Organization Of School System Research Articles

DEA를 활용한 재외한국학교의 효율성 분석

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relative efficiency of overseas Korean schools receiving financial support under the Act on Educational Support for Korean Nationals Abroad. The investigation includes identifying environmental factors that influence efficiency. To achieve this goal, data envelopment analysis (DEA), a method suitable for measuring efficiency, was employed to assess overseas Korean schools. The analysis covered a three-year period from 2020 to 2022, comparing and scrutinizing the efficiency of these schools during this timeframe. In addition, the study utilized the Tobit model to examine the impact of various factors on the efficiency of overseas Korean schools. These factors include the country of the school's location, educational objectives, student size, school system organization, ownership of land and buildings, school corporation, development fund, years of establishment, and the GDP of the host country. The Tobit model was employed to analyze how these variables influence the efficiency of the schools. As a result of the empirical analysis conducted from 2020 to 2022, the relative efficiency of overseas Korean schools was measured. The study identified 9 schools exhibiting Constant Return to Scale(CRS) and distinguished 25 schools with either Decreasing Return to Scale(DRS) or Increasing Return to Scale(IRS). The impact on efficiency indicates that schools located in Northeast Asia and large-scale schools demonstrated relatively high efficiency. Contrary to expectations, school corporation and completed school system organization exhibited relatively lower efficiency. Lastly, the lower the GDP of the host country, the higher the efficiency. This study identified inefficiencies in terms of technology and scale of overseas Korean schools. By analyzing environmental factors, information on the direction of government financial support can be provided. It is expected that this evaluation of the efficiency of overseas Korean schools will serve as basis for establishing strategies to strengthen the effectiveness of government subsidies.

The epidemics of myopia: Aetiology and prevention

There is an epidemic of myopia in East and Southeast Asia, with the prevalence of myopia in young adults around 80-90%, and an accompanying high prevalence of high myopia in young adults (10-20%). This may foreshadow an increase in low vision and blindness due to pathological myopia. These two epidemics are linked, since the increasingly early onset of myopia, combined with high progression rates, naturally generates an epidemic of high myopia, with high prevalences of "acquired" high myopia appearing around the age of 11-13. The major risk factors identified are intensive education, and limited time outdoors. The localization of the epidemic appears to be due to the high educational pressures and limited time outdoors in the region, rather than to genetically elevated sensitivity to these factors. Causality has been demonstrated in the case of time outdoors through randomized clinical trials in which increased time outdoors in schools has prevented the onset of myopia. In the case of educational pressures, evidence of causality comes from the high prevalence of myopia and high myopia in Jewish boys attending Orthodox schools in Israel compared to their sisters attending religious schools, and boys and girls attending secular schools. Combining increased time outdoors in schools, to slow the onset of myopia, with clinical methods for slowing myopic progression, should lead to the control of this epidemic, which would otherwise pose a major health challenge. Reforms to the organization of school systems to reduce intense early competition for accelerated learning pathways may also be important.

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN ARMENIA BETWEEN 1921 AND 1925

In the period between 1921 and 1925 on its way, full of obstacles caused by poor economic situation and absence of specific school-related traditions in the reality of Soviet Armenia, the education and overall enlightenment realm of Armenia experienced a noticeable upsurge. Back then, the education and enlightenment sphere emerged in the following successive stages: elimination of illiteracy, organization of preschool education, and the formation of Soviet Armenian school system. All the efforts relevant to this domain were aimed at the formation of soviet school system that was meant to undergo pertinent changes of ultimate issues defined on the agenda of school system organization.

