Your search found 2223 results.

Descriptors:
Music Education; Educational Policy; Public Policy; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; High Schools; Graduation Requirements; Probability; Academic Standards; State Standards; Public Schools; Private Schools

Abstract:
This article reviews the political and empirical record within music education surrounding the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and reports a new study evaluating the effects of the law on music and arts education policies in U.S. high schools. School-level data (N = 670 schools) from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 and the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 were independently pooled to estimate the effects of Goals 2000 on the number of unique music courses high schools offered, the probability that schools would enforce a local arts graduation requirement, and the number of arts courses required for graduation. Results showed no effect on the number of unique music courses offered. However, for schools in states that prior to Goals 2000 had no arts education mandate or had a flexible arts education mandate, Goals 2000 significantly increased the probability of schools requiring the arts, as well as the number of arts credits required for graduation. The article concludes with implications for the arts in the current Common Core Standards movement. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure and 1 note.) 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:
Graduation Requirements; Higher Education; Educational Finance; Educational Attainment; Kindergarten; Graduation; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Master Plans; Preschool Education; Access to Education; Teacher Supply and Demand; State Boards of Education; College Admission; Education Work Relationship; Partnerships in Education; High Schools; Academic Standards; State Standards; Accountability; Academic Achievement; Educational Indicators; Educational Improvement; College Readiness; Graduation Rate; Career Readiness; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
This paper complies with the requirements established in T.C.A. Section 49-1-302(a)(10). The act directs the State Board of Education and the Tennessee Higher Education Commission to provide a report to the Governor and General Assembly, all public schools, and institutions of higher learning and their respective boards. This report is to include, but is not limited to, a discussion of the following four areas: (1) Minimizing Duplication: The extent of duplication in elementary, secondary and postsecondary education; (2) Compatibility: The extent of compatibility between high school graduation requirements and admission requirements of postsecondary institutions; (3) Master Plan Fulfillment: The extent to which respective master plans of the board and the higher education commission are being fulfilled; and (4) State Needs in Public Education: The extent to which state needs in public education are being met as determined by such board and commission. This year's joint report marks the continuation of a new era for education in Tennessee, which began during the special session of the 106th General Assembly (2010) and included passage of the First to the Top and the Complete College Tennessee Acts. Both Acts focus on raising the level of statewide accountability and support in K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. Legislation from the 106th General Assembly provides the framework for collaboration between all state systems of education, addressing the overarching need to produce a higher proportion of college- and career-ready graduates. Tennessee will use this framework to make significant progress toward increasing postsecondary educational attainment to the national average by 2025. Appended are: (1) Tennessee High School Graduation Requirements; (2) Minimum High School Course Requirements for Regular Undergraduate Admissions to Tennessee Public Higher Education Institutions; and (3) Tennessee College and Career Ready Goals and Indicators. (Contains 3 tables, 1 figure and 3 footnotes.) [For "Annual Joint Report on Pre-Kindergarten through Higher Education in Tennessee, 2012", see ED540084.] 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 (350K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Graduation Requirements; Mathematics Instruction; Misconceptions; Advanced Courses; Student Motivation; Achievement Need; Dropout Rate

Abstract:
A common argument against raising math course-taking requirements for all students is that it will cause more students to drop out of high school. But most students who drop out for academic reasons do so not because they are being "too challenged," but rather because they are not being challenged enough. It is important to raise the rigor and relevance of mathematics courses to keep students engaged and on track to graduation and postsecondary success. This paper stresses that: (1) Students do not feel motivated, particularly when enrolled in low-level courses; (2) Students are willing to work harder--but only if they are challenged; and (3) More rigorous graduation requirements--including more higher-level math courses--are not tied to higher drop out rates. (Contains 9 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 (359K)

Descriptors:
Mathematics Skills; Education Work Relationship; Global Approach; Mathematics Achievement; Educational Needs; Economic Impact; Graduation Requirements

Abstract:
No student who hopes to compete in today's rapidly evolving global economy and job market can afford to graduate from high school with weak mathematical skills, which include the ability to use logic, reason, and solve problems. The benefits associated with improving the math performance of American students also extend to the larger U.S. economy. Highlights of this paper include: (1) American students lag far behind other industrialized nations in math skills; and (2) Requiring more students to take advanced math would boost America's economic competitiveness and wealth. (Contains 10 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 (366K)

Descriptors:
Disabilities; High Stakes Tests; Accountability; Exit Examinations; Individualized Instruction; Testing; Civil Rights; Alternative Assessment; Individualized Education Programs; School Districts; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; High School Students; High Schools; Graduation Requirements; Court Litigation; Testing Accommodations

Abstract:
The demands for accountability in education have led to an increase in high-stakes testing practices in public schools. Accountability can be seen at the high school level in the use of exit examinations (hereafter "exit exams") that students must pass to receive a diploma and graduate from high school. One of the most challenging issues regarding the use of exit exams has been how best to include students with disabilities (Johnson & Thurlow, 2003). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 1990) requires that students with disabilities participate in state and district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations and modifications when needed. Students with disabilities participate in these assessments in one of the following ways: (a) by taking the assessment with no modifications or accommodations, (b) by taking the assessment with modifications or accommodations, or (c) by taking an alternate assessment. Clearly, students with disabilities must participate in high stakes tests if required by the school district or state. The proper forum for determining how a student will participate in state or district-wide assessments is in a meeting of his or her individualized education program (IEP) team. This article examines litigation (i.e., due process hearings and court cases) in which high school exit exams and students with disabilities have been examined. To accomplish this, the authors (a) examine a few of the more important cases and hearings by the issues they addressed and (b) extrapolate implications from this litigation to help inform school district officials about their responsibilities when administering high-stakes tests to students with disabilities. 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:
Graduation Requirements; Physical Education; Bachelors Degrees; Educational History

