Sentences with phrase «family socioeconomic level»

Not exact matches

Against which socioeconomic level are family prevention programs aimed?

Likewise, homeschooling seems to mitigate the negative effects of low levels of parents» education on student achievement — a finding that's especially intriguing since these parents are the educators — as well as the negative effects of family socioeconomic variables and race displayed in public schools.

Pregnant women who had low socioeconomic status during childhood and who have poor family social support appear to prematurely age on a cellular level, potentially raising the risk for complications, a new study has found.

It is my ongoing desire to provide a healing space that is safe for individuals of any skin color, ethnicity, religion, spiritual practice, national origin, appearance, political conviction, sex, sexual preference, gender identification, mental and physical ability, culture, education level, socioeconomic level, body size, substance use, personal and family history, or age.

This significant increase in residential sorting by income among families with school - age children would have likely led to far greater disparities in school resources by community socioeconomic status had SFRs not been an effective leveling tool.

The author adds, «School practices to encourage parents to participate in their children's education are more important than family characteristics like parental education, family size, marital status, socioeconomic level, or student grade level in determining whether parents get involved.»

Basili: Actually, the most distinctive achievement gap on the SAT is based on socioeconomic level and family income.

[8] While individual - level models controlling only for race and gender showed blacks more likely to be identified, adding a family socioeconomic status variable eliminated the effect of race for blacks, while Hispanics and Asians were significantly less likely to be in special education.

The researchers controlled for each family's socioeconomic status and parent education level.

The strongest correlates of achievement gaps are local racial / ethnic differences in parental income, local average parental education levels, and patterns of racial / ethnic segregation, consistent with a theoretical model in which family socioeconomic factors affect educational opportunity partly though residential and school segregation patterns.

During the course of the volume, NAEP and Current Population Survey data are used to probe a broad range of variables, including teacher qualifications, hours spent watching television, levels of socioeconomic inequality, degrees of racial segregation, particular school - reform policies, family structure, and race - specific cultural attitudes.

The study also found a student's level of reading engagement was more highly correlated with their reading achievement than their socioeconomic status, gender, family structure, or time spent on homework.

For example, the NJDOE officials could develop a socioeconomic indicator basket made up of free lunch eligibility at the school level, the percentage of families living below the poverty line, and the percentage of lone parent households in the community.

Far more relevant than race or gender in predicting academic achievement are family socioeconomics and the education levels of students» parents (and of other adults close to them).

Even fewer people know that poor nutrition is not only a problem for impoverished families — children of all socioeconomic levels can suffer from lower student achievement due to nutritional problems at home.

Students arrive with a tremendous amount of baggage, with various health and nutrition factors, family issues, neighborhood influences and differing socioeconomic levels.

GEO Academies, utilizes the TAP framework to promote teacher and student advancement because we believe that regardless of socioeconomic status of our students, they can all achieve at a high level, pursue a four year college degree, and achieve their dreams and goals, regardless of where they live, what color they are, and what their family education level is.

d.tech is a free public charter school that values diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic level, sexual orientation, physical ability, family structure and religion, and it encourages all students who believe that d.tech's innovative program might be a great fit for their high school years to register for the lottery.

Even so, d.tech encourages all students who are interested in d.tech's innovative program to apply: d.tech values diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic level, sexual orientation, physical ability, family structure and religion.

Beginning with the now - famous evidence reported by Coleman and his colleagues (1966), study after study suggests that socioeconomic status (SES) of families explains more than half of the difference in student achievement across schools; it is also highly related to violence, dropping out of school, entry to postsecondary education and levels of both adult employment and income.

Likewise, on average, schools that serve families from a lower socioeconomic status had lower levels of school attachment, disciplinary order, and academic climate.

We seek to put greater ownership in the hands of parents and families, professional educators and local community leaders — who are passionate and motivated to serve every child no matter what their socioeconomic background, level of affluence, upbringing, native language or country of origin.

Lack of knowledge of career options and the world of work, the economy, one's socioeconomic level, expectations of others, beliefs and attitudes we learn from our family, unrealistic self - expectations and career myths can derail the process.

This then established the relationship between neighbourhood socioeconomic status (SES) and a number of children's health and developmental outcomes.9 Longitudinal research suggested structural characteristics such as poverty and demography were mediated through community - level social processes that influenced the functioning of families and children.10, 11 Today, however, there is still limited understanding of the modifiable community - level factors likely to benefit outcomes for young children despite socioecological frameworks suggesting there are multiple levels of influence (individual, family, community) on early child development (ECD).12, 13 Investigating these influences is thought best undertaken through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods that can test these multiple influences on ECD.14, 15

Relatively little is known about social gradients in developmental outcomes, with much of the research employing dichotomous socioeconomic indicators such as family poverty.2 5 16 Thus, it is unclear whether poor developmental outcomes exhibit threshold effects (evident only when a certain level of disadvantage is exceeded), gradient effects (linear declines with increasing disadvantage) or accelerating effects (progressively stronger declines with increasing disadvantage) as suggested by some recent studies.17 — 19 Further, most research has examined socioeconomic patterns for single childhood outcomes1 or for multiple outcomes within the physical3 4 or developmental17 18 20 health domains.

