We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
The firstground-breaking account of the teaching of history in England's state schools from the early 1900s to the present day, this accessible study is a major contribution to the current debates about the place of history in the classroom and the national curriculum. Drawing on a wide variety of hitherto unpublished material, including an especially created oral history archive and the recollections of many former pupils as to what it was like to be on the receiving end and how much they have remembered of what they were taught, the authors of this powerfully-argued book present an original and comprehensive account of the political decisions and the pedagogic practices which determined the sort of history that was taught in the classroom. Concluding with some important recommendations about what needs to be done to safeguard the teaching of history in England's schools in the future, The Right Kind of History will be an invaluable resource for teachers, scholars, educationalists andpolicy-makers.
Phil Beadle is an English teacher, a former United Kingdom Secondary Teacher of the Year in the National Teaching Awards, and a double Royal Television Society Award winning broadcaster for Channel 4's The Unteachables and Can't Read Can't Write. "Bad Education" is a collection of Phil Beadle s columns from the Guardian s Education section and is a laugh-a-minute romp through more or less every aspect of British Education over the last decade, which makes the occasional, entirely accidental, serious point.
Spiritual intelligence is the innate ability that all children have to find greater wonder and purpose in their lives, through the lives that they are already leading. Natural curiosity, a sense of playfulness and fun, the urge to question these are the resources that all children possess and can use to explore more deeply who they are and what their existence can mean to them. A Moon On Water is intended as a workbook of practical ideas and activities for use in schools that can be applied in a range of contexts across the curriculum; as a basis for philosophical enquiry, for exploring feelings and enhancing emotional resourcefulness, for adding the dimension of values to the subjects and knowledge that children study. In short the book seeks to show children how to connect who they are with what they do, with why they are here . Includes a CD-ROM and Audio CD.
A History of the University in Europe
A History of the University in Europe is a four-volume book series on the history and development of the European university from the medieval origins of the institution until the present day. The series was directed by the European University Association  and published by Cambridge University Press between 1992 and 2011. The volumes consist of individual contributions by international experts in the field and is considered the most comprehensive and authoritative work on the subject to date.    It has been fully or partly translated into several languages. 
|Author||Hilde de Ridder-Symoens and Walter Rüegg (eds.)|
|Language||Fully: English, German |
Partly: Spanish, Portuguese
In progress: Russian, Chinese
|Publisher||Cambridge University Press|
|No. of books||4|
Review: Volume 56 - Education - History
PROLA provides immediate access to the APS journal collection dating back to the first volume of each journal. A subscription to PROLA gives access to all journal content, except for the current year and the preceding three years.
Element No. 102
A. Ghiorso, T. Sikkeland, J. R. Walton, and G. T. Seaborg
Two-Fluid Model of Superconductivity
The timeline features events related to the Physical Review and PRL, as well as seminal developments in physics after 1893. We also list a few important papers published by the journals.
Browse the Archive
Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Journals Archive
Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Journals Archive
ISSN 1536-6065 (online). ©2021 American Physical Society. All rights reserved. Physical Review™, Physical Review Letters™, Physical Review X™, Reviews of Modern Physics™, Physical Review A™, Physical Review B™, Physical Review C™, Physical Review D™, Physical Review E™, Physical Review Applied™, Physical Review Fluids™, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams™, Physical Review Physics Education Research™, APS Physics logo, and Physics logo are trademarks of the American Physical Society. Information about registration may be found here. Use of the American Physical Society websites and journals implies that the user has read and agrees to our Terms and Conditions and any applicable Subscription Agreement.
The pandemic disrupted how school works. (And disruption is good!) Eighteen changes that we are totally here for.
Visit our Centennial website to learn how HGSE has made a difference in the field of education — and how to get involved. >
Usable Knowledge is an online resource from the Harvard Graduate School of Education that aims to make education research and best practices accessible to educators, policymakers, members of the media, nonprofit leaders, entrepreneurs, and parents.
Middle Grades Research Journal
Middle Grades Research Journal (MGRJ) is a refereed, peer reviewed journal that publishes original studies providing both empirical and theoretical frameworks that focus on middle grades education. A variety of articles are published in, June, September, and December of each volume year.
A Time of Transition: Passing the Baton
This publication year, 2015, marks the end of the term of office for the current editorial team. Faced with myriad publication responsibilities in various other venues, Editor-in-Chief, Frances Spielhagen, and her team of Associate Editors, Robert Capraro, Mary Margaret Capraro, and Gerald Goldin, did not seek another term as editors. We are grateful for the support the journal has had from the Editorial Board, our reviewers, and contributors over the last three years. We have strived to build on the legacy of quality and integrity that has characterized this journal from its inception. We are proud of the work we have done and look forward to supporting the next team as it moves this journal forward in the years to come.
