Your search found 4070 results.

Descriptors:
Behavioral Science Research; Research Design; Ethics; Federal Regulation; Change; Informed Consent; Adolescents; Children; Youth; Participation; Researchers; Personal Autonomy; Child Development; Risk; Research Administration; Health; Sexuality

Abstract:
For the first time in twenty years the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 2009) is considering changes to federal regulations governing research. The Common Rule provides the basis for government regulations and Institutional Review Boards (IRB). Proposed changes will have a significant impact on Institutional Review Board evaluation of research involving infants, children and adolescents. For example, such a revision can serve to rectify or exacerbate often observed IRB inconsistencies and over-estimation of probable harms when applying "minimal risk" or "exempt" criteria to research involving minors. Proposed revisions may also affect the feasibility of research on adolescent risk that requires waiver of parental or guardian permission to be successfully implemented. Further, recommendations for a new category of "informational risk" based on current and emerging advances in analysis and storage of bio-specimens and information technologies for archival research will have significant influence on ethical procedures required for collection and storage of longitudinal and cross-sectional data. Given the importance of any rule change to the conduct of science related to children, the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) convened the SRCD Task Force on Proposed Changes to the Common Rule. The purpose of this report is to alert policymakers, scientists, and participant groups to proposed changes most relevant to research involving children and to provide recommendations for ensuring the responsible conduct of child and adolescent research in the final regulatory changes. (Contains 1 footnote.) [Commentaries by Kenneth D. Pimple and Noreen Yazejian & Barbara Davis Goldman are included. Commentaries are individually referenced.] 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 (637K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Vocational Education; Foreign Countries; Labor Market; Small Businesses; Economics; Training; Public Policy; Population Distribution; Employment; Corporate Education; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Government Role; Unions; Educational Development; Federal Regulation; Partnerships in Education; Adult Education

Abstract:
This briefing examines training and development (T&D) in Quebec, one of 10 provinces and three territories that make up Canada. Quebec has three distinguishing characteristics that encourage analysis of its T&D separately from that of Canada as a whole. First, it is the only North American region with a majority francophone population. Second, government regulation of the labour market is the most extensive in North America. Third, the percentage of workers who are unionized is the highest in North America. The authors first outline the background of T&D in Quebec, mainly by describing the evolution of the education system. Second, they explore the legislation which makes compulsory the investment in T&D for organizations that have a payroll exceeding 1 million Canadian dollars (CAD). The briefing highlights the fact that the legislation and concerted action between the social partners are the main determinants of T&D practices in Quebec. Given the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Quebec economy, the authors then present an overview of training practices in SMEs. Despite increased participation and investment in T&D, it is still limited in SMEs and this remains a challenge for Quebec. (Contains 8 tables and 2 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:

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

Descriptors:
Federal Programs; Homeless People; Change Strategies; Program Implementation; Technical Assistance; Welfare Services; Eligibility; Compliance (Legal); Federal Regulation

Abstract:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently announced the release of its 2010 Notice of Funding Availability for the Homeless Assistance Programs that it administers. As a result of the passage of the HEARTH Act, there are four new requirements for HUD-funded homeless service programs related to education. These requirements, and suggestions for implementing them, are described in this NAEHCY document. 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Federal Programs; Federal Aid; Grants; Research Administration; Sanctions; Accountability; Audits (Verification); Expenditures; Compliance (Legal); Federal Regulation; Higher Education; Research Problems; Research Projects; Scientists

Abstract:
James M. Fadool, an associate professor of biology at Florida State University, got a federal grant of more than $300,000 to study eye defects using zebra-fish. Some of that money went to pay another researcher, $1,536 biweekly, to assist with the research and manage the lab where the fish were kept. But an audit by the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services determined that $922 of that amount, or 60 percent, could not be charged to the grant because the employee also performed administrative duties not related to the research. That was just one of nearly 100 expenditures that the inspector general ruled were misspent at Florida State. Out of $10.6-million in federal research grants, auditors disallowed nearly $3-million, which the federal government is demanding that the university repay. Florida State, which is still disputing the findings, is far from the only university to feel the sting of a federal audit in recent years. The flood of research money from the 2009 federal stimulus act and the growing federal deficit have increased demands for accountability among recipients of taxpayer dollars. The author discusses the increased scrutiny from federal auditors that draws complaints about the costs of complying with regulations. 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:
Physics; Science Education; Educational Research; Ethics; Compliance (Legal); Federal Regulation; Federal Aid

