private school students.[6] This is outlined in section 1120 of Title I, Part A of the ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Title I states that it gives priority to schools that are in obvious need of funds, low-achieving schools, and schools that demonstrate a commitment to improving their education standards and test scores.

text: There are two types of assistance that can be provided by Title I funds.[6] The first is a “schoolwide program” in which schools can dispense resources in a flexible manner.[10] The second is a “targeted assistance program” which allows schools to identify students who are failing or at risk of failing.[6]

text: Assistance for school improvement includes government grants, allocations, and reallocations based on the school's willingness to commit to improving their standing in the educational system. Each educational institution requesting these grants must submit an application that describes how these funds will be used in restructuring their school for academic improvement.[8]

text: Schools receiving Title I funding are regulated by federal legislation. Most recently, this legislation includes the No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed in 2001.[6] In the 2006–2007 school year, Title I provided assistance to over 17 million students who range from kindergarten through twelfth grade.[6] The majority of the funds (60%) were given to students between kindergarten through fifth grade.[6] The next highest group that received funding were students in sixth through eighth grade (21%).[6] Finally, 16% of the funds went to students in high school with 3% provided to students in preschool.[6]

text: Historical context[edit]

text: In its original conception, Title I under the ESEA, was designed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to close the skill gap in reading, writing and mathematics between children from low-income households who attend urban or rural school systems and children from the middle-class who attend suburban school systems.[10] This federal law came about during President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” agenda.[7] Numerous studies have been conducted since the original authorization of the ESEA in 1965 that have shown that there is an inverse relationship between student achievement and school poverty.[7] Specifically, student achievement has been found to decrease as school poverty increases.[7] According to the United States Department of Education (USDOE), students from low-income households are “three times as likely to be low achievers if they attend high-poverty schools as compared to low-poverty schools.”[11] Within this context, Title I was conceived in order to compensate for the considerable educational deprivations associated with child poverty.[7]

text: Changes over time[edit]

text: First 15 years[edit]

text: In the years since 1965, Title I has changed considerably.[12] For the first 15 years, the program was reauthorized every three years with additional emphasis placed on how funds were to be allocated.[12] In the course of these reauthorizations, strict federal rules and regulations were created for the guarantee that funds would be allocated solely to students in need – specifically students eligible for services based on socioeconomic status and academic achievement.[12]

text: Regulations also included added attention to uniformity in regards to how resources were distributed to Title I and non-Title he schools and the role of parents in the revisions of the program.[12] In addition to more stringent rules, during these years, policy makers outlined punitive actions that could be taken for those who were out of compliance.[12] Attention was also placed upon the assurance that Title I funds would not serve as replacements for local funds; but rather they would serve as ancillary resources.[12] These federal regulations, which were focused on financial resources, influenced local Title I programs in many ways.[12] Pull-out programs were adopted by Title I schools in order to comply with the financial stipulations that were made in the initial reauthorizations.[12] These programs separated eligible students from ineligible ones to ensure that those who were in-need would benefit from the program.[12] By 1978, in response to the extensive criticism of pull-outs on the grounds that they were asynchronous with the instruction occurring in Template:Classrooms, another option for providing assistance to students was introduced, the school wide approach.[12] Schools with a student body in which the make-up had 100% or more low-income students could use Title I funds for the entire school’s improvement rather than for specific individuals.[12] Despite this amendment, local fund requirements prevented all eligible students from using the school wide approach.

