Your search found 254417 results.

Descriptors:
Neighborhoods; School Readiness; Physical Health; Children; Foreign Countries; Well Being; Child Health; Disadvantaged Youth; Knowledge Level; Socioeconomic Status; Low Income Groups; Poverty; Correlation; Scores; Kindergarten; Interpersonal Competence; Emotional Development; Child Behavior; Language Acquisition; Cognitive Development; Communication Skills; Indigenous Populations; Minority Groups; Family Structure; Student Mobility; Parents; Educational Attainment; Ownership; Housing; Employment Level; Unemployment; Gender Differences; Learning Problems; English (Second Language); Special Needs Students; Academically Gifted; Disabilities

Abstract:
Research Findings: The purpose of this study was to investigate how neighborhoods and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage impact school readiness over time. School readiness was measured using the Early Development Instrument (EDI) for 3 populations of kindergartners in 2001, 2003, and 2005 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. EDI results revealed that mean scores for the EDI domains of (a) physical health and well-being and (b) communication and general knowledge have been decreasing over time, although this varied according to neighborhood. A derived summary measure of socioeconomic disadvantage at the neighborhood level was significantly associated with declining scores in the EDI domain of physical health and well-being. Practice or Policy: These findings suggest a need for policy and programs that address the underlying determinants of poor school readiness scores, such as socioeconomic disadvantage at the neighborhood level. (Contains 8 tables, 4 footnotes, and 4 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Urban Schools; Mathematics Achievement; Academic Achievement; Attendance; School Districts; Student Mobility; Mathematics; Mathematics Education; Mathematics Instruction; Elementary Secondary Education; Measurement; Ethnicity

Abstract:
The authors aim to describe student attendance-mobility within a large urban district in ways that are meaningful and useful to schools and the community. First, the prevalence of mobility and nonattendance in Grades 1-12 across all students and by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups is presented. Second, the impact on student mathematics achievement is examined. Results show that nonattendance-mobility negatively impact mathematics achievement as measured by the state's assessment, even after controlling for socioeconomic status and gender. Interestingly, there is not a differential impact across ethnicities. Black and White subgroups show similar patterns of achievement across attendance and mobility levels. Finally, the authors take a closer look at the 10 district high schools to determine where nonattendance-mobility is of particular concern. Implications for districts are discussed in terms of targeting the extent of the problem and where it is occurring, using that information to improve attendance and reduce mobility, and finally, instituting systematic approaches to deal with student movement in and out of schools. (Contains 3 notes, 3 tables and 7 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Achievement Tests; Elementary School Students; Numeracy; Foreign Countries; Child Health; Lighting; Educational History; Socioeconomic Status; Literacy; Developing Nations; Educational Attainment; Low Achievement; Nutrition; Attendance; Childrens Literature; Family Environment; Educational Policy

Abstract:
One of the eight Millennium Development Goals is that all children in developing countries should complete primary education. Much progress has been made toward this goal, but completing primary school does not ensure that students attain basic literacy and numeracy skills. Indeed, there is ample evidence that many children in developing countries are not learning these basic skills. This raises the question: What can schools and communities do to increase the learning that takes place in schools? Sri Lanka exemplifies these issues. It has achieved universal primary completion, but many Sri Lankan primary school students perform poorly on academic tests. This paper uses unusually rich data from Sri Lanka to investigate the determinants of academic performance, as measured by achievement tests, of Grade 4 students. At the child and household level, educated parents, better nutrition, high daily attendance, enrollment in private tutoring classes, exercise books, electric lighting, and children's books at home all appear to increase learning, while hearing problems have a strong negative effect. Among school variables, principals' and teachers' years of experience, collaborating with other schools in a "school family," and meetings between parents and teachers all appear to have positive impacts on students' scores. Estimates that exclude some of the variables available in the unusually rich data yield different results, which suggests that results based on less complete data are likely to suffer from omitted variable bias. A final section provides recommendations for education policies in Sri Lanka. (Contains 10 tables and 21 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Community Characteristics; Neighborhoods; Behavior Problems; Equal Education; Poverty; School Desegregation; Elementary Secondary Education; Postsecondary Education; Crime; Opportunities; Academic Achievement; Children; Low Income Groups; Family Financial Resources; Disadvantaged; Labor Market; Educational Environment; Public Education; Adolescent Development; Child Development; Enrollment; Middle School Students; Early Adolescents; Adolescent Attitudes; Student Behavior; Skill Development; Student Mobility; Child Rearing; Time Management; Outcomes of Education; Family Structure; Family Income; Parents; Scores; Observation; Unemployment; Community Role; Family Role; School Role; Mathematics Achievement; School Safety; Immigrants; Achievement Gains; Educational Change; Educational Research; Intervention