In the Spring, 2015, the Editorial Board of the Middle Grades Research Journal conducted an exhaustive search and review of applications for a new editorial team. Two very strong proposals emerged from this process, rendering the selection process difficult but assuring that the journal would benefit from the succession of strong personnel, regardless of the final selection. Therefore, we are proud to announce the new editorial team that will take the helm with the Volume 11, Spring, 2016, issue.
|Editor||Larry G. Daniel, Zucker Family School of Education, The Citadel|
|Associate Editors:||Renée N. Jefferson, Zucker Family School of Education, The Citadel |
Aaron H. Oberman, Zucker Family School of Education, The Citadel
|Action Editors:||Stephenie M. Hewett, Zucker Family School of Education, The Citadel |
Tammy J. Graham, Zucker Family School of Education, The Citadel
|Style Editor:||Mary Margaret Capraro, College of Education, Texas A&M University|
|Editorial Office:||Zucker Family School of Education |
171 Moultrie Street, Capers 307
Charleston, SC 29409
Transition to the new team will take place during the Fall, 2015. The current team will handle the review process for the final issue in Volume 10, Number 3, Winter, 2015. Frances Spielhagen will stay on as Editor Emerita, in an advisory capacity for the new team as needed.
European Journal of Education
The European Journal of Education is an international, peer reviewed journal that presents high quality, recent research and policy analysis with a primary focus on Europe, placed in an international perspective. The Journal publishes the results of European research projects and explores key topics of concern to policy makers and international organisations in Europe and further afield. The Editorial Board brings together academics and policy analysts from different European countries and major international organisations. There is also a network of distinguished Editorial Correspondents who advise the Joint Editors and the Board. Read more here.
2020 Star Article
The editors of the European Journal of Education are pleased to announce this year's EJE Star Article:
Shadow education in the service of tiger parenting: Strategies used by middle𠄌lass families in China
Parents in many cultures invest significant proportions of household incomes in the so-called shadow education system of private supplementary tutoring. Parts of the literature attribute intensive tutoring to East Asian cultural traditions and to so-called tiger parenting. Based on a mixed-methods study in Shanghai, this article examines tiger parenting through a socio-economic lens to show the roles of shadow education in achieving parental goals. The study shows that tiger parenting is most evident in middle-class families. In order to transmit or increase social advantages inter-generationally, such parents use private tutoring to prepare their children for successful academic trajectories in mainstream education. The strategy is driven by anxieties related to social status in the rapidly changing risk economy. Shadow education has provided parents with new means to increase family cultural capital which not only facilitates school performance but also reinforces class dispositions. The study highlights the importance of understanding tiger parenting in the culture of class, in addition to other cultural factors. It challenges the simplistic attribution of tiger parenting to Confucianism by revealing dimensions that run counter to the Confucian conception and tradition of parenting. It also extends the conceptualization of family cultural capital by unpacking the processes of tutoring as externalized parenting in the era of global expansion of shadow education.
Of course technology perpetuates racism. It was designed that way.
Source photo: Getty / Ms Tech
Today the United States crumbles under the weight of two pandemics: coronavirus and police brutality.
Both wreak physical and psychological violence. Both disproportionately kill and debilitate black and brown people. And both are animated by technology that we design, repurpose, and deploy—whether it’s contact tracing, facial recognition, or social media.
This story was part of our July 2020 issue
We often call on technology to help solve problems. But when society defines, frames, and represents people of color as “the problem,” those solutions often do more harm than good. We’ve designed facial recognition technologies that target criminal suspects on the basis of skin color. We’ve trained automated risk profiling systems that disproportionately identify Latinx people as illegal immigrants. We’ve devised credit scoring algorithms that disproportionately identify black people as risks and prevent them from buying homes, getting loans, or finding jobs.
So the question we have to confront is whether we will continue to design and deploy tools that serve the interests of racism and white supremacy,
Of course, it’s not a new question at all.
In 1960, Democratic Party leaders confronted their own problem: How could their presidential candidate, John F. Kennedy, shore up waning support from black people and other racial minorities?