text: The 1980s[edit]

text: During the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations of Title I.[13] This reflected the administration’s stance that resource control should be in the hands of states and local jurisdictions rather than at a federal level.[13] Despite the change outlined by the ECIA and the new designation of Title I as Chapter I, little was done to implement it and traditional Title I practices, like the use of pull-outs, continued.[12]

text: As the financial regulations became incorporated into practice, the conversation shifted around Title I to student achievement.[12] In 1988, the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act, re-focused Title I on cultivating school improvement and excellent programs.[12] The additions that were made through this legislation called for synchrony between Chapter I and classroom instruction, it raised the achievement standard for low-income students by emphasizing advanced skills instead of basic ones and increased parental involvement.[12] It also had two new provisions: program improvement and school wide projects.[14] Program improvements were modifications that would occur when students who received funding were not improving.[14] The school wide projects altered the requirement that local funds had to match school wide program funding by Title I, allowing a larger number of high need schools to implement school wide programming.[12][14]

text: From the 1990s to the present[edit]

text: A 1993 National Assessment noted shortcomings of the 1980s alterations to Title I.[12] These catalyzed the introduction of the 1994 Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), which significantly revised the original ESEA.

text: This was the last major alteration prior to those made by No Child Left Behind. The IASA attempted to coordinate federal resources and policies with the pre-exisiting efforts at the state and local levels in order to improve instruction for all students. This reform made three major changes to Title I.[12] It added math and reading/language arts standards to be used to assess student progress and provide accountability.[12] It reduced the threshold for schools to implement school-wide programs from 75% poverty to 50% and gave schools a longer reign to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school wide level.[12] Lastly, the IASA gave more local control overall so that federal officials and states could waive federal requirements that interfered with school improvements.[12]

text: The most recent and significant alteration to the original Title I was made by its reauthorization under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).[15] In this reauthorization, NCLB required increased accountability from its schools both from the teachers and from the students.[15] Yearly standardized tests were mandated in order to measure how schools were performing against the achievement bars set by Title I.[15] Schools were also responsible for publishing annual report cards that detailed their student achievement data and demographics.[15] Schools were now held accountable not only by punitive measures that would be taken if schools fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), but also corrective actions were taken if states did not have an assessment system approved by Title I.[15] Under NCLB, Schools are also required to plan for “restructuring” if they fail to make AYP for three years after being identified for improvement.[15] More schools took corrective action under NCLB than under IASA.[15] NCLB also required teachers to be highly qualified if hired using Title I funding.[15]

text: Modern applications of the Title I money have been diverse. Recent uses include wide-scale purchasing of iPads and other Internet using devices as electronic textbooks for students in 1:1 initiatives. Along with this, students from low-income families often do not have adequate Internet access from home. Thus, various public money, including Title I funds, are being investigated for possible use to provide cellular Internet access for students to receive remediation or other instructional content from home. The purpose of 24/7 internet access from home is to close the gap between higher income families where remediation resources are generally more available through parents and additional services and low-income students where such resources are scarce. Educational Technology advocates have long cited 24/7 Internet access as a boon to the education and advancement of at-risk children.

text: Funding[edit]

text: Under NCLB, Title I funding is given to schools where at least 35% of the children in the school attendance area come from low-income families or to schools where 35% of the student population is low-income.[16] To determine the percentage of low-income families, school districts may select a poverty measure from among the following data sources: (1) the number of children ages 5–17 in poverty counted in the most recent census; (2) the number of children eligible for free and reduced price lunches under the National School Lunch Program; (3) the number of children in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; (4) the number of children eligible to receive Medicaid assistance; or (5) a composite of these data sources. The district must use the same measure to rank all its school attendance areas. The funds are appropriated for the use of improving academic achievement for students in low-income households.[16]

text: Title I funding is received by more than 50% of all public schools.[16] NCLB also requires that for funding to be received, all districts and schools must meet adequate yearly progress goals for their student populations and specific demographic subgroups.[16] Non-Title I schools are schools that do not receive federal Title I funds.[16] Although school districts have some freedom in how Title I funding is distributed among schools within a district, Title I requires them to prioritize the highest-poverty schools.[16]

text: There are 4 distribution formulas under NCLB for Title I funding: Basic Grant, Concentration Grant, Targeted Assistance Grant, and the Education Finance Incentive Grant.[17] The Federal Education Budget Project details the requirements for each formula extensively.[17]