An Analysis of the Organizational Patterns of North Carolina School Districts

School system organization has been described as the skeleton that outlines the structure anddetermines the form of a school district. (Grove, 2002). Organizational charts are the manifestations ofthese skeletons. Some are simple; others are more complex – more like nervous systems thanskeletons. Whatever metaphor is chosen, understanding the underlying organization of the complexmultiple functions of a social group such as a school district is important. Our schools are being askedto educate our children in an ever-increasingly complex and global society. Surely the organization of aschool district has an impact on how students are educated and how well they achieve curricular goals.With today’s emphasis on accountability, the ability of the school district organization to help studentsachieve and meet testing goals is critical. But what is the best way to organize a school district? Howdo superintendents make the decisions needed to organize a district? This study is a necessary firststep in determining this. In this study, we analyzed the organization of public school districts in the stateof North Carolina. We were interested in the similarities and differences in the administrative structuresdriving these organizations serving children in a diverse geographical state. We addressed twoquestions:(1) What organizational patterns are found in public school districts in North Carolina?(2) How do organizational patterns differ in districts serving different numbers of students?

Positive Behavior Support as a Model for Promoting Educational Inclusion

Positive behavior support (PBS) has been advanced as a model for effectively managing behavior in school settings and facilitating inclusive education. Numerous systems adaptations and administrative supports, however, are necessary for the successful application of PBS in the schools. This article identifies difficulties in the application of best practices within current school systems, and considers federal and state laws, school system organization, the roles of teachers and administrators, and other factors that are relevant for inclusive education. Issues pertinent to the application of PBS are discussed, and practical steps for achieving progress are recommended.

American and Japanese Achievement ... Again A Response to Baker

Needless to say, I am grateful for the attention David Baker has given to my article Comparing American and Japanese Achievement: Is the United States Really a Low Achiever? (Westbury, 1992). I acknowledge, too, my appreciation of what he says about the approaches to cross-national analysis that I advocated there. But the analysis he reports leads him to question my claims about the overall and efficiency of the American educational system when compared with that of Japan, at least in the teaching of mathematics at the 7th/8th and 12th grade levels. The issues that circle around this disagreement are large ones that seem to provoke continuing interest (see, e.g., Beardsley, 1992; Cipra, 1992; Stevenson, 1992; Stevenson, Chen, & Lee, 1993; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992), are clearly important, and cannot be resolved by any one argument, analysis, or line of work. My hope for my article was that it might begin just the kind of debate that Baker has joined, and because Baker's analysis rests on the same data set that I work with, the findings he reports and the questions he raises about my analysis become the more compelling. Baker's response questions the reasoning of Comparing American and Japanese Achievement by approaching the analysis of the comparative effectiveness of the two school systems in a very different way. And based on the results of his analysis, Baker argues that I am wrong in claiming that there is little or no evidence in the SIMS data for the widely believed claim of profound systemic differences between the U.S. and Japanese school systems that go beyond differences in the curricula institutionalized in the two countries' school systems. Thus, in contrast to my emphasis on intentional between-country differences in curriculum as the key variable explaining American-Japanese differences in patterns of achievement, Baker finds that when curricular differences are held constant, the learning of U.S. students falls below that of Japanese students; he attributes this failure in American performance to pervasive systemic weaknesses in school system organization, classroom management, and teaching-which, presumably, affect most classrooms (see also Baker & Schaub, in press; Schaub & Baker, 1991). Variables derived from the SIMS Opportunity-to-Learn (OTL), or curriculum coverage, questions lie at the heart of the new evidence Baker's response provides on the role of the curriculum versus other factors in discussions of the relative of U.S. and Japanese schools. He uses OTL to show that Japanese students learn significantly more of the curriculum they are taught than do U.S. students. He follows this up by also showing that achievement gain scores over the school year are, overall, positive in Japanese classrooms and are tightly distributed whereas American gains are widely spread-and sometime negative. He sees both arguments combining to raise fundamental questions about my argument, which he interprets to be that if parts of the American educational system produce similar results to the full Japanese system, then school in the two systems is fundamentally alike. This was not quite my claim but I will put aside that disagreement for the moment. The heart of my argument centered on the observation that the intentions of American and Japanese math curricula differ profoundly and that therefore the match between the curriculum embedded in the SIMS tests and the U.S. curriculum was far from a good one. Thus, Flanders (in press) has analyzed the pattern of coverage of the 180 items of the SIMS Population A item pool in textbooks of the kind used in the 64% of U.S. typical or regular Grade 8 math classes. His findings are presented in Table 1. Overall, Flanders found that only 62 (of the 180) SIMS items were covered in the majority of the six textbooks he examined; only 21% of the SIMS items were in all six textbooks. In