An enterprising political scientist at MIT, Ithiel de Sola Pool, approached them with a solution. He would gather voter data from earlier presidential elections, feed it into a new digital processing machine, develop an algorithm to model voting behavior, predict what policy positions would lead to the most favorable results, and then advise the Kennedy campaign to act accordingly. Pool started a new company, the Simulmatics Corporation, and executed his plan. He succeeded, Kennedy was elected, and the results showcased the power of this new method of predictive modeling.
Racial tension escalated throughout the 1960s. Then came the long, hot summer of 1967. Cities across the nation burned, from Birmingham, Alabama, to Rochester, New York, to Minneapolis Minnesota, and many more in between. Black Americans protested the oppression and discrimination they faced at the hands of America’s criminal justice system. But President Johnson called it “civil disorder,” and formed the Kerner Commission to understand the causes of “ghetto riots.” The commission called on Simulmatics.
As part of a DARPA project aimed at turning the tide of the Vietnam War, Pool’s company had been hard at work preparing a massive propaganda and psychological campaign against the Vietcong. President Johnson was eager to deploy Simulmatics’s behavioral influence technology to quell the nation’s domestic threat, not just its foreign enemies. Under the guise of what they called a “media study,” Simulmatics built a team for what amounted to a large-scale surveillance campaign in the “riot-affected areas” that captured the nation’s attention that summer of 1967.
Three-member teams went into areas where riots had taken place that summer. They identified and interviewed strategically important black people. They followed up to identify and interview other black residents, in every venue from barbershops to churches. They asked residents what they thought about the news media’s coverage of the “riots.” But they collected data on so much more, too: how people moved in and around the city during the unrest, who they talked to before and during, and how they prepared for the aftermath. They collected data on toll booth usage, gas station sales, and bus routes. They gained entry to these communities under the pretense of trying to understand how news media supposedly inflamed “riots.” But Johnson and the nation’s political leaders were trying to solve a problem. They aimed to use the information that Simulmatics collected to trace information flow during protests to identify influencers and decapitate the protests’ leadership.
They didn’t accomplish this directly. They did not murder people, put people in jail, or secretly “disappear” them.
But by the end of the 1960s, this kind of information had helped create what came to be known as “criminal justice information systems.” They proliferated through the decades, laying the foundation for racial profiling, predictive policing, and racially targeted surveillance. They left behind a legacy that includes millions of black and brown women and men incarcerated.
Reframing the problem
Blackness and black people. Both persist as our nation’s—dare I say even our world’s—problem. When contact tracing first cropped up at the beginning of the pandemic, it was easy to see it as a necessary but benign health surveillance tool. The coronavirus was our problem, and we began to design new surveillance technologies in the form of contact tracing, temperature monitoring, and threat mapping applications to help address it.
But something both curious and tragic happened. We discovered that black people, Latinx people, and indigenous populations were disproportionately infected and affected. Suddenly, we also became a national problem we disproportionately threatened to spread the virus. That was compounded when the tragic murder of George Floyd by a white police officer sent thousands of protesters into the streets. When the looting and rioting started, we—black people—were again seen as a threat to law and order, a threat to a system that perpetuates white racial power. It makes you wonder how long it will take for law enforcement to deploy those technologies we first designed to fight covid-19 to quell the threat that black people supposedly pose to the nation’s safety.
If we don’t want our technology to be used to perpetuate racism, then we must make sure that we don’t conflate social problems like crime or violence or disease with black and brown people. When we do that, we risk turning those people into the problems that we deploy our technology to solve, the threat we design it to eradicate.
Charlton McIlwain is a professor of media, culture, and communication at New York University and author ofBlack Software: The Internet & Racial Justice, From the AfroNet to Black Lives Matter
Federal Register - November 9, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 216)
AGENCY: Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health, HHS.
SUMMARY: On November 10, 1997, the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), requested written comments relating to the proposed republication of the list that identifies certain research activities involving human subjects which may be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through the expedited review procedure authorized in 45 CFR 46.110. The comment period closed on March 10, 1998. OPRR and FDA received a combined total of 108 comments. After a review of the comments, OPRR and FDA are now simultaneously publishing identical revised lists of categories of research activities that may be reviewed by the IRB through the expedited review procedure.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The revised list is effective as of November 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Russell-Einhorn, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Blvd., Suite 3B01, Rockville, MD 20892-7507 or telephone (301) 435-5649 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Policy (Common Rule) for the Protection of Human Subjects was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 1991 (56 FR 28003) and is employed by 17 Executive Branch agencies. This Federal Policy requires adherence to certain requirements by Federal agencies <SUP>1</SUP> and institutions receiving support from those agencies for research activities involving human subjects. The Federal Policy has three cornerstones: review of any research involving human subjects by an IRB with limited exceptions, informed consent of all research subjects and formal, written assurance of institutional compliance with the Policy. The Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) codification of the Federal Policy can be found at 45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A.