Abstract:
As the incomes of affluent and poor families have diverged over the past three decades, so too has the educational performance of their children. But how exactly do the forces of rising inequality affect the educational attainment and life chances of low-income children? In "Whither Opportunity?" a distinguished team of economists, sociologists, and experts in social and education policy examines the corrosive effects of unequal family resources, disadvantaged neighborhoods, insecure labor markets, and worsening school conditions on K-12 education. This groundbreaking book illuminates the ways rising inequality is undermining one of the most important goals of public education--the ability of schools to provide children with an equal chance at academic and economic success. The most ambitious study of educational inequality to date, "Whither Opportunity?" analyzes how social and economic conditions surrounding schools affect school performance and children's educational achievement. The book shows that from earliest childhood, parental investments in children's learning affect reading, math, and other attainments later in life. This book contains six parts. Part I, Overview, contains: (1) Introduction: The American Dream, Then and Now (Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane). Part II, The Developing Child and Adolescent, contains: (2) Lessons from Neuroscience Research for Understanding Causal Links Between Family and Neighborhood Characteristics and Educational Outcomes (Charles A. Nelson III and Margaret A. Sheridan); (3) The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems (Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson); (4) Middle and High School Skills, Behaviors, Attitudes, and Curriculum Enrollment, and Their Consequences (George Farkas); (5) The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations (Sean F. Reardon); (6) Inequality in Postsecondary Education (Martha J. Bailey and Susan M. Dynarski); and (7) Educational Expectations and Attainment (Brian A. Jacob and Tamara Wilder Linkow). Part III, The Family, contains: (8) Educational Mobility in the United States Since the 1930s (Michael Hout and Alexander Janus); (9) How Is Family Income Related to Investments in Children's Learning? (Neeraj Kaushal, Katherine Magnuson, and Jane Waldfogel); (10) Parenting, Time Use, and Disparities in Academic Outcomes (Meredith Phillips); and (11) Family-Structure Instability and Adolescent Educational Outcomes: A Focus on Families with Stepfathers (Megan M. Sweeney). Part IV, Neighborhoods, contains: (12) Converging Evidence for Neighborhood Effects on Children's Test Scores: An Experimental, Quasi-Experimental, and Observational Comparison (Julia Burdick-Will, Jens Ludwig, Stephen W. Raudenbush, Robert J. Sampson, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, and Patrick Sharkey); and (13) Unpacking Neighborhood Influences on Education Outcomes: Setting the Stage for Future Research (David Harding, Lisa Gennetian, Christopher Winship, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, and Jeffrey Kling). Part V, Labor Markets, contains: (14) The Effects of Local Employment Losses on Children's Educational Achievement (Elizabeth O. Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and Christina M. Gibson-Davis); and (15) How Does Parental Unemployment Affect Children's Educational Performance? (Phillip B. Levine). Part VI, Schools, contains: (16) The Role of Family, School, and Community Characteristics in Inequality in Education and Labor-Market Outcomes (Joseph G. Altonji and Richard K. Mansfield); (17) Year-by-Year and Cumulative Impacts of Attending a High-Mobility Elementary School on Children's Mathematics Achievement in Chicago, 1995 to 2005 (Stephen W. Raudenbush, Marshall Jean, and Emily Art); (18) The Effect of School Neighborhoods on Teachers' Career Decisions (Don Boyd, Hamp Lankford, Susanna Loeb, Matthew Ronfeldt, and Jim Wyckoff); (19) Crime and the Production of Safe Schools (David S. Kirk and Robert J. Sampson); (20) Immigrants and Inequality in Public Schools (Amy Ellen Schwartz and Leanna Stiefel); (21) School Desegregation and the Black-White Test Score Gap (Jacob L. Vigdor); (22) The Challenges of Finding Causal Links Between Family Educational Practices and Schooling Outcomes (Frank F. Furstenberg); (23) It May Not Take a Village: Increasing Achievement Among the Poor (Vilsa E. Curto, Roland G. Fryer Jr., and Meghan L. Howard); (24) Understanding the Context for Existing Reform and Research Proposals (Harry Brighouse and Gina Schouten); and (25) Intervening to Improve the Educational Outcomes of Students in Poverty: Lessons from Recent Work in High-Poverty Schools (Brian Rowan). A foreword and an index is included. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Student Mobility; Geographic Location; Reliability; Outcomes of Education; Resilience (Psychology); Psychological Patterns; Emotional Response; Social Networks; Student Characteristics; Homeless People; Migrants; Family Problems; Marital Instability; Low Income Groups; Economic Climate; Academic Achievement; Context Effect; Teaching Conditions; Faculty Development; Student Needs; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Student Relationship

