Deeper Involvment for Better Brains — Some Current Developments in Educating Gifted High School Students in New York State

1964 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Porter
1977 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas S. Lipton ◽  
Richard C. Stephens ◽  
Dean V. Babst ◽  
Richard Dembo ◽  
Sharon C. Diamond ◽  
...  

1973 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. O'Rourke

The major purposes of this investigation was to assess the effectiveness of the revised edition of the New York State Curriculum Guide with respect to the cognitive domain dealing with the drug topic. Knowledge achievement comparisons in the areas of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs were made between high school students who received the Curriculum Guide program and comparable students receiving a traditional program. Results of the knowledge test scores between the two groups evidenced a significantly higher score for the experimental group for each of the three subscores and for the entire test. Comparisons between the two educational approaches by the sex of the respondent indicated that the program appears more effective for males than females.


2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-99
Author(s):  
Patrice Iatarola ◽  
Ross Rubenstein

In 1996, New York State began requiring all graduating high school students (starting with the Class of 1999) to pass rigorous end-of-course exams in five subjects. This study explores whether high school resources have been reallocated in the wake of these new standards and whether reallocation patterns differ among high- and low-graduation-rate schools. Using a six-year panel of school-level data, we model resources as a function of school and student characteristics, school graduation rates, and school fixed effects. Regression analyses reveal increases in direct services spending, while the percentage of more experienced and educated teachers fell. We find little evidence, though, of differential patterns related to graduation rates, with the exception of teacher licensure and nonpersonnel expenditures. The findings suggest that schools may have limited ability to redeploy nonteacher resources in the short term. While other funds may be reallocated, these represent a small share of total school resources.


2022 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 1179173X2110659
Author(s):  
Indira Debchoudhury ◽  
Shannon M Farley ◽  
Kristi Roods ◽  
Achala Talati ◽  
John Jasek

Introduction Despite declines in cigarette smoking in the US, electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has increased among middle and high school students. In 2014, New York City (NYC) implemented Tobacco 21 (T21) to prohibit sales to anyone under age 21. Our study goal was to measure the effectiveness of T21 on e-cigarette use. Methods We used the New York State (NYS) Youth Tobacco Survey—a biennial, school-based, self-administered survey. We explored middle (N = 5249) and high (N = 7296) school NYC students’ (male and female) current (past 30 days’) e-cigarette use from 2014 (pre-T21) to 2018 (post-T21). Results were compared with students in the rest of NYS (ROS). Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed correlates of e-cigarette use, beliefs about harmfulness, addictiveness, and susceptibility. Results NYC high school students’ current e-cigarette use increased from 2014 to 2018 (8.1% vs 23.5%, P < .001). Middle school students’ use increased between 2014 (4.8%) and 2016 (9.0%) yet reversed by 2018 (5.7%) (2014 vs 2018, P = .576). ROS middle school (2.2% vs 7.4%, P < .001) and high school (12.0% vs 29.3%, ( P < .001) use increased from 2014 to 2018. Willingness to try e-cigarettes among those who had never tried an e-cigarette was twice as high (AOR = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.15-3.17) among NYC high school students in 2018 compared with 2014. Conclusions E-cigarette use increased among NYC high school students despite T21. T21 may have reduced use among middle school students over time. Programs that denormalize e-cigarettes and policies that further restrict access are needed to decrease youth e-cigarette use.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary J. Peters ◽  
Mark L. Hatzenbuehler ◽  
Leslie L. Davidson

Research is just beginning to explore the intersection of bullying and relationship violence. The relationship between these forms of youth aggression has yet to be examined in diverse urban centers, including New York City (NYC). This study seeks to identify intersections of joint victimization from bullying and electronic bullying (e-bullying) with physical relationship violence (pRV). This study examines data from the NYC Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), a representative sample of NYC public high school students, to assess the concurrent victimization from bullying at school and e-bullying with pRV, operationalized as physical violence by a dating partner in the past 12 months. Students who reported being bullied at school and e-bullied had increased odds (bullied: OR = 2.5, 95% CI [2.1, 2.9]; e-bullied: OR = 3.0, 95% CI [2.6, 3.5]) of also being victimized by pRV compared with those who did not report being bullied or e-bullied. In logistic regression models, being bullied at school and being e-bullied remained significant predictors of students’ odds of reporting pRV (bullied: AOR = 2.6, 95% CI [2.2, 3.1]; e-bullied: AOR = 3.0, 95% CI [2.5, 3.6]) while controlling for race, gender, sexual orientation, and age. This research is the first to assess the intersection of victimization from bullying and e-bullying with pRV in a large, diverse, random sample of urban high school students. In this sample, students who report being bullied or e-bullied are more likely also to report pRV than students who have not been bullied or e-bullied. This research has potential implications for educators, adolescent health and social service providers, and policy makers to tailor programs and enact policies that jointly address bullying and pRV. Future studies are needed to longitudinally assess both victimization from and perpetration of bullying and pRV.


1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 120-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
James B. Tucker ◽  
John J. O'Bryan ◽  
Barbara K. Brodowski ◽  
Barbara S. Fromm

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document