Outcomes: Mood and anxiety disorders (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, agoraphobia, social phobia, obsessive - compulsive disorder, specific phobia, panic disorder and generalised anxiety disorder); antisocial and substance dependence disorders (oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, substance - dependence disorders, alcohol dependence, drug dependence and smoking dependence); current global functioning and family conflict; educational and occupational achievement (parental support, educational and occupational levels, overall socioeconomic status); and cognitive assessments.

A number of factors have been associated with poor school attendance, including low socioeconomic status and low levels of parental education.1 3 In Australia, Indigenous young people have been identified to have significantly worse attendance and school retention when compared with non-Indigenous children, and it has been suggested that this is a key driver of the gap in academic outcomes between non-Indigenous and Indigenous young people.6 — 8 In addition Moore and McArthur9 identified that maternal and family risks, such as family instability, mental illness and drug and alcohol issues, are associated with reduced child participation in school.

A similar relationship was noted in the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey where an independent association between the number of dietary indicators met and a child's odds of experiencing emotional or behavioural problems was demonstrated.5 Other research with Australian adolescents has also demonstrated an association between dietary quality and mental health, even after controlling for socioeconomic status and a range of individual and family - level characteristics.41, 42 It appears that a more detailed exploration of the link between diet and mental health among Aboriginal children is warranted.

Racial / ethnic minorities as well as those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) experience higher rates of family violence as well as higher rates of asthma37 than their white, higher - SES counterparts.38 - 40 Analyses were therefore adjusted for maternal race / ethnicity and maternal education level.

Seniors reported having grown up in various socioeconomic backgrounds and parental education levels, and experiencing low household income (41 %), family separation (38 %), and food deprivation (31 %) mainly during War World II, other regional wars, and the Great Depression in the US.

Similar research needs to be conducted with more various families (other race, with a lower level of education and / or lower socioeconomic status, etc.) to assess whether the QPCCE is a widely applicable measure.

The families who consented to enter the trial were representative of eligible families from a socioeconomic point of view and they were also more likely to have a child with clinical level behaviour problems than were those who refused.

This might include upstream policies targeting levels of socioeconomic inequality in society and a range of comprehensive early childhood interventions, potentially including a mix of early health and home visiting services, universal early education opportunities, and programs and policies to promote the family relationship context of the achievement gaps.

Some potential causes of these differences include culture, personality, family size, parental background, socioeconomic status, educational level and religion.

School socioeconomic scores were obtained from the 2001 Australian Census data at the collection district level, where families whose children attended the school lived.

This involves initial and periodic psychometric and interview - based evaluation of the adolescent's symptomatology in a number of different areas, as well as assessment of their socioeconomic status, culture, ongoing level of support systems and coping skills, family and caretaker relationships, attachment issues, and functional self - capacities.

Child, youth and family health trends and «epidemics» today indicate that something is awry: children from all socioeconomic levels are not reaching their full potential and parents are struggling.

The higher - than - population normal levels of psychological distress found among families of children with ID might therefore be attributable to pre-existing socioeconomic disadvantage (the distal cause), rather than child ID per se.

Students living in two - parent families obtain higher achievement levels than other students, even after controlling the student's socioeconomic level and academic background (Cervini, Dari, & Quiroz, 2014).

Fact: «Controlling for predivorce parental socioeconomic and psychosocial resources fully accounts for poorer child mental health at initial interview among children whose parents later divorce... a significant interaction between parental divorce and predivorce levels of family dysfunction suggests that child antisocial behavior decreases when marriages in highly dysfunctional families are dissolved.»

In sum, parental educational level as part of family socioeconomic status is studied exhaustively, but its role in parenting intervention effectiveness remains unclear.

Longitudinal studies have consistently reported higher rates of major depression and other psychopathology (anxiety disorders, conduct disorders and substance abuse disorders) in adolescents with an affectively ill parent than in control families with similar demographic characteristics (age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and educational level).

The sociodemographic characteristics of the families in terms of parental education, high school dropout, family poverty, welfare status, age at parenthood, and socioeconomic status indicated an average level of disadvantage relative to the overall Canadian and Quebec populations, respectively (Statistics Canada, 2008, 2012a).

Higher levels of positive development in emerging adulthood were associated with stronger family and peer relationships, better adjustment to the school setting, higher family socioeconomic status, and better emotional control.

Having started the programme, children were relatively less likely to complete it if they: reported «abnormal» compared to «normal» levels of psychological distress; were boys; were from lone parent families; lived in less favourable socioeconomic circumstances; and had participated in a relatively large MEND programme group; or where managers had run more programmes.