Abstract:
The best education no doubt comes from a student staying in one school system from elementary to high school. Some students are fortunate to have a consistent education; some are not as fortunate. Continuity in instruction, learner outcomes, emotional stability, and social relationships prevail when students live in one location as long as possible. Due to many reasons, children are uprooted and move frequently from town to town and state to state. There are various reasons for this occurrence. Many of these students are victims of impoverished homes, unstable and erratic family environments, resulting in parents who constantly move their children from one location to another. The students lack belongingness to friends, teachers, and classmates. They form no roots to any society accept for a transient society. Highly mobile students enter American classrooms daily across the nation. The teacher is often unprepared for integrating these children at a moment's notice into the classroom. Once these students are included and feeling some degree of success, they often forced to suddenly move again. These transitions are against their will. This article speaks to the need for teachers to embrace the highly mobile child as not emotional baggage and an inconvenience, yet as a challenge to help the child emotionally, socially, and academically. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (50K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Reading Achievement; Reading Skills; Oral Reading; Poverty; Homeless People; Low Income; Beginning Reading; Socioeconomic Status; At Risk Students; Predictor Variables; Student Mobility

Abstract:
This investigation tested the importance of early academic achievement for later achievement trajectories among 18,011 students grouped by level of socioeconomic risk. Students considered to be at highest risk were those who experienced homelessness or high residential mobility (HHM). HHM students were compared with students eligible for free meals, students eligible for reduced price meals, and students who were neither HHM nor low income. Socioeconomic risk and oral reading ability in first grade predicted growth of reading and math achievement in Grades 3 through 8. Risk status predicted achievement beyond the effects of early reading scores and also moderated the prediction of later growth in reading achievement from early oral reading. Results underscore the early emergence and persistence of achievement gaps related to poverty, the high and accumulating risk for HHM students, and the significance of oral reading in first grade as both an early indicator of risk and a potential protective factor. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Student Needs; Mentors; Poverty; Dropout Programs; Dropout Rate; Dropout Prevention; Dropouts; Mental Health Programs; Community Involvement; Urban Schools; School Districts; Databases; Low Income Groups; Clearinghouses; Educational Policy; Academic Achievement; Models; Ethnic Groups; Race; Program Descriptions; Attendance; Truancy; Socioeconomic Status; Special Needs Students; Behavior Problems; Teachers; Principals; School Counselors; Social Services; State Government; Federal Government; Financial Support; High School Students; Secondary Education

Abstract:
The current study replicates work of Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Northeast and Islands. It describes dropout prevention programs in nine Mid-Atlantic Region (Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) school districts serving communities with populations of 24,742-107,250 (as of July 2008). All nine districts have high dropout rates, large racial/ethnic minority student populations, and high percentages of students from households living below the poverty line. The study is driven by two research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of dropout prevention programs and policies in the nine districts?; and (2) Which programs have been reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse, and what were its findings? The study found that: (1) No district reported dropout prevention policies apart from those establishing the reported programs; (2) Only one program model was reported by more than one district; (3) The most common core strategies were advocating for student needs (64 percent of programs), engaging and supporting families (57 percent), and monitoring school attendance (53 percent); (4) The most common service goals were to improve academic performance (95 percent of programs), decrease truancy (66 percent), and provide support during transitions (60 percent); (5) The most common student subgroups targeted were students with academic needs (90 percent of programs), students from low socioeconomic status families (60 percent), and special needs students with behavioral challenges (57 percent); (6) Programs that targeted specific grades were most likely to focus on students in grades 9 or 12; (7) Teachers were involved in 86 percent of reported programs, guidance counselors in 78 percent, and principals or other administrators in 67 percent; (8) The most common forms of community involvement engaged parents (69 percent of programs), youth or social services staff (28 percent), mental health services staff (28 percent), police (22 percent), and mentoring program staff (21 percent). Twelve programs (21 percent) reported no community involvement; (9) Districts funded all or part of 79 percent of reported programs; state governments had some financial role in 41 percent, the federal government in 26 percent, and private sources in 7 percent. Four programs (7 percent) did not report a funding source; and (10) As of May 1, 2010, only 1 of the 58 programs--Talent Development High Schools--had been reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse, which found only one small study that met its evidence standards with reservations. Appendices include: (1) Study methodology; (2) Dropout prevention interventions evaluated by the What Works Clearinghouse (as of May 1, 2010); (3) Introductory letter; (4) Model commitment letter; (5) Interview guide; and (6) Interview template for recording data. (Contains 2 boxes, 9 tables, and 5 notes.) [For the summary report, see ED516739.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (582K)

Descriptors:
Student Needs; Mentors; Poverty; Dropout Programs; Dropout Rate; Dropout Prevention; Dropouts; Mental Health Programs; Community Involvement; School Districts; Databases; Low Income Groups; Clearinghouses; Educational Policy; Academic Achievement; Models; Ethnic Groups; Race; Program Descriptions; Attendance; Truancy; Socioeconomic Status; Special Needs Students; Behavior Problems; Teachers; Principals; School Counselors; Social Services; State Government; Federal Government; Federal Aid; State Aid; High School Students

Abstract:
The current study replicates work of Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Northeast and Islands. It describes dropout prevention programs in nine Mid-Atlantic Region (Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) school districts serving communities with populations of 24,742-107,250 (as of July 2008). All nine districts have high dropout rates, large racial/ethnic minority student populations, and high percentages of students from households living below the poverty line. The study is driven by two research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of dropout prevention programs and policies in the nine districts?; and (2) Which programs have been reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse, and what were its findings? The study found that: (1) No district reported dropout prevention policies apart from those establishing the reported programs; (2) Only one program model was reported by more than one district; (3) The most common core strategies were advocating for student needs (64 percent of programs), engaging and supporting families (57 percent), and monitoring school attendance (53 percent); (4) The most common service goals were to improve academic performance (95 percent of programs), decrease truancy (66 percent), and provide support during transitions (60 percent); (5) The most common student subgroups targeted were students with academic needs (90 percent of programs), students from low socioeconomic status families (60 percent), and special needs students with behavioral challenges (57 percent); (6) Programs that targeted specific grades were most likely to focus on students in grades 9 or 12; (7) Teachers were involved in 86 percent of reported programs, guidance counselors in 78 percent, and principals or other administrators in 67 percent; (8) The most common forms of community involvement engaged parents (69 percent of programs), youth or social services staff (28 percent), mental health services staff (28 percent), police (22 percent), and mentoring program staff (21 percent). Twelve programs (21 percent) reported no community involvement; (9) Districts funded all or part of 79 percent of reported programs; state governments had some financial role in 41 percent, the federal government in 26 percent, and private sources in 7 percent. Four programs (7 percent) did not report a funding source; and (10) As of May 1, 2010, only 1 of the 58 programs--Talent Development High Schools--had been reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse, which found only one small study that met its evidence standards with reservations. [For the full report, see ED516740.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (411K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Self Efficacy; School Personnel; Change Agents; Educational Change; Economic Status; Parent Participation; Parent School Relationship; Socioeconomic Status; Individual Characteristics; Low Income Groups; Principals; Interviews; Language Proficiency; Parent Role; Biculturalism

Abstract:
The relationship between bicultural parents, low socio-economic parents and the public school system is made tenuous in large part by cultural disparities between school officials and parents. The greater the disparity, the more likely parent groups are to be silenced and the more likely they are to refrain from the role of change agents or advocates for school reform. To contemplate what it takes for these disadvantaged parent groups to enact changes they desire at the school or district level, this study culls from research on in several areas of academic literature: parent involvement and student achievement, community organizing, and change management. Each of these areas of research offers insights on how success change is enacted; the characteristics and the attributes groups must have in order to bring about desired changes to processes and outcomes. Parent leaders and principals from low socio-economic status considered to be change agents in their community were interviewed. Their insights reinforce the literature, commenting on the nature of relationship parents and school and the nature of change. Open-ended questions relating to the nature of changes undertaken, the efficacy of tactics employed, and perceived deficit thinking on the part of parents and school personnel are addressed. Results indicated that self-efficacy and competence in the English language are key characteristics of parent groups with high levels of engagement. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (271K)

Descriptors:
Family (Sociological Unit); Family Environment; Young Adults; Institutionalized Persons; National Surveys; Attendance; Children; Intelligence; Socioeconomic Status; Disadvantaged; Graduation Rate; Correlation; Academic Achievement; Criminals; Parents; Siblings

Abstract:
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, yet there is relatively little information on how the removal of these adults from households impacts the youth who are left behind. This study used a child-centered lens to examine the impact of incarceration on the school outcomes of youth who resided with a family member or family associate who was incarcerated prior to the youth's 18th birthday. We used data from 11 waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: Child and Young Adult (n = 3,338, 53 % female). Initial analyses indicated that youth who experienced a household members' incarceration evidenced more socioeconomic challenges, more frequent home adversities, and lower cognitive skills relative to youth who did not experience a household members' incarceration. Results also revealed that youth who had experienced a household member's incarceration were more likely to report extended absence from school and were less likely to graduate from high school relative to those youth who did not experience a household members' incarceration. Counter to our hypotheses, results revealed the incarceration of an extended family member being in the household was the only relation significantly associated with worse school outcomes. Plausibly, families who allow non-immediate criminally involved individuals to reside in the household are experiencing a more pervasive chaotic home environment than those with a parent or sibling incarcerated. Our study suggests that efforts to address the needs of children with incarcerated parents need to be widened to those who experience the loss of any household member due to incarceration. (Contains 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website