Abstract:
This study gives an overview of the history of required physical education in America's 4-year colleges and universities and provides an update on the requirement status. After randomly identifying 354 institutions, we searched their respective websites to determine whether physical education was a requirement to earn a baccalaureate degree. The major finding was that the physical education requirement declined from an all-time high of 97% in the 1920s and 1930s to an all-time low of 39.55% in 2010. Given society's ongoing health challenges and the important role of physical activity in maintaining health, this seems counterintuitive. It is also inconsistent with the National Physical Activity Plan (2010). (Contains 1 figure and 8 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:
Credits; Educational Attainment; Measurement Techniques; Educational Policy; Attendance; High School Seniors; At Risk Students; Special Needs Students; Graduation Requirements; Politics of Education; Administrator Role; Government Role; Government School Relationship; Nontraditional Education; Educational Administration; High Schools; Parent School Relationship

Abstract:
This case was developed as part of a doctoral course for educational administration students who were specializing in K-12 educational administration. It could be used in a leadership, special education, or policy course for future school leaders or teachers. Currently, most educational institutions use Carnegie Units to structure how students earn credit throughout the year. In addition, many schools have an attendance policy delineating specific guidelines that students must meet to earn credit. Recently, two high school seniors had their graduation jeopardized due to issues with Carnegie Units and a district's attendance policy. Drawing from the case of Matthew and Jerry, this article will explore attendance policies and the usage of Carnegie Units. (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

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Quality Control; Unions; Electronic Learning; Laws; Educational Policy; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Educational Opportunities; Advocacy; Funding Formulas; Teacher Certification; Virtual Classrooms; Enrollment Influences; Enrollment Trends; Graduation Requirements; School Policy

Abstract:
The world of virtual schooling is experiencing a host of major policy shifts that are opening doors for its expansion, but at the same time holding it up to greater scrutiny. This special report, the first in a three-part 2012-2013 series on virtual education, examines how state policymakers, educators, and schools are rethinking and changing the rules for e-learning. It provides analyses on the benefits and drawbacks of these changes, and what to expect during this school year and beyond. Articles in this supplement include: (1) "New Laws, Programs Expand E-Learning Options" (Michelle R. Davis); (2) "Digital Advocacy Group Wields Policy Influence" (Michelle R. Davis); (3) "Educators Evaluate "Flipped Classrooms"" (Katie Ash); (4) "E-Learning Funding Models Analyzed" (Katie Ash); (5) "Virtual Ed. Addresses Teacher-Certification Questions" (Robin L. Flanigan); (6) "Teachers' Unions See Opportunities in Online Charters" (Robin L. Flanigan); (7) "Quality Control a Challenge for Virtual Ed." (Ian Quillen); (8) "State Laws Lift Virtual Ed. Enrollment Caps" (Robin L. Flanigan); and (9) "Districts Require E-Courses for Graduation" (Michelle R. Davis). 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:
Graduation Requirements; Credits; High School Students; High School Graduates; Educational Change; Educational Policy; Mathematics Education; Science Education; At Risk Students; Low Achievement; Disadvantaged Schools

Abstract:
Graduation credit requirement reforms were expected to have a significant impact on the American educational landscape, but scholars have concluded that these reforms have exhibited less impact than expected on a wide range of educational outcomes. Drawing on Lipsky's theory of street-level bureaucracy, we hypothesize that graduation requirement reforms have been relatively ineffective because of inconsistent implementation and enforcement at the local level. Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) and the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), we assess the viability of this hypothesized explanation. On the whole, the findings are consistent with our contention that inconsistent implementation and enforcement of graduation credit requirement policies contributes to the relative ineffectiveness of these policy reforms. (Contains 25 notes, 1 figure and 3 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

Descriptors:
Academic Standards; State Standards; Stakeholders; Parents; Instructional Materials; Second Language Learning; English Language Learners; Secondary School Curriculum; Graduation Requirements; Teacher Education; Communication (Thought Transfer); Alignment (Education); Program Implementation; Transitional Programs; Technology Uses in Education; Role; Advocacy

Abstract:
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have committed to fully implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) by the fall of 2013, and members of the two CCSS-aligned assessment consortia have committed to roll out an aligned assessment the following year. With less than a year until the CCSS must be in place in all classrooms, most states have at least some implementation activities already underway. But if these standards are to provide true game-changing leverage, advocates need to step up their involvement on at least two fronts. They need to make sure that the standards are implemented in effective and equitable ways. And they need to help parents and other stakeholders understand and support the standards. This brief guide is designed to help advocates who are new to standards work. It provides basic information on matters that are critical to common core implementation, including: (1) Transition Planning; (2) Communication; (3) Educator Training and Instructional Materials; (4) High School Curriculum and Graduation Policies; (5) Catch-Up Strategies; (6) English Language Learners; (7) Technology; and (8) Policy Alignment. 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 (432K)