Your search found 2038 results.

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Class Rank; Academic Records; Grade Point Average; Rural Areas; Rural Education; Foreign Countries; Urban Schools; Rural Urban Differences; Disproportionate Representation; Selective Admission; College Admission; Educational Policy; Student Records

Abstract:
Despite a major expansion in the number of students in higher education, students from rural areas continue to be underrepresented at selective universities. To reduce the urban-rural imbalance of entry to selective universities, institutions in many countries of the world have implemented admission policies favoring rural students. Previous evidence has shown that rural students have lower academic performance than their urban peers, which leads to concern that rural students will reduce the academic excellence of selective universities. Using the introduction of a university admission policy favoring rural students in Taiwan and a unique administrative data set of students' academic records, we compare the academic performance of students from rural areas with that of their urban counterparts during their college years. The results show that rural students have consistently outperformed urban students in semester grade point averages and class rank percentile across time; however, the differences in academic performance are mainly attributed to the rural students' initial outperformance in the first semester of the freshman year. (Contains 6 tables, 2 figures and 11 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:
Academic Achievement; Program Effectiveness; Scholarships; Graduate Students; STEM Education; Science Course Improvement Projects; Alternative Teacher Certification; Program Evaluation; Academic Records; Case Records; Student Records; Position Papers; Transcripts (Written Records); Recruitment; Teacher Recruitment; Science Teachers; Teacher Placement; Research Reports; Outcome Measures; Achievement Gains

Abstract:
California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) received funding from National Science Foundation's (NSF) Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program to recruit Noyce Scholars from upper-division science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, graduate students, and professionals switched to STEM teaching from other fields (NSF DUE-0934944). The program purpose is to increase the number of highly qualified science and math teachers at high-needs schools. This report is based on multilevel quantitative and qualitative data from university records, program minutes, as well as individual-level information gatherings from Noyce Scholars and Advisors. In addition, the report design is grounded on a thorough review of updated literature to ensure its conformation to best professional practices. The results show that the program quality is supported involvement of a group of award-winning faculty in STEM education, and significant GPA improvement has been observed among Noyce Scholars since last year. The program is also enriched by more research or internship experiences led by faculty of STEM education. Besides improvement of overall student experiences at CSUB, Noyce Scholars graduated from the program have demonstrated their success in supporting student learning at high-needs schools. Two appendixes include: (1) Questionnaire for Noyce Recipients Before Program Completion; and (2) Questionnaire for Noyce Recipients After Program Completion. (Contains 6 figures, 1 table, and 3 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 (179K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; At Risk Students; Profiles; Stress Management; Emotional Intelligence; Graduation; Personality Traits; Prediction; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Measures (Individuals); Student Records; Correlation; Interpersonal Competence; Gender Differences; High Schools; Grades (Scholastic); Comparative Analysis; Identification; Undergraduate Students

Abstract:
This study explored the utility of trait emotional intelligence (EI) for predicting students' university graduation outcomes six years after enrolment in university. At the start of the program, 1,015 newly registered students completed a brief multidimensional self-report EI assessment and provided consent to track their subsequent degree progress via official university records. Using latent profile analysis (LPA), participants were sorted into five classes that differed in the overall EI level and in the relative strengths and weaknesses on individual EI dimensions. Greater likelihood of degree noncompletion at the 6-year follow-up was uniquely associated with having a low-EI profile with particularly pronounced weaknesses in the interpersonal and stress management domains, after controlling for high school grades and gender. Comparative levels of predictive utility could not be achieved by examining scores on each EI dimension independently. Authors discuss practical advantages of LPA over traditional variable-centered approaches for identifying and assisting students at risk for degree noncompletion. (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:
Admission (School); School Safety; Juvenile Courts; Rehabilitation Programs; Crime; Delinquency; College Applicants; College Admission; Student Records

Abstract:
College is often a fresh start for students, but some have pasts that follow them. Take, for instance, "S.D.," an 18-year-old man from Pennsylvania who wanted to go to Temple University. When he was 17, he put an image on a file-sharing network that resulted in his being charged in juvenile court with one count of disseminating child pornography. Under the state's Juvenile Act, courts must notify schools of juvenile offenses by any student. Since the law was enacted, in 2008, it has been interpreted to apply to elementary and secondary schools. But in the case of S.D., who is identified in legal records only by his initials, the court notified Temple. As S.D. remains anonymous and Temple officials have declined to discuss the case, it is not known how the ruling has affected the student and his enrollment. Still, the case has raised concerns about whether juvenile and criminal records should follow a young person, and how exactly a college should handle that information. What to do with that information is a complex question. On the one hand, colleges want to protect their students and staff from potential criminals. On the other hand, young people make mistakes and shouldn't have those held against them for the rest of their lives. Most colleges that collect criminal-background information have introduced additional steps in the admissions process. Some have special committees, including, for example, academic deans and campus security officers. Others require more from the applicant, such as a letter of explanation, an interview, or the completion of a probation or rehabilitation program. Colleges may also order background checks on students who disclose an offense themselves. Colleges that request checks on students tend to do so for applicants to particular fields, such as the health sciences, that may involve work in hospitals. 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 Administration; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Compliance (Legal); Legal Responsibility; School Law; Student Rights; School Health Services; Student Records; Parent School Relationship; High Schools; Assistant Principals; Information Utilization

