ランキング (合計) - Ceek.jp Altmetrics

1 0 0 0 若手科学者を格差が襲う亡びゆく日本の理工教育 (特集大学の絶望)

著者: 竹内薫
出版者: 中央公論新社
雑誌: 中央公論 (ISSN:05296838)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.124, no.2, pp.68-75, 2009-02

2010-02-25 09:03:30
1 はてなブックマーク

https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/40016400766

1 0 0 0 京都府北部の昼間定時制高校の取り組みから

著者: 谷口藤雄
出版者: 全国障害者問題研究会
雑誌: 障害者問題研究 (ISSN:03884155)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.36, no.4, pp.286-291, 2009-02

京都府では中学校特別支援学級卒業生の過半数が高校に進学している.おりしも2008年度から高校でも特別支援教育体制の整備が求められている.しかし,高校ではこれまで特別支援教育の経験も実績もないため,一部で手探りの取り組みが進められている.特別な教育的ニーズのある生徒は,「格差」と「競争」の教育の中で,定時制や教育困難校,小規模校などに集中している.高校の「適格者主義」は現実の高校では生きており,特別支援教育の取り組みを困難にしている.京都府北部の農村地帯にある京都府立福知山高校三和分校(以下、三和分校)は6年ほど前から特別な教育的ニーズのある生徒の入学が増えてきた.小規模校で週4日の昼間定時制高校であること,農業科と家政科の専門学科で,座学だけではなく実習もあること,ゆっくり丁寧な指導が評価されたためと思われるが,年々困難な課題のある生徒が入学している.三和分校では,特別な取り組みではなく,誰でもできる特別支援教育の視点で授業改善や指導の見直しにより,ニーズや課題のある生徒の指導に取り組んでいる.しかし,年々課題も大きくなっている.

2010-02-25 09:03:23
1 はてなブックマーク

https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110007069977

1 0 0 0 中級教育と格差(vol.10)教育の地域間格差

著者: 橘木俊詔八木匡
出版者: 日本評論社
雑誌: 経済セミナー (ISSN:0386992X)
巻号頁・発行日: no.645, pp.100-109, 2009-01

2010-02-25 09:03:19
1 はてなブックマーク

https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/40016412757

1 0 0 0 OA 大学進学における所得格差と高等教育政策の可能性

著者: 藤村正司
出版者: 日本教育社会学会
雑誌: 教育社会学研究 (ISSN:03873145)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.85, pp.27-48, 2009-11-30
被引用文献数: 2

In a society like Japan, where half of students graduating from high school go on to college, there seems to be a universal belief that anyone who wishes to can gain access to college. In line with this, higher education policy has been directed toward increasing the quality of education. As a consequence, less attention seems to have been given to the ideal of equal opportunities for higher education. However, parental financial support for children has been pushed to the limit because of decreasing public finance and rising tuition at private universities. Yet there has been little systematic investigation of economic disparities in access to universities and the potential of equal opportunity policy. This article attempts to fill this gap. The 2005 National Students' Career Survey (NSCS) data set, which consists of the data from 4,000 high school seniors and their parents filled by random sampling, provides materials for examining these issues. We first estimated the marginal effect of the "achievement-income" dummy variables, high school rank, sex, and parent's education on the probability of university attendance. Secondly, in order to examine the role of national universities, which are supposed to enroll students with "high academic achievement and low-income," we examined mobility patterns of application and admission among respondents as a function of city size, and university type (national/private). After examining the relationship between these patterns, we reported the results of the logit model to predict the marginal effect on four outcomes (national/private, home/away). We then investigated the effectiveness of scholarship loan programs (category 2 loans from JASSO, which bear interest) on the probability of university attendance. And finally, to clarify the reason not of "risk aversion" but of why parents go into debt, and to identify the latent group which applies for the loan program, a latent class analysis was used. The major findings are as follows: (1) Economic inequality in access to university education still exists after controlling other factors. (2) National universities guarantee post-secondary opportunities for students with "high academic achievement and low-income." (3) Student loan programs based on prior applications do not increase the accessibility of low-income students to colleges. These results show that, rather than loans themselves acting as an incentive, parents who have already intended to enroll their children into university apply for the loan program. (4) Parents who are willing to go into debt belong to a latent class, which are characterized as low-or middle-income, upward mobility. These findings show that the tight financial conditions facing higher education since the 1990s have changed the incentive structure by creating policies that give low-income families incentives comparable to those of higher-income families. Therefore, guaranteeing college opportunities for the low-income students, and extending opportunities for individual choice, are important problem for higher education policy.