IMPROVING INTEGRITY OF CLASSES, TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS: EMPIRICAL ANALYSES ON EDUCATION MARKET INDICATORS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/qpszts96Keywords:
education, school, class, diversity, innovation, efficiencyAbstract
In this paper work it is studied content of the education system and program which include integrated and result-oriented school teaching methodology. Methods and means of teaching integrated learning in primary school, integration and innovation in teaching subjects. Main objectives of the paper are finding out root cause of the integration study, interdisciplinary communication in the teaching process, integrated lessons in the primary education, integrated planning, the development of children's development, individual development of children and classes. Purpose of the current paper are defined teaching pedagogical strategy and find out the most relevant of teaching methods for primary education in case of diversity obtain prominent results among schools, teachers and classes in mathematical analyses. Outcomes of the article are integration ways of science cycles, as well as the plan of the primary educational plan, raising visibility of schools and students among others and the implement modern psychological, pedagogical and innovative target-oriented methods and hints, analysis of the experimental performance of the homework distributed.
Downloads
References
1. Governments introducing these market mechanisms in education can now be found in Asia (China; Hong Kong, China; Kazakhstan and Pakistan), Africa (Tanzania), Latin America (Chile and Nicaragua), Europe (Finland, France, Poland, Spain and Sweden), North America (Canada and the United States), Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) and the Middle East (Qatar). See e.g. Brewer and Smith (2008) for a general overview; Anderson and Heyneman (2005) for Central Asia, particularly Kazachstan; Johannesson et al. (2002) for Finland, Iceland and Sweden; Klitgaard (2007) for a comparison between the United States, Sweden and Germany; Mok et al. (2009) for China; Piwowarski (2006) for Poland;
2. Bifulco, R., C. Cobb and C. Bell (2009), “Can interdistrict choice boost student chievement? The case of Connecticut’s interdistrict magnet school programme”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 323-345
3. Bohte, J. (2004), “Examining the Impact of Charter Schools on Performance in Traditional Public Schools”. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4.
4. Chakrabarti, R. (2008), “Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher programme affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee”. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 92, No. 5-6, pp. 1371-1393.
5. Wolf, P.J. (2009), Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee parental Choice Programme: Summary of Second Year Reports. SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation (Report nr. 6), School Choice Demonstration Project, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas
6. Noailly, J., S. Vujic and A. Aouragh (2009), The effects of competition on the quality of primary schools in the Netherlands, CPB discussion paper 120. CPB, The Hague.
7. Belfield, C., and H.M. Levin (2005), Privatizing Educational Choice: Consequences for Parents, Schools, and Public Policy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
8. Gibbons, S., S. Machin and O. Silva (2008), “Choice, competition, and pupil achievement”. Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 912–947
9. Miron, G. and B. Applegate (2009), Review of “Multiple Choice: Charter school performance in 16 states”. Boulder and Temple: Education and the Public Interest Center and Education Policy Research Unit.
10. Booker, K., T.R. Sass, B. Gill and R. Zimmer (2008), Going Beyond Test Scores. Evaluating Charter School Impact on Educational Attainment in Chicago and Florida. Working Paper No. 610, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
11. McEwan, P.J. (2000b), “The potential impact of large-scale voucher programmes”. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 103-149.
12. Hanushek, E.A., J.F. Kain, S.G. Rivkin and G.F. Branch (2007), “Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice”. Journal of public economics, Vol. 91, No. 5-6, pp. 823-848
13. Hsieh, C-T. and M. Urquiola (2006), “The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s voucher programme”. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 90, No. 8- 9, pp. 1477-1503
14. Andersen, S.C. and S. Serritzlew (2007), “The Unintended Effects of Private School Competition”. Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 335-356.
15. Archbald, D.A. (2004), “School Choice, Magnet Schools, and the Liberation Model: An Empirical Study”. Sociology of Education, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 283–310
16. Bartlett, L., M. Frederick, T. Gulbrandsen and E. Murillo (2002), “The Marketization of Education: Public Schools for Private Ends.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1–25.
17. Taylor, A. (2006), “‘Bright lights’ and ‘twinkies’: career pathways in an education market”. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 35–57
18. Bifulco, R., C. Cobb and C. Bell (2009), “Can interdistrict choice boost student achievement? The case of Connecticut’s interdistrict magnet school programme”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 323-345.
19. Andersen, S.C. and S. Serritzlew (2007), “The Unintended Effects of Private School Competition”. Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 335-356.
20. Greene, K.V. and B-G. Kang (2004), “The effect of public and private competition on high school outputs in New York State”. Economics of Education Review, Vol. 23, pp. 497-506.
21. Looney, J. (2009), “Assessment and Innovation in Education”. OECD Education Working Paper No. 24
22. Carroll, J.B. A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 722-733.
23. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=File:Total_general_government_expenditure_on_education,_2018_(%25_of_ GDP)_.png
24. World bank, 2019. https://ourworldindata.org/literacy
25. Tim Friedman, Ursula Schwantner, Jeaniene Spink, Naoko Tabata and Charlotte Waters Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Improving Quality Education and Children’s Learning
Outcomes and Effective Practices in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region Report for UNICEF ESARO, 2016, Page 1.
26. Tim Friedman, Ursula Schwantner, Jeaniene Spink, Naoko Tabata and Charlotte Waters Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Improving Quality Education and Children’s Learning Outcomes and Effective Practices in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region Report for UNICEF ESARO, 2016, Page 1.
27. Kalin, Jana; Peklaj, Cirila; Pecjak, Sonja; Levpuscek, Melita Puklek; Valencic Zuljan, Milena Elementary and secondary school students’ perceptions of teachers’classroom management competencies CEPS Journal 7 (2017).
28. Classroom Management and Motivation. (At Secondary School Level, Máster Universitario en Enseñanza delInglés como Lengua Extranjera Universidad de Alcalá Curso Académico 2018/2019, page 3.
29. An introduction to Effective School Principles for secondary schools, Produced in collaboration with the Ministries of Education in the Eastern Caribbean Region. For further information please contact the Ministry of Education in your country (UNICEF) Offce for the Eastern Caribbean Area, Page 25.
30. Looking at our School 2016, A Quality Framework for Primary Schools A Quality Framework for Primary Schools, page 12.
31. Mr Wataru Iwamoto, Secondary Education Reform Towards a Convergence of Knowledge Acquisition and Skills Development, Division of Secondary, Technical and Vocational Education, UNESCO, 2005,
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