text: Basic Grant[edit]

text: The Basic Grant formula provides funding to school districts based on the number of poor children they serve.[17] To receive money through this grant, the school district must meet the requirement of having at least 10 poor children and 2% of its students in poverty.[17]

text: Concentration Grant[edit]

text: The Concentration Grant formula is similar to the basic grant formula because it gives funding to schools based on the number of poor children they serve.[17] To receive money through this grant, school districts must meet the requirement of having at least 15% of children in poverty or a total of 6,500 poor children.[17]

text: Targeted Assistance Grant[edit]

text: The Targeted Assistance Grant formula allocates more money for each child as the poverty rate in a district increases.[17] This means that school districts with more poverty get more money for each poor child than districts with low poverty.[17]

text: Education Finance Incentive Grant[edit]

text: The Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula has a two-pronged approach.[17] It is meant to reward schools that expend more state resources on public education and distribute funding in an equitable manner.[17] It is also meant to concentrate funds in districts with high poverty that inequitably distributes state and local education funding.[17] In states, funding is allocated to school districts in a way similar to the Targeted Assistance Grant formula but the weight of schools in districts with high poverty that inequitably distribute funding is doubled.[17]

text: Since 2001, Federal Title I funding has increased by 88%. In dollars, this has been a $7.7 billion increase.[17] These funds were distributed through the Targeted Assistance and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas, which target funds to disadvantaged students most directly.[17]

text: Title III[edit]

text: Title III of ESEA originally provided matching grants for supplementary education centers (Political Education, Cross 2004).

text: Title III was the innovations component of ESEA. It was, for its time, the greatest federal investment in education innovation ever.[18] Its best innovations, after validation, became part of the National Diffusion Network.

text: Title V[edit]

text: This section of the original ESEA provided for strengthening state departments of education (Political Education, Cross 2004). The original Title V was amended to state the purposes of education reform efforts between local and state educational systems. Title V states that the government should endorse and support local education reforms that parallel reforms occurring at the state level. Parts of this section also state that the government should support innovative programs that help to improve an educational system. This includes support programs for libraries, scientific research leading to state and local educational agencies to put promising reforms into place, as well as for programs to improve teacher performance.[8]

text: Title V also provides government grants given to educational institutions appropriating money to gifted programs for students, foreign language developers, as well as physical education, the arts, and overall mental health care of children and students.[8]

text: Title VII[edit]

text: Added during the 1967 reauthorization of ESEA, Title VII introduced a program for bilingual education. It was championed by Texas Democrat Ralph Yarborough (Political Education, Cross 2004). It was originally created to aid Spanish-speaking students. However, in 1968 it transformed to the all-encompassing Bilingual Education Act (BEA). In its original form, the BEA was not explicit in mandating that all school districts provide bilingual education services—it left much room for interpretation by districts. The ruling in Lau v. Nichols provided some clarity—specific program goals were established, support centers for bilingual education were created, and what a “bilingual education program” should look like was defined. The courts upheld the language of the BEA as it declared a “bilingual education program” as one providing English instruction in unison with the native language. The idea was to push students to high academic achievement via a program encouraging them to learn English while maintaining the native language.[19] "It proposed to cultivate in this child his ancestral pride, to reinforce (not destroy) the language he natively speaks, to cultivate his inherent strengths, to give him the sense of personal idenfitication so essential to social maturation," summarizes Professor Cordasco of Montclair State College.[20]

text: In addition to programs for bilingual students, Title VII implemented plans to help Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaskan natives be provided opportunities for achieving academic equality.[8] In late 1967, Congress gave $7.5 million to school districts, scholars, and private research groups who proposed the best programs for improving bilingual education.[21] This section of the ESEA promotes the federal government working closely with local educational institutions to ensure that Indian, Hawaiian, and Alaskan students are being aided in getting the same educational experiences as all other students.[8] This is achieved through programs that keep cultural values intact and push students to strive for academic excellence.