Abstract:
Physics Education Research is a form of social science research in that it uses human subjects. As physicists we need to be aware of the ethical and legal ramifications of performing this research, taking into account the fundamental differences between working with substances and working with people. For several decades, the federal government has regulated research involving human subjects. With current procedures, a proposal soliciting federal funds for a research project involving human subjects will be flagged by the applicants institution and checked for compliance with appropriate regulations. However, there is a large body of Physics Education Research that is not federally funded and thus may not be flagged. Nevertheless, there are ethical standards that apply to this research. This paper outlines the preliminary considerations for conducting such research. 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:
Music Education; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Special Needs Students; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Civil Rights; Civil Rights Legislation; Accessibility (for Disabled); Disabilities; Classroom Environment; Models; Definitions; Sociolinguistics; Attitudes toward Disabilities

Abstract:
This article covers current trends in disability rights and raises questions about how society's views of disability influence the music education of students in need of special education services. Brief overviews of the disability-rights movement in the United States and of federal laws pertaining to disabilities and education are included. Next, there is a discussion of the "social model of disability," which defines disability as a social position rather than a medical condition. Finally, "people-first language" and how it applies to music teaching are examined. The article also offers some suggestions to help educators incorporate these ideas into their teaching. (Contains 3 figures and 20 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:
Labor Market; Foreign Countries; Social Systems; Social Networks; Employment; Cross Cultural Studies; Surveys; Network Analysis; Federal Regulation

Abstract:
Drawing on the embeddedness, varieties of capitalism and macrosociological life course perspectives, we examine how institutional arrangements affect network-based job finding behaviors in the United States and Germany. Analysis of cross-national survey data reveals that informal job matching is highly clustered among specific types of individuals and firms in the United States, whereas it is more ubiquitous in Germany. These differences are linked to (1) loosely regulated and hierarchical employment relations in the United States that facilitate network dominance in specific economic sectors and (2) coordinated market relations, tight employment regulations and extensive social insurance system in Germany that generate opportunities for informal matching but limit the influence of network behavior on employment characteristics. These findings illustrate how social institutions shape access to economic resources through network relations. 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:
Educational Policy; Higher Education; Student Financial Aid; Federal Aid; Grants; Tax Credits; Finance Reform; Financial Aid Applicants; Student Loan Programs; Access to Education; Community Benefits; Educational Benefits; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; College Applicants; Eligibility; Change Strategies; Program Effectiveness

Abstract:
Three years after signing the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965--legislation that established the Basic Education Opportunity Grant (now called the Pell Grant)--President Lyndon Johnson declared that "every man, everywhere, should be free to develop his talents to their full potential--unhampered by arbitrary barriers of race or birth or income." As it was originally designed, the federal student financial aid system was intended to increase access to higher education for students who would otherwise be unable to attend. In the nearly five decades since the enactment of the HEA, however, there have been numerous legislative changes that have altered the structure and focus of the system. Today, many students and families find obtaining information about federal aid challenging and the process of applying for aid daunting. In fact, last year nearly 750,000 students initiated the financial aid application process but had their application returned because of insufficient data--and never resubmitted. The federal student aid system has grown into a complicated web of programs that are not clearly or purposefully coordinated to help students complete a degree or certificate. The system consists of grant, loan, and campus-based aid programs under Title IV of the HEA, as well as several federal tax credits and deductions. The federal student aid system is currently oriented around the admirable goal of increasing access to postsecondary education. Unfortunately, the system is not focused on helping these students cross the finish line once they start the race. Nationally, retention rates from the first to second year in both two- and four-year institutions are 67 percent or less. On-time completion rates are also disappointingly low, even for four-year private institutions, which graduate slightly more than 50 percent of students in four years. The federal student aid system can and must work better. Americans must demand a system that offers returns on the national investment in higher education and gives incentives and supports for students to complete postsecondary degrees. In an upcoming paper, the Alliance for Excellent Education will outline recommendations for reforming the federal student aid system to significantly increase the rates at which students enroll in and, most importantly, complete postsecondary programs. (Contains 2 tables and 31 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Proprietary Schools; Higher Education; Federal Aid; Grants; Veterans Education; Tuition; Student Costs; Student Recruitment; Deception; Academic Achievement; School Holding Power; Withdrawal (Education); Educational Quality; Expenditures; Educational Finance; Student Personnel Services; Accreditation (Institutions); Case Studies; Outcomes of Education; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Educational Legislation; Debt (Financial); Loan Default; Unemployment