Abstract:
School leaders are familiar with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, but they also need to be legally literate about Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This need is particularly pressing in the wake of significant recent changes in Section 504 as a result of the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act. This case illustrates the eligibility and entitlement of a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder under Section 504 before and after these amendments. Would you be able to take the legally correct course of action if you were Amy Davidson? Do you have legally current and defensible answers to the discussion questions? 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:
Compliance (Legal); Social Work; School Social Workers; Privacy; School Law; Recordkeeping; Time; Barriers; Student Records; Federal Legislation; Confidentiality; Board of Education Policy; Misconceptions; Legal Responsibility; State Legislation

Abstract:
This article documents results of a survey of 73 school social workers regarding their record-keeping practices. These social workers indicated that time pressures are a major challenge to documentation; they struggle to know what to include, and they worry about privacy. More than half fail to consistently include assessment information, progress toward goals, and information on services provided. More than 75 percent do not provide periodic and closing case summaries, pre- and post-test scores, and information on how they have made decisions. Some 80 percent of respondents were in violation of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requirements to share records with parents or guardians who request them, and only half were aware of their district's policies on sharing information with third parties. There was widespread misunderstanding of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and half of the respondents were unaware of their state laws regarding record keeping. These findings are concerning, as school social workers who are not informed of legal mandates may be putting themselves and their districts at some liability risk, and those who do not keep records with sufficient information to reflect on their practice may be missing opportunities to improve their work with student clients. 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:
Grade Repetition; School Holding Power; Public Education; National Surveys; State Surveys; Program Validation; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Criteria; Progress Monitoring; Academic Records; Student Records; Student Promotion; Academic Failure; Achievement Gap; Educational Policy; Measurement Objectives; Measurement Techniques; Outcome Measures; Age Grade Placement; Data Analysis; Statistical Data; Educational Research

Abstract:
How many students repeat a grade each year? How do retention rates vary across states and over time? Despite extensive research on the predictors and consequences of grade retention, there is no systematic way to quantify state-level retention rates; even national estimates rely on imperfect proxy measures. We present a conceptually simple method--based on publicly available data that are routinely collected each year--that describes retention rates at the state and national levels. After describing and validating this method, we use it to report first- through eighth-grade public school retention rates for 2002-2003 through 2008-2009 for the entire country and for each state. (Contains 13 notes, 5 figures and 1 table.) 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:
Reading Achievement; Economically Disadvantaged; School Districts; Data Analysis; Reading Improvement; Politics of Education; Political Influences; Local Issues; Educational Change; Parent Influence; Achievement Gains; Pretests Posttests; Reading Programs; Policy Analysis; School Administration; School Effectiveness; Racial Differences; Interviews; Student Records

Abstract:
This ex post facto, causal-comparative research study examined student reading performance data within a school district before and after a school district-wide decision to alter the reading curriculum in response to local political pressure from parents. Data analysis revealed that test scores dropped to a significantly lower level, especially for students who were economically disadvantaged, after the reading curriculum was altered. This study underscores the importance of making data-driven, rather than politically-influenced, decisions related to pedagogy, curriculum, instruction, and assessment by educational leaders. (Contains 2 tables and 6 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:
State Programs; Data; Information Systems; Student Records; Higher Education; State Boards of Education; State Agencies; Elementary Secondary Education; Labor; Cooperation; State Surveys

Abstract:
In 2010, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association released the results of a national study of state level postsecondary student unit record (SUR) data systems in 44 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.). One section of the report, "Strong Foundations: The State of State Postsecondary Data Systems" (Garcia and L'Orange 2010), included information on the extent to which postsecondary coordinating and governing boards engage in a variety of data sharing practices with state agencies. This 2012 update focuses on those data sharing practices. In addition, the authors shed light on statewide, coordinated, multi-sector data sharing in which the postsecondary sector plays a role. Some states share data via a centralized state P-20 data system, but more states are "building" a federated data model that is more decentralized in nature. Regardless of the model used, there is a substantial and growing amount of statewide, coordinated multi-sector data sharing across the country, much of which likely has been influenced by the U.S. Department of Education Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant program. Appended are: (1) List of Respondents by State and Agency/Entity; (2) Data Collection Template; (3) Responses by Question; (4) History of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Awardees, FY2006-FY2012; and (5) Abbreviations Used for States with Multiple Agencies/Entities. (Contains 11 figures, 1 table, and 9 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 (957K)