1 The following agencies have adopted the Common Rule: Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, Consumer Product Safety Commission, International Development Cooperation Agency-Agency for International Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Transportation, Central Intelligence Agency, Social Security Administration.
Section ________.110 of the Federal Policy provides for expedited review procedures for certain categories of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research. This same section gives the Secretary, HHS, the authority to amend and republish the expedited review list as needed after consultation with the departments and agencies that are subject to the Federal Policy. The expedited review list that is referenced in the Federal Policy was originally published by the Secretary, HHS in 1981 (46 FR 8392, 46 FR 8980). It listed categories of research that could be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure. The FDA also references an expedited review list (21 CFR Part 56) for matters under FDA's jurisdiction. The HHS and FDA lists have differed slightly, in that item nine (9) on the 1981 HHS expedited review list regarding certain types of behavioral research is not included in the list referenced in 21 CFR 56.110.
The comments received in response to the OPRR and FDA proposed revision of the 1981 expedited review list that was published on November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60607) overwhelmingly supported the proposed revision of the list. Three commenters suggested that there should be no expedited review available at all. OPRR and FDA disagree with these three comments and believe that expedited review is an appropriate part of the IRB review process. In addition, a deletion of the expedited review process would require a regulatory change to Section 110 which is beyond the scope of this revision. Several commenters suggested changing the exemptions found at Section 101(b), a topic also outside the scope of this revision.
The following discussion summarizes the 108 comments received and the resulting changes. In response to over forty comments, the introductory paragraph to the 1981 list has been reformatted into five general principles. The parenthetical in the introductory sentence in the 1981 list ``(carried out through standard methods)'' has been deleted in response to comments that this phrase served no particular purpose.
The reformatted general principles are set forth in paragraphs (A) through (F). Paragraph (C) makes it clear that the IRB must consider, for all categories, whether identification of the subjects or their responses would reasonably place them at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, insurability, reputation, or be stigmatizing unless reasonable and appropriate protections will be implemented so that risks related to invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality are no greater than minimal. OPRR does not consider this to be a new or additional consideration. These concerns have always been an implicit part of the determination of whether an activity is a minimal risk activity. The words ``insurability'' and ``be stigmatizing'' have been added and are designed to serve as an aid to IRBs when genetic research is presented for review in an expedited review procedure. These changes were made in response to concerns raised in several comments that genetic testing may have consequences beyond those normally considered by the IRB.
Consistent with two comments, paragraph (D) prohibits expedited review for classified research involving human subjects. This is also in accordance with a March 27, 1997 Presidential Memorandum which proposed the elimination of an expedited review procedure for all classified research involving human subjects.
Paragraph (E) serves as a reminder to IRBs that informed consent and expedited review are two totally separate issues. This responds to concerns that allowing an increase in the scope of research eligible for expedited review would result in more waivers of informed consent. Research reviewed pursuant to an expedited review procedure is not necessarily eligible for waiver or alteration of informed consent. All research, whether reviewed by the full IRB or by way of expedited review, must conform to the applicable requirements for obtaining and documenting prospective informed consent, unless the research meets the conditions for waiving, excepting, or otherwise altering the informed consent requirements that are set forth in 45 CFR 46.116 and 117, 21 CFR 50.23 and 24, or 21 CFR 56.109(c).
Category one (1) preserves category ten (10) on the 1981 list. It also contains a new sentence that addresses the availability of the expedited review procedure for marketed drugs in research as well as specific citations in response to five comments that raised questions about these issues.
The following changes have been made to category two (2) in response to over 45 comments which supported enhanced expedited review concerning collection of blood, but which suggested certain refinements. Collection of blood now includes finger stick, heel stick, or ear stick as well as venipuncture. The four proposed subcategories were recombined as two separate subcategories. The critical issues to be considered by the IRB include weight, physical condition, and amount of blood to be collected. The first subcategory (a) concerns healthy nonpregnant adults. The second subcategory, (b), concerns all other adults and children. For this second subcategory, the IRB will need to make certain judgments including: consideration for the age, weight, and health of the subjects in light of the amount of blood to be collected, the frequency with which it will be collected, and the collection procedure. The final sentence of subcategory (b) reads: For these individuals, the amount drawn may not exceed the lesser of 50 ml or 3 ml per kg in an 8 week period and collection may not occur more than 2 times per week. While an expedited review of research involving pregnant women is permissible under the revised section, this last sentence makes it clear that the amount of blood that can be drawn is subject to limitations greater than those on healthy nonpregnant adults. Also, in response to public comment, the phrase "medically vulnerable adults'' that was proposed in November 1997 has been deleted.