text: It is worth noting that Title VII was replaced in the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and is now Title III “Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students.”

text: Effects on bilingual education[edit]

text: In 1980, President Jimmy Carter established the Department of Education which allowed for the Bilingual Education campaign to expand bilingual education programs.[22] In addition to Carter’s efforts, President Clinton also showed his support through the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. The act dramatically increased funding for bilingual and immigrant education.[23] In 1998, the Linguistic Society of America showed its support for the BEA arguing that bilingual education was a basic human right; it believed that children should be educated in order to maintain their native language and cultural identity while acquiring the English language.[24]

text: In 2001 Texas authorized and encouraged school districts to adopt dual language immersion programs for elementary-aged students. It stipulated that instruction in each language should be split 50–50 in class.[25] More recently “The Civil Rights Project, a research center founded at Harvard University and located at UCLA since 2007 is calling on policymakers to develop a new vision for bilingual education. Gándara and Hopkins gather compelling evidence that shows English-only policies in the states that adopted these restrictions aren’t working[26] The project proposes a new attitude that embraces bilingualism: “It is time that the U.S. join the rest of the developed world in viewing bilingualism as an asset, not a deficit,” argues Gary Orfield, co-director of the project.[27]

text: A 2014 bill, the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act, "cites reports from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and educational institutions 'that use primarily Native American languages to deliver education' and 'have indicated that students from these schools have generally had high school graduation and college attendance rates above the norm for their peers.'"[28]

text: The biggest obstacle to the BEA and expansion of bilingual education programs is the English-only Movement. There is no official language in the U.S., although some states have declared English as their official language. Three states in particular, California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, have declared English as their official language. In 1998, California passed Proposition 227 with the help of sponsor, Ron Unz, essentially ending bilingual education programs in exchange for an English immersion model which values assimilation over multiculturalism. In 2000, Arizona passed the English for Children initiative backed, again, by Ron Unz which mirrored California’s Proposition 227 in replacing bilingual education programs with English immersion ones.

text: Many Americans question whether bilingual education programs or English immersion models are the best route to helping students acquire English. The question of whether public education should encourage the development of the native tongue or completely leave that up to the parent is a difficult one. Some point out that California’s Proposition 227 is failing the students for simply failing to address both the linguistic and cultural struggles that students face; in 2004, the test results for California public school students showed the achievement gap for English learners widening and the test scores of English learners to be declining across grade levels.[29] Scholar Stephen Krashen maintains that these three states who have taken the harshest anti-bilingual education policies have seen progress that is modest, at best.[30] In a report to the United States Government, an Arizona study shows that English language learners can take up to 13 years to attain fluency—most school programs only offer 3 years of participation in English-immersion or bilingual programs, putting the effectiveness of these programs into question.[31] In order to ease the worries and qualms that people had in the programs' effectiveness, the Obama Administration has recently proposed the implementation of an evaluation system that it would require states to use in order to judge the progress seen in English language learners in schools. This would potentially restore faith in the bilingual programs and hold schools more accountable to student achievement and progress. The question remains if states are properly equipped across the board to meet such high expectations.[32]

text: Landmark court cases[edit]

text:
1972: Aspira of New York, Inc v. New York Board of Education

Court ruled in favor of Puerto Rican and other Hispanic students whose language and cultural needs weren’t being addressed. This triggered an increased development of bilingual programs in New York public schools.[22]

1973: Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1

Court ruled in favor of Keyes recognizing the right that Hispanic children had to go to desegregated schools and not be racially isolated. The ruling recognizes Latinos’ suffering from systemic educational inequities.[22]

1974: Lau v. Nichols

Court ruled in favor of Lau which guarantees students the right to a “meaningful education” regardless of language. This ruling ensures that districts will provide students with the same curriculum via initiatives such as bilingual programs and ESL classes. It also increased district accountability—schools with high numbers of English language learners must submit reports to the federal government to show they’re providing adequate support for these students.[33]

1974: Serna v. Portales

Court ruled in favor of Serna that Portales Municipal Schools must provide a bilingual curriculum to accommodate the non-English speaking students. Texas also commits to employ bilingual personnel in schools.[22]

1978: Rios v. Reed

Court ruled in favor of Rios that the Pastchogue-Medford School District’s bilingual program offered to students was essentially an English-only course. The ruling states that these students were denied an equal education since they weren’t instructed in Spanish extensively in elementary school.[22]

1981: Castañeda v. Pickard

Court ruled in favor of Castañeda that the school was racially segregating the Hispanic children in classes and not providing adequate bilingual programs to help them overcome English-language barriers. The decision established a clear evaluation system to hold bilingual programs accountable for providing equal educational opportunities (programs based on educational theory, implemented effectively, and proven to be successful in overcoming language barriers).

2009: Horne v. Flores

Court ruled in favor of Horne that the state should have the right to determine the requirements of its English Language Learner programs. This holds schools less accountable for producing fluent English-speakers.

text: Notable reauthorizations[edit]

text:
Clinton's Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Obama's Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015
House Bill 610 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/610


document_title: Canine reproduction

question_text: how many puppies can a dog give birth to

text: Canine reproduction

text: Canine sexual anatomy and development[edit]

text: General[edit]

text: In domestic dogs, sexual maturity (puberty) occurs between the ages of 6 to 12 months for both males and females, although this can be delayed until up to two years of age for some large breeds.[1] Pregnancy is possible as soon as the first estrus cycle, but breeding is not recommended prior to the second cycle.[2] As with other domesticated species, domestication has selectively bred for higher libido, and earlier and more frequent breeding cycles in dogs than in their ancestors.[3]

text: The reproductive cycle[edit]

text: Female cycle[edit]

text: The average length of the reproductive cycle for females is 2–4 weeks. Females reach sexual maturity (puberty) between 8 and 18 months of age. There is a tremendous variability in the maturation age between breeds, and even within a breed of dog.[4]

text: The first stage of the reproductive cycle is proestrus, in which eggs in the ovaries begin to mature and estrogen levels begin to rise. During this stage males are attracted to non-receptive females. Initially, the vulva lips will swell up and become pliable and there will be small amounts of bloody vaginal discharge along with signs of frequent urination and restlessness. Proestrus generally lasts 9 days.[4]

text: Estrus is the next stage, in which estrogen levels are high, mature eggs are released from ovaries, and the females mentally and physically become receptive to copulation. It is only during estrus that copulation will result in pregnancy.

text: During proestrus and estrus, females may have a clear to bloody discharge. This stage is also known as "heat." The length of these cycles varies greatly between individuals. Proestrus and estrus can last anywhere from 5 days to 21 days.[4]

text: Diestrus is the period following mating. Diestrus lasts approximately 56 to 58 days in a pregnant female, and 60 to 100 days in a non-pregnant female. During both of these periods, progesterone levels are high. Because the hormonal profile of a pregnant female and a female in diestrus are the same, sometimes a non-pregnant female will go through a period of pseudo-pregnancy. At that time she may gain weight, have mammary gland development, produce milk, and exhibit nesting behaviours.

text: Anestrus is the period of reproductive quiescence. The female has no attraction to or from the male. Anestrus generally lasts four to five months.[4]

text: Copulation[edit]

text: Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dogs mating.

