|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Learning Experience; Social Work; Educational Change; Poverty; Socioeconomic Status; Comparative Analysis; Disadvantaged Youth; Case Studies; Underachievement; Assignments; College Preparation; Articulation (Education); Social Differences; Cultural Background
Abstract:
The state of tertiary education in South Africa is not adequately meeting the needs of its populace. The system in place does not effectively nor appropriately target the racial group of students which forms the democratic majority. This paper portrays the reasons why these students are not succeeding on the basis of a mismatch between their preparation at secondary level and their required or perceived level at a tertiary standard. This lack of responsiveness and adaptiveness shown by the pedagogical system to the effects of poverty and disadvantage on youth entering the tertiary system indicates a potential unintended bias towards students of higher socio-economic standing. This is demonstrated through a case example of social work students underperforming on a written assignment at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. The article further contrasts the similarity and important differences between the American and the South African socio-educational contexts to illustrate the differences in approach needed within the South African example in order to examine American methods in dealing with similar problems when facing the integration and incorporation of students from differing backgrounds. It discusses the appropriateness of these methods in a South African context, as well as in the universal context of a local population. (Contains 2 tables and 2 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
|
Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
American Educator, v36 n4 p8-9, 40 Win 2012-2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Poverty; Disadvantaged Youth; Public Schools; Charter Schools; School Desegregation; Social Integration; School Effectiveness; Academic Achievement; Peer Influence; Student Attrition; Educational Finance; Faculty Mobility
Abstract:
In discussing socioeconomic integration before audiences, the author is frequently asked: What about high-poverty schools that do work? Don't they suggest that economic segregation isn't much of a problem after all? High-poverty public schools that beat the odds paint a heartening story that often attracts considerable media attention. In 2000, the conservative Heritage Foundation published a report, titled "No Excuses," meant to show that high-poverty schools can work well. The forward of the report proudly declared that the author "found not one or two ... [but] twenty-one high-performing, high-poverty schools." Unfortunately, these 21 schools were dwarfed by the 7,000 high-poverty schools identified by the US Department of Education as low performing. Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a chain of 125 schools educating more than 35,000 students in 20 states and the District of Columbia, is often cited as evidence that high-poverty public schools ought to be able to produce very positive results. The school program emphasizes "tough love": a longer school day and school year, more homework, and the explicit teaching of middle-class habits and norms. (Contains 21 endnotes.)
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 (130K)
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Parent Child Relationship; Child Behavior; Parent Education; Therapy; Outcomes of Treatment; Speech Communication; Preschool Children; Disadvantaged Youth
Abstract:
Empirical examination of components of behavioral parent training programs is necessary to inform treatment effectiveness and efficiency; however, comprehensive research on many components is lacking. The current study examined two parenting components utilized in Parent-Child Interaction Therapy by investigating the effects of behavioral descriptions on on-task behavior and the effects of reflections on descriptive speech. Twenty six parent-child dyads, with a child age 3-5, completed five parental-skill conditions. Results suggest that combined skills increased child on-task behavior more than other conditions; and that behavioral description alone increased on-task behavior more than questions. Furthermore, parental questions increased descriptive speech more than other forms of parental attention. These findings provide preliminary support for the utility of specific types of parental attention. (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
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-10 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Preschool Education; Preschool Children; Disadvantaged Youth; Federal Government; Followup Studies; Grade 3; Elementary School Students; Outcomes of Education; School Readiness; Kindergarten
Abstract:
In 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) completed data collection for its third-grade follow-up study of Head Start, a federal preschool program designed to improve the kindergarten readiness of low-income children. Four years later, just before Christmas, the agency finally published the results of the congressionally mandated evaluation. Since 1965, taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on Head Start. Yet, over the decades, this Great Society relic has failed to improve academic outcomes for the children it was designed to help. The third-grade follow-up evaluation is the latest in a growing body of evidence that should urge policymakers to seriously consider Head Start's future. HHS has released definitive evidence that the federal government's 48-year experiment with Head Start has failed children and left taxpayers a tab of more than $180 billion. In the interest of children and taxpayers, it's time for this nearly half-century experiment to come to an end. "If" the federal government continues to fund Head Start, policymakers should allow states to make their Head Start dollars portable, following children to a private preschool provider of choice. (Contains 17 footnotes.)
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 (1827K)
|
|