Abstract:
In accordance with Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (the committee) holds legislative jurisdiction over all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to education and student loans and grants. Proprietary schools and institutions of higher education, henceforth referred to as for-profit colleges, fall under this jurisdiction both as academic institutions and as eligible recipients of Federal loans and grants provided through Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Senate rules also provide that the committee shall study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to education. In April 2010, under the leadership of Chairman Tom Harkin, the committee initiated an oversight into the proprietary sector of higher education. The majority staff offers this report to the committee with accompanying minority staff views. Appended are: (1) Definitions; (2) The Committee Investigation; (3) Methodology; (4) The Committee Document Request and Compliance; (5) The Undercover General Accountability Office Recruiting Investigation, Report and Corrections; (6) Responses of Companies to Documents Being Made Public; (7) Fall Enrollment, 2001-2010; (8) OPEID Numbers Controlled by Each of 30 Companies Examined, Fiscal Year 2010; (9) Funds Reported Pursuant to 90/10 Rule by Company, Fiscal Years 2006-10; (10) Estimated Federal Revenues, Fiscal Year 2010; (11) Post 9-11 GI Bill Disbursements to 30 Companies Examined and Cumulative Data; (12) Tuition Assistance and MyCAA Disbursements to 30 Companies and Cumulative Data Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010; (13) Pell Grant Disbursements, Award Year 2007-10; (14) Tuition and Fee Comparison; (15) Retention and Withdrawal; (16) Trial 3-Cohort Default Rates by Company, Fiscal Years 2005-8; (17) Executive Compensation; (18) Revenue, Expenses, and Profit (Operating Income), Fiscal Years 2006-10; (19) Revenue, Profit, (Operating Income), Marketing, Fiscal Year 2009; (20) Per Student Spending on Profit, Fiscal Year 2009; (21) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Per Student Spending on Instruction, Fiscal Year 2009; (22) Per Student Spending on Marketing, Recruiting, and Admissions, Fiscal Year 2009; (23) Per Student Spending on Instruction at Comparison Institutions in Other Sectors; (24) Employment Distribution by Company, Fiscal Years 2006-10; and (25) Documents Produced to the Committee. 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Proprietary Schools; Higher Education; Federal Aid; Grants; Veterans Education; Tuition; Student Costs; Student Recruitment; Deception; Academic Achievement; School Holding Power; Withdrawal (Education); Educational Quality; Expenditures; Educational Finance; Student Personnel Services; Accreditation (Institutions); Case Studies; Outcomes of Education; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Educational Legislation; Debt (Financial); Loan Default; Unemployment

Abstract:
In accordance with Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (the committee) holds legislative jurisdiction over all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to education and student loans and grants. Proprietary schools and institutions of higher education, henceforth referred to as for-profit colleges, fall under this jurisdiction both as academic institutions and as eligible recipients of Federal loans and grants provided through Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Senate rules also provide that the committee shall study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to education. In April 2010, under the leadership of Chairman Tom Harkin, the committee initiated an oversight into the proprietary sector of higher education. The majority staff offers this report to the committee with accompanying minority staff views. Appended are: (1) Definitions; (2) The Committee Investigation; (3) Methodology; (4) The Committee Document Request and Compliance; (5) The Undercover General Accountability Office Recruiting Investigation, Report and Corrections; (6) Responses of Companies to Documents Being Made Public; (7) Fall Enrollment, 2001-2010; (8) OPEID Numbers Controlled by Each of 30 Companies Examined, Fiscal Year 2010; (9) Funds Reported Pursuant to 90/10 Rule by Company, Fiscal Years 2006-10; (10) Estimated Federal Revenues, Fiscal Year 2010; (11) Post 9-11 GI Bill Disbursements to 30 Companies Examined and Cumulative Data; (12) Tuition Assistance and MyCAA Disbursements to 30 Companies and Cumulative Data Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010; (13) Pell Grant Disbursements, Award Year 2007-10; (14) Tuition and Fee Comparison; (15) Retention and Withdrawal; (16) Trial 3-Cohort Default Rates by Company, Fiscal Years 2005-8; (17) Executive Compensation; (18) Revenue, Expenses, and Profit (Operating Income), Fiscal Years 2006-10; (19) Revenue, Profit, (Operating Income), Marketing, Fiscal Year 2009; (20) Per Student Spending on Profit, Fiscal Year 2009; (21) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Per Student Spending on Instruction, Fiscal Year 2009; (22) Per Student Spending on Marketing, Recruiting, and Admissions, Fiscal Year 2009; (23) Per Student Spending on Instruction at Comparison Institutions in Other Sectors; (24) Employment Distribution by Company, Fiscal Years 2006-10; and (25) Documents Produced to the Committee. [For Volume 1, see ED538115.] 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 |  Publisher's website