text: As with most tetrapods, canine copulation involves the male mounting the female from behind, a position that is referred to as "doggy style" but does not have a specifically known origin. When a male canine is interested in mounting a female, he will sniff the female's vulva.[5] If the female is unreceptive, she may sit, lie down, snap, retreat, or otherwise be uncooperative.[citation needed] If the female is receptive, she will stand still and hold her tail to the side, a stance referred to as "flagging".[6] The male will often continue examining the female's rear, before mounting her from behind while attempting penetration with his penis.[6]

text: At the time of penetration, the canine penis is not erect, and only able to penetrate the female because it includes a narrow bone called the "baculum", a feature of most placental mammals.[7] When the male achieves penetration, he will usually hold the female tighter and thrust deeply.[8] It is during this time that the male's penis expands and it is important that the bulbus gland is sufficiently far inside for the female to be able to trap it. Unlike human sexual intercourse, where the male penis commonly becomes erect before entering the female, canine copulation involves the male first penetrating the female, after which swelling of the penis to erection occurs, which usually happens rapidly.[6]

text: Male canines are the only animals that have a locking bulbus glandis or "bulb", a spherical area of erectile tissue at the base of the penis. During copulation, and only after the male's penis is fully inside the female's vagina, the bulbus glandis becomes engorged with blood.[9] When the female's vagina subsequently contracts, the penis becomes locked inside the female.[10] This is known as "tying" or "knotting". While characteristic of mating in most canids, the copulatory tie has been reported to be absent[11] or very brief (less than one minute)[12] in the African wild dog, possibly due to the abundance of large predators in its environment.[13]

text: When the penis is locked into the vagina by the bulbus glandis (when the stud is "tied"), thrusting behavior stops and the male will usually lift a leg and swing it over the female's back while turning around. The two stand with their hind ends touching and the penis locked inside the vagina while ejaculation occurs, decreasing leakage of semen from the vagina.[14][15][16] After some time, typically between 5 and 20 minutes[17] (but sometimes longer), the bulbus glandis disengorges, allowing the mates to separate. Virgin dogs can become quite distressed at finding themselves unable to separate during their first copulation, and may try to pull away or run. Dog breeders often suggest it is appropriate for handlers to attempt to calm the mating dogs if they show anxiety once this stage is reached.[citation needed] After mating, the male usually licks his penis and prepuce.[18]

text: Gestation and litters[edit]

text: Gestation in a dog is 63 days in length, if measured from the day of ovulation. Since it is difficult to determine the exact date of ovulation, errors are often made in calculating gestation period.[19] Canine sperm can live for 10 to 11 days [20] in the uterine tubes (fallopian tubes) so if a female is bred 10 days before the oocytes (eggs) can be fertilized, she will appear to have a gestation length of 70 days. If she is bred on the day the oocytes can be fertilized, her gestation length will appear to be 60 days long.

text: A rule of thumb is that a mammal will produce half as many offspring as the number of teats on the mother.[citation needed] This rule is altered in domesticated animals since larger litters are often favoured for economic reasons and in dogs, particularly, the great range of sizes and shapes plays a role in how many healthy puppies a female can carry.[citation needed] A female dog usually has 10 teats, though this does not mean she can necessarily provide sufficient nutrition for 10 puppies in one litter.[citation needed]

text: An average litter consists of about five to six puppies, though this number may vary widely based on the breed of dog. Size of the breed is correlated with litter size. Miniature and small breeds average three to four puppies in each litter, with a maximum litter size of about 5-8. Large and giant breeds average 7 puppies per litter but can have a maximum litter size of about 15.[21] In one study, the Rhodesian Ridgeback had the highest average litter size with 8.9 pups per litter while the Pomeranian and Toy Poodle had the lowest with 2.4 pups per litter.[21]

text: The number of puppies also varies with the mother's age. In smaller breeds, both young and old age are associated with smaller litter size. In larger breeds, only old age is associated with smaller litter size.[21] Use of artificial insemination is also associated with smaller litter size, with frozen semen having a stronger effect than fresh semen.[21]

text: The largest litter size to date was set by a Neapolitan Mastiff in Manea, Cambridgeshire, UK on November 29, 2004; the litter was 24 puppies.[22]

text: Some breeds have been developed to emphasize certain physical traits beyond the point at which they can safely bear litters on their own.[citation needed]

text: A large scale study in Norway showed that across all breeds, about 4% of pups will be stillborn and a further 4% will die within the first week (early neonatal mortality). Between 8 days and 8 weeks, 1% will die. Litter size, breed size and age of the female is associated with increased risk. High risk breeds for stillborn includes the Dogue de Bordeaux (14.2%), St. Bernard (12.3%), Chow Chow (12.1%), Pembroke Welsh Corgis (11.7%) and Dalmatian (10.6%). The Basenji, Italian Greyhound, Australian Terrier, Irish Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier and the Bichon Havanaise had few to no stillborns (0-0.6%). High risk breeds for early neonatal mortality includes the Rhodesian Ridgeback (11.6%), Dogue de Bordeaux (10.4% ), Dalmatians (8.8%) and Icelandic Sheepdog (8.7%) while the Basenji and Tibetan Terrier had no early neonatal mortality and the Border Terrier and Danish-Swedish Farmdog had <1% early neonatal mortality.[23]

text: Common causes of early neonatal mortality are bacteria infection, fetal asphyxia and fading puppy syndrome. Other causes may include elective euthanasia because of congenital defects or failure to meet breed standards.[23]

text: Other multi-breed studies have put stillborn rates at 6.5-7% and early neonatal mortality at 11.5-19.8%.[23]

text: Inbreeding depression[edit]

text: On the basis of an analysis of data on 42,855 dachshund litters, it was found that as the inbreeding coefficient increased, litter size decreased and the percentage of stillborn puppies increased, thus indicating inbreeding depression.[24] Inbreeding depression is a reduction in progeny fitness due largely to the homozygous expression of deleterious recessive mutations.[25]

text: Inbreeding avoidance[edit]

text: Because the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) largely exists in fragmented small populations, its existence is endangered. Inbreeding avoidance via mate selection is characteristic of the species and has important potential consequences for population persistence.[26] Inbreeding is rare within natal packs. Computer-population simulations indicate that all populations continuing to avoid incestuous mating will become extinct within 100 years due to the unavailability of unrelated mates.[26] Thus the impact of reduced numbers of suitable unrelated mates will likely have a severe demographic impact on the future viability of small wild dog populations.

text: Red wolves primarily live in packs composed of a socially monogamous breeding pair and offspring of different ages. Using long-term data on red wolf individuals of known pedigree, it was found that inbreeding among first-degree relatives was rare.[27] A likely mechanism for avoidance of inbreeding is independent dispersal trajectories from the natal pack. Many of the young wolves spend time alone or in small non-breeding packs composed of unrelated individuals. The union of two unrelated individuals in a new home range is the predominant pattern of breeding pair formation.[27]

text: Among Ethiopian wolves, most females disperse from their natal pack at about two years of age, and some become "floaters" that may successfully immigrate into existing packs. Breeding pairs are most often unrelated to each other, suggesting that female-biased dispersal reduces inbreeding.[28]

text: Grey wolves and Arctic foxes also exhibit inbreeding avoidance.[29]

text: Inbreeding is ordinarily avoided because it leads to a reduction in progeny fitness (inbreeding depression) due largely to the homozygous expression of deleterious recessive alleles.[25] Cross-fertilization between unrelated individuals ordinarily leads to the masking of deleterious recessive alleles in progeny.[30][31]

text: Clinical issues[edit]

text: Female dogs are at risk for endometritis and pyometra in the postpartum period and after estrus or vaginitis. Signs and symptoms include fever, lethargy, loss of appetite, excessive thirst, restlessness, a foul smelling vaginal discharge which may or may not be bloody, infertility, or they may be asymptomatic. [32][33][34][35] Uterine infections should be treated expeditiously if suspected. Contrary to common belief, uterine infections can strike any intact female, whether she has been bred or not, and whether it is her first season or not although it is more common as dogs become older.