In response to more than 24 comments, category three (3) (previously category one (1) in the 1981 list) has been changed in the following manner. The words ``noninvasive means'' have been added to clarify the manner of collection of research materials and, the procedures outlined are set out as examples to the IRB of the types of procedures that could fall within this category.
Categories four (4) and five (5) on the proposed list have been combined into one new category five (5) on the 1998 list. This new section is added in response to comments that raised questions about the relationship of proposed categories four (4) and five (5) to exempt research and about separating out existing and prospectively collected materials. The term ``nonresearch purposes'' was maintained in new category five (5) to describe the origins of the research materials. An explanatory note has been added to categories five (5) and seven (7) to clarify that some research described in these categories may be exempt from IRB review under 45 CFR 46.101(b) of the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects (there is no comparable exemption provision in the FDA regulations). Thus, the listing of those categories refers only to nonexempt research.
Category six (6), proposed in November 1997, is now category four (4) on the 1998 list and addresses the collection of data through noninvasive procedures. The words ``noninvasive procedures'' have been added and apply to all procedures that would fall within this category. Because of several comments that raised concerns about MRIs and the use of anesthesia and sedation, expedited review would not be allowed for any procedure employing either of these. In response to more than 24 comments, this category lists procedures as examples for the IRB of the types of procedures that would qualify for expedited review.
Category seven (7) on the list proposed in November 1997 is now category six (6) on the 1998 list and deals with the collection of data from voice, digital, or image recordings. The qualification that was proposed in November of 1998 requiring consideration of certain risks to subjects is now a general guiding principle. It has been incorporated into the general Applicability section in response to several comments that questioned limiting this consideration to this type of research.
Category eight (8) on the proposed list is now category seven (7) on the revised list. In response to over 30 comments, the following changes have been made. The word ``stress'' has been deleted the subsections in the proposed list have been combined research on oral history has been included in response to approximately six comments and specific research and research techniques have been noted. As in new category six (6), the qualification that requires consideration of certain kinds of risks to subjects has been deleted as it is now a general guiding principle for the entire list.
Category nine (9) on the proposed list received more than 50 comments
explicitly applauding this additional category. It has been divided into two categories. Category eight (8) identifies three situations in which research that is greater than minimal risk and has been initially reviewed by the convened IRB, could undergo subsequent continuing review by the expedited review procedure. New category nine (9) concerns continuing review of research that is not greater than minimal risk but had to undergo initial review by a convened IRB because it did not meet the criteria of categories two (2) through seven (7) on the list.
Certain other minimal changes have been made for editorial purposes or to clarify certain words that were used in the proposed list. Accordingly, the list of categories of research which may be reviewed by the IRB through the expedited review procedure is amended as set forth below.
Categories of Research That May Be Reviewed by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) Through an Expedited Review Procedure1
1 An expedited review procedure consists of a review of research involving human subjects by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB in accordance with the requirements set forth in 45 CFR 46.110.
(A) Research activities that (1) present no more than minimal risk to human subjects, and (2) involve only procedures listed in one or more of the following categories, may be reviewed by the IRB through the expedited review procedure authorized by 45 CFR 46.110 and 21 CFR 56.110. The activities listed should not be deemed to be of minimal risk simply because they are included on this list. Inclusion on this list merely means that the activity is eligible for review through the expedited review procedure when the specific circumstances of the proposed research involve no more than minimal risk to human subjects.
(B) The categories in this list apply regardless of the age of subjects, except as noted.
(C) The expedited review procedure may not be used where identification of the subjects and/or their responses would reasonably place them at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, insurability, reputation, or be stigmatizing, unless reasonable and appropriate protections will be implemented so that risks related to invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality are no greater than minimal.
(D) The expedited review procedure may not be used for classified research involving human subjects.
(E) IRBs are reminded that the standard requirements for informed consent (or its waiver, alteration, or exception) apply regardless of the type of review--expedited or convened--utilized by the IRB.
(F) Categories one (1) through seven (7) pertain to both initial and continuing IRB review.
(1) Clinical studies of drugs and medical devices only when condition (a) or (b) is met.
