FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W16224764> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W16224764 endingPage "317" @default.
• W16224764 startingPage "307" @default.
• W16224764 abstract "Criticism of education by the American public has been reflected in an increased number of studies on school performance conducted since 1982. Student test scores are one of the primary targets of this criticism. By the mid-1970s, academic indicators began to reveal a steady nationwide test score downturn. For example, the number and proportion of students who received high scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test dropped dramatically. Not only college entrance examination scores, but other tests taken by students in junior and senior year of high school, have shown a marked decline. (Ravitch, 1986) The now famous report, A Nation at Risk (1983), has documented a number of problems with the U.S. educational performance. For example, in comparison to other industrial nations, the United States has never finished first or second in student achievement test scores, but has finished last in seven of 19 tests. Further indicators suggesting the decline of the quality of American education are that 20 million American adults are illiterate and 13 percent of all 17 year-olds in the U.S. are considered functionally uilliterate. (A Nation at Risk, 1983) Recently, Gerald Bracey (1992, 1995) has suggested that the crisis has been blown out of proportion by critics of education. While his comments have some merit and that many of the comparisons which are made are not appropriate, his observation should not, however, be interpreted to suggest that there are no problems in education and that certain procedures and systems could not be improved. More recently concerns about the American educational system have focused on educational expenditures. State legislatures and local school boards have had to deal with escalating health insurance costs, increased demands for student services, increased lawsuits with attendant attorney fees, and teacher demands for increased salary and fringe benefits. Teacher absenteeism as a financial cost is one particular area which has been the focus of research. (Ehrenberg, Ehrenberg, Ehrenberg, and Rees, 1991) In a recent analysis of substitute teacher pay cost, three individual school districts in northern Indiana were surveyed. The results showed that nearly 1% of the total operating budget for these school districts was consumed by substitute teacher costs. (Woods, 1996) In this era of increased educational costs, dollars spent due to employee absences for salaries and fringe benefits needs closer examination. While the financial costs associated with teacher absenteeism are significant, they do not reflect the possible cost of teacher absenteeism on student achievement. The learning model of education in the United States is based on Student-Teacher interaction. (Elliott, 1979) When the student or teacher is absent, a violation of one of the model's assumptions occurs. Lewis (1981), for example reported in his article that, nationally, 75,000,000 student-teacher contact hours are lost annually due to teacher absenteeism. The time lost to teacher absenteeism is a national problem, but it is more significant in large urban school districts which have disproportionately higher teacher absence rates. Detroit Public Schools had more than 120,000 teacher days lost to absences in 1980-81. These absences cost more than 6.2 million dollars. A Nation At Risk (1983) offered some insight into the public's renewed concern for public schools. Increased state demands upon the public schools, such as increasing the number of credits required for graduation from high school, increasing the number of student-teacher contact hours weekly, and eliminating some school activities that previously pulled students out of the classroom are evidence of the public's growing concern for student achievement scores on tests. These demands are based on the assumption of the effectiveness of student-teacher interaction. (Elliott, 1979) Should concern exist for the impact of teacher absences on student academic successes when substitute teachers are hired to replace absent teachers? …" @default.
• W16224764 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W16224764 creator A5036815765 @default.
• W16224764 creator A5078815206 @default.
• W16224764 date "1997-12-22" @default.
• W16224764 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W16224764 title "Determining the Negative Effect of Teacher Attendance on Student Achievement" @default.
• W16224764 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W16224764 type Work @default.
• W16224764 sameAs 16224764 @default.
• W16224764 citedByCount "36" @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642012 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642013 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642014 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642015 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642016 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642018 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642020 @default.
• W16224764 countsByYear W162247642021 @default.
• W16224764 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W16224764 hasAuthorship W16224764A5036815765 @default.
• W16224764 hasAuthorship W16224764A5078815206 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C203151758 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C2778173179 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C2781206393 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C48561166 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C81369262 @default.
• W16224764 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C138496976 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C145420912 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C151730666 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C15744967 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C17744445 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C199539241 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C203151758 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C2777267654 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C2778173179 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C2781206393 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C48561166 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C7991579 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C81369262 @default.
• W16224764 hasConceptScore W16224764C86803240 @default.
• W16224764 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W16224764 hasLocation W162247641 @default.
• W16224764 hasOpenAccess W16224764 @default.
• W16224764 hasPrimaryLocation W162247641 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W101173567 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W1587620389 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W1970404118 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W1980029538 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W1987506146 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W1992402899 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W1998109745 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W200384869 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2023955090 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2047511566 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2064106610 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2079750465 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2096517822 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2123988385 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2136091221 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2150256430 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W2167378093 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W3124192170 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W3125524845 @default.
• W16224764 hasRelatedWork W88900264 @default.
• W16224764 hasVolume "118" @default.
• W16224764 isParatext "false" @default.
• W16224764 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W16224764 magId "16224764" @default.
• W16224764 workType "article" @default.