text: Dog breeding[edit]

text: Semen collection[edit]

text: An artificial vagina is prepared, which is a conical thin latex sleeve ending in a sterile collection tube. The inside of the latex sleeve is lightly lubricated. The male is allowed to sniff a female in estrus. Experienced studs cooperate readily in the process. New studs often require encouragement in the form of manual stimulation.[36] Generally the male will mount the female, and the collector quickly directs the male's penis into the latex sleeve. The male ejaculates and the semen is collected in the tube. The semen is then drawn up into a long thin pipette.[9]

text: Cross breeding[edit]

text: Designer breed dogs are Mixed-breed dogs that are intentionally bred from parents of two established breeds.[citation needed] Studies have shown that cross-bred dogs have a number of desirable reproductive traits. Scott and Fuller[37] found that cross-bred dogs were superior mothers compared to purebred mothers, producing more milk and giving better care. These advantages led to a decreased mortality in the offspring of cross-bred dogs; however, the qualities of cross bred dogs are not predictable.[citation needed] For example, Labrador x Poodle ("Labradoodle") can inherit the coat of either a Labrador, a poodle, or a remix.[citation needed]

text: Spaying and neutering[edit]

text: Spaying (females) and castrating (males) refers to the sterilization of animals—usually by removal of the male's testicles or the female's ovaries and uterus—to eliminate the ability to procreate, and reduce sex drive.[citation needed] Castration has also been known to reduce aggression in male dogs(in some cases), but spaying has been shown to occasionally increase aggression in female dogs.[38]

text: Animal control agencies in the United States and the ASPCA advise that dogs not intended for further breeding should be spayed or neutered so that they do not have undesired puppies.[39] Spaying and castrating can decrease the risk of hormone-driven diseases such as mammary cancer, as well as undesired hormone-driven behaviors.[citation needed] However, certain medical problems are more likely after neutering, such as urinary incontinence in females[40] and prostate cancer in males.[41]

text: Dogs shown in the conformation ring are not allowed to be either neutered or spayed.[citation needed] It disqualifies them from being shown as they must be intact and unaltered.[citation needed]

text: Female cats and dogs are seven times more likely to develop mammary tumors if they are not spayed before their first heat cycle.[42]

text: Studies[43][44][45][46] have shown that spaying or neutering may be associated with serious health and behavioural consequences:

text: Altered Females:

text: Increased aggression can be shown in altered females if they have previously displayed aggression prior to surgical alteration. In a study by O'Farrell and Peachy, female dogs less than 11 months of age that had previously shown signs of aggression are more likely to have an increase in aggression after being spayed.[47] These increases in aggression may be due to the sudden change in hormone concentrations that are the result of alteration. While spaying female dogs does not "induce" aggression, it can increase aggression and facilitate indiscriminate appetite in young altered females and can include them rapidly eating meals or eating food-associated items such as trash.[47][48]

text: Altered males:

text: In nearly 2/3 of the cases that involve inter-dog aggression, castration can help decrease aggression. Castration also decreases other male-typical behavioral traits such as mounting, roaming, and urine marking. But a few studies have shown that male behavioral issues of mounting, roaming and urine marking still exist in altered males. Some people have reported after altering their male dogs that behavior such as roaming, mounting and urine marking has not changed the behavior. Aggression may increase, as the decrease in testosterone may lead to emotional issues and become more likely to react aggressively when feeling under threat.[49] Male puppies that are neutered between 7 and 10 weeks are three times less likely to display behavioral problems, compared to canines neutered at 6 months or older.[50] Most dominantly aggressive dogs are male, which causes many people to neuter their male canine companions. Removing testosterone can decrease the intensity of a canine's reaction to stimulus. Testosterone does not cause a behavior to occur, but its absence may decrease the occurrence of a "bad" behavior.[50]