(a) Research on drugs for which an investigational new drug application (21 CFR Part 312) is not required. (Note: Research on marketed drugs that significantly increases the risks or decreases the acceptability of the risks associated with the use of the product is not eligible for expedited review.)
(b) Research on medical devices for which (i) an investigational device exemption application (21 CFR Part 812) is not required or (ii) the medical device is cleared/approved for marketing and the medical device is being used in accordance with its cleared/approved labeling.
(2) Collection of blood samples by finger stick, heel stick, ear stick, or venipuncture as follows:
(a) from healthy, nonpregnant adults who weigh at least 110 pounds. For these subjects, the amounts drawn may not exceed 550 ml in an 8 week period and collection may not occur more frequently than 2 times per week or (b) from other adults and children2 considering the age, weight, and health of the subjects, the collection procedure, the amount of blood to be collected, and the frequency with which it will be collected. For these subjects, the amount drawn may not exceed the lesser of 50 ml or 3 ml per kg in an 8 week period and collection may not occur more frequently than 2 times per week.
2 Children are defined in the HHS regulations as ``persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research, under the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the research will be conducted.'' 45 CFR 46.402(a).
(3) Prospective collection of biological specimens for research purposes by noninvasive means.
Examples: (a) Hair and nail clippings in a nondisfiguring manner (b) deciduous teeth at time of exfoliation or if routine patient care indicates a need for extraction (c) permanent teeth if routine patient care indicates a need for extraction (d) excreta and external secretions (including sweat) (e) uncannulated saliva collected either in an unstimulated fashion or stimulated by chewing gumbase or wax or by applying a dilute citric solution to the tongue (f) placenta removed at delivery (g) amniotic fluid obtained at the time of rupture of the membrane prior to or during labor (h) supra- and subgingival dental plaque and calculus, provided the collection procedure is not more invasive than routine prophylactic scaling of the teeth and the process is accomplished in accordance with accepted prophylactic techniques (i) mucosal and skin cells collected by buccal scraping or swab, skin swab, or mouth washings (j) sputum collected after saline mist nebulization.
(4) Collection of data through noninvasive procedures (not involving general anesthesia or sedation) routinely employed in clinical practice, excluding procedures involving x-rays or microwaves. Where medical devices are employed, they must be cleared/approved for marketing. (Studies intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the medical device are not generally eligible for expedited review, including studies of cleared medical devices for new indications.)
Examples: (a) Physical sensors that are applied either to the surface of the body or at a distance and do not involve input of significant amounts of energy into the subject or an invasion of the subject's privacy (b) weighing or testing sensory acuity (c) magnetic resonance imaging (d) electrocardiography, electroencephalography, thermography, detection of naturally occurring radioactivity, electroretinography, ultrasound, diagnostic infrared imaging, doppler blood flow, and echocardiography (e) moderate exercise, muscular strength testing, body composition assessment, and flexibility testing where appropriate given the age, weight, and health of the individual.
(5) Research involving materials (data, documents, records, or specimens) that have been collected or will be collected solely for nonresearch purposes (such as medical treatment or diagnosis). (Note: Some research in this category may be exempt from the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46.101(b)(4). This listing refers only to research that is not exempt.)
(6) Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes.
(7) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social
behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies. (Note: Some research in this category may be exempt from the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(2) and (b)(3). This listing refers only to research that is not exempt.)
(8) Continuing review of research previously approved by the convened IRB as follows:
(a) Where (i) the research is permanently closed to the enrollment of new subjects (ii) all subjects have completed all research-related interventions and (iii) the research remains active only for long-term follow-up of subjects or
(b) Where no subjects have been enrolled and no additional risks have been identified or
(c) Where the remaining research activities are limited to data analysis.
(9) Continuing review of research, not conducted under an investigational new drug application or investigational device exemption where categories two (2) through eight (8) do not apply but the IRB has determined and documented at a convened meeting that the research involves no greater than minimal risk and no additional risks have been identified.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal (AELJ) is an open access publication affiliated to Allied Business Academy. This journal with 30% of acceptance rate adheres strictly to double blind peer review process to maintain the publication standards and practices.
The journal aims to cater to the needs of the researchers, scholars, academicians and academic institutes that import educational study, leadership education. AELJ thus covers a vast spectrum of topics for publication by including topics like accounting history, auditing, International business, communications, conflict resolution, consumer behavior, financial Institutions, educational management, administration & leadership, ethical issues, governmental issues, health care management, human resources, institutional effective leadership, