978 resultados para Richmond Public Schools (Va.)
Resumo:
This issue review examines the flooding experienced by the University of Iowa and, to a much lesser degree, by Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa.
Resumo:
Information presented provides an update of the Area Education Agency issue review published in 1997, including history, organization, funding formula, revenues, expenditures, and authority.
Resumo:
Supplementary weightings for school districts are estimated to generate approximately 63.9 million dollars in funding in fiscal year 2011. This issue review provides an overview of all supplementary weightings currently available to school districts and examines the total funding amounts from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2011.
Resumo:
School districts may receive funding for the instructional support program subject to school board or voter approval. Program funding is based on a formula that includes a local funding provision, property tax and income surtax and a state aid component. When initially implemented, state aid was distributed through a formula designed to provide property tax equity and equalize the property tax burden between school districts. Since the initial year of the program, the state aid portion has not been fully funded and in fiscal year 2012, no state dollars were appropriated for the program. The result of underfunding the state-aid portion of the program has led to an inequity in the amount of funds school districts receive from the program. In fiscal year 2012, the portion of actual program funding for school districts ranged from a low of 52.6 percent to a high of 92.8 percent. This issue review examines the inequity in more detail.
Resumo:
Objective: To examine whether the level of parental monitoring is associated with substance use among Swiss adolescents, and to assess whether this effect remains when these adolescents have consuming peers. Methods: Nationally representative sample from the Swiss participation in the 2007 European School Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) survey, which included 7611 adolescents issued from public schools (8th-10th grades). Four levels of parental control were created and four substances (tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and ecstasy) were analyzed. All significant variables at the bivariate level were included in the multivariate analysis. Results: Most adolescents had a high level of parental monitoring and that was associated with younger age, being female, high socioeconomic status, intact family structure and a satisfactory relationship with mother, father and peers. Globally, substance use decreased as parental monitoring increased and high parental monitoring decreased having consuming peers. Results remained essentially the same when consuming peers were added in the analysis. Conclusions: Parental monitoring has positive effects on adolescent substance use with a reduction of consumption and a lower association with consuming peers, which seems to protect adolescents against their potential negative influence. Encouraging parents to monitor their adolescents' activities and friendships by establishing rules about what is allowed or not are simple ways to limit the negative influence of consuming peers on adolescent substance use.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
Resumo:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires each state to provide an annual report card to inform stakeholders and the public about the progress of students and schools on indicators of student achievement and other information that relates to student success. The State Report Card provides state level data to serve as a comparison for schools and districts as they consider and implement improvement efforts to increase the success for all Iowa students.