Descriptors:
Sexuality; Child Abuse; Violence; Health Programs; Health Promotion; Communicable Diseases; Health Education; Minority Groups; School Health Services; Death; Head Injuries; Punishment; Diabetes; Certification; Emergency Programs; Change Strategies; Immunization Programs; Health Insurance; Mental Health; Drug Therapy; Role; School Nurses; Nursing Education; Obesity; Child Health; Pregnancy; Early Parenthood; Vocabulary; Supervision; Consultants; Educational Technology; Paraprofessional School Personnel; Volunteers; Nontraditional Education; Responsibility; Screening Tests; Drug Abuse; Eating Disorders; Student Records; Federal Legislation; Inclusion; Prevention; Field Trips; Privacy; Transitional Programs; Planning; Behavior Modification; Behavior Problems; Chronic Illness; Vision; Animals

Abstract:
This article presents position statements, issue briefs, and resolutions and consensus statements of the National Association of School Nurses (NASN). The Position Statements include: (1) Allergy/Anaphylaxis Management in the School Setting; (2) Caseload Assignments; (3) Child Mortality in the School Setting; (4) Chronic Health Conditions, Managed by School Nurses; (5) Concussions, The Role of the School Nurse; (6) Coordinated School Health Programs; (7) Corporal Punishment in the School Setting; (8) Delegation; (9) Diabetes Management in the School Setting; (10) Education, Licensure, and Certification of School Nurses; (11) Emergency Preparedness--The Role of the School Nurse; (12) Health Care Reform; (13) Immunizations; (14) Individualized Healthcare Plans; (15) Infectious Disease Management in the School Setting; (16) Medication Administration in the School Setting; (17) Mental Health of Students; (18) Nursing Minimum Data Set for School Nursing Practice; (19) Overweight and Obesity in Youth in Schools--The Role of the School Nurse; (20) Pediculosis Management in the School Setting; (21) Pregnant and Parenting Students--The Role of the School Nurse; (22) Role of the School Nurse; (23) The Role of the School Nurse and School Based Health Centers; (24) School Health Education about Human Sexuality; (25) Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression (Sexual Minority Students): School Nurse Practice; (26) Standardized Nursing Languages; (27) State School Nurse Consultants; (28) School Nurse Supervision/Evaluation; (29) The Use of Telehealth in Schools; (30) Unlicensed Assistive Personnel--The Role of the School Nurse; and (31) The Use of Volunteers in School Health Services. Issue Briefs include: (1) School Nurse Role in Education School: Nursing Services in Alternative Education Programs; (2) The Responsibilities of the School Nurse: A School Nurse All Day, Every Day; (3) Child Maltreatment, The Role of the School Nurse; (4) Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR); (5) Drug Testing in Schools; (6) Eating Disorders; (7) Emergency Equipment and Supplies in the School Setting; (8) Environmental Health Concerns in the School Setting; (9) Government Relations and Advocacy; (10) Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; (11) School Health Records; (12) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Least Restrictive Environment; (13) School Meal Programs; (14) Privacy Standards for Student Health Records; (15) Reduction in Force; (16) School Sponsored Trips, Role of the School Nurse; (17) School Violence, Role of the School Nurse in Prevention; (18) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (19) Self-Administration of Rescue Inhalers for Asthma in the School Setting; (20) Service Animals in Schools; (21) Substance Use and Abuse; (22) The Role of the School Nurse in Third Party Reimbursement; (23) Transition Planning for Students with Chronic Health Conditions; and (24) School Vision Screening. The Resolutions and Consensus Statements include: (1) Non-Patient Specific Epinephrine in the School Setting. Board Statement (January 2011); (2) The Use of Restraints or Seclusion in the School Setting; Consensus Statement (August 2009); (3) Safe School Nurse Staffing for Quality School Health Services in Schools. Joint Consensus Statement (May 2012); (4) Resolution: Access to a School Nurse (June 2003); (5) Resolution: Global School Nursing (June 2010); (6) Resolution: Overweight and Obese Children and Adolescents (February 2010); and (7) Resolution: Vending Machines and Healthy Food Choices (November 2004). Individual statements, briefs and resolutions contain references. 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 (2196K)