The Formation and Instruction of Ability Groups

Based on an analysis of first-grade reading instruction, in which the nature of the curriculum, the allocation of time, the class distribution of student aptitude, and learning are the main considerations, this article provides evidence that teaching contains important technological elements. These elements can be formulated as principles expressing coherent connections between means and ends; they pervade school-system organization and are not restricted to classes. The argument questions the view that teaching is largely intuitive, unpredictable, and resistant to analysis.

インドネシアの教育制度と社会科教育

After the independence day August 17, 1945, education system of Indonesia was not established because of the confusion in economic and political problems. However, step by step the Government made the policy for developing national education.The first curriculum was not developed in 1956 and then renewed in the year of 1963 and 1968. Recently we have the new one, developed in 1975.By the way, we had the education system since the Hindu culture entered Indonesian society, and the Hindu religion penetrated, so the education activities were usually held at the Hindu temples, which we called Pade pokan (about 700 BC).After the Islamic religion came on, we had Pesantren system for the Muslim who want to study deeply about Islamic religion, and the center of the education activities were in the mosks. This Pesantren was opened after about the 15th century.During the Dutch colonial days, the national education was not developed, but Pesantren education system were continued.Since the year of 1908, the Dutch colonial government opened schools for both their children and the common people. Therefore the people who entered schools were not many. After 1928, schools belonged to the educated-class and it was more necessary to develop and spread education among all the common people in the Indonesian archipelago.Today, we have two school systems for the same purpose, but they different in responsibility and management administration. One is organization of school system under responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture, and other under responsibility of the Ministry of Religion Affairs.Generally speaking, the education of Social Studies field in Indonesia has been using this system since the 1975 Curriculum was established. However, before using this system, for example in the 1963 Curriculum, we used many different kinds of courses for learned Social Studies. For example; History, Economy, Cooperation system, Geography, Sociology, etc, were established as one field to study.Since the 1975 Curriculum, the system has been changed as following:1. For the Elementary Schools and Lower Secondary Schools, we teach Social Studies above mentioned.2. For the Upper Secondary Schools and up we use continuing system like the 1968 Curriculum.And basic purpose of national education is PANCASILA which is the 1945 Constitution as the declaration of the independence of Republic of Indonesia.

Theory and Structure of Local School Administration

WITHIN the scope of this review, there is little to report of research in the area of the theory of school organization. Most studies in school organization in the 1949-1952 period were status studies useful in themselves and helpful prospectively in the determination of improved educational organization. Wood's study (64) was typical of the kind of study carried on with respect to contemporary school system organization. Concern with the development of a basic theory of school administration, especially public-school administration, was evidenced in declarations of leaders in the field and supported by a number of efforts perhaps best characterized as being of the nature of philosophical research (40, 41, 42, 51). It may be noted that the many studies of school district reorganization, not reported in this chapter, have borne upon the aspects of proper organization within the administrative unit and with the status studies of organization may well lead to the development of administrative theory suited to the time and presently not evident to the student of school administration. It should also be noted that many studies under the W. K. Kellogg Foundation grants and directed by the institutions acting as centers in the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration (11, 15, 16, 53) are underway and that important contributions to the development of basic theory may be expected. A review of the research of the past three years leads to these conclusions: There has been a growing interest in the development of basic theory in school system organization and administration but little significant research; most studies in the area of general school organization have been status studies or strongly related to them; the role and practice of the board of education concerned many researchers, whose interest reflected a growing professional concern, with the place and function of that body; there is need for many studies in the area of general school organization in keeping with the need for adapting intelligently school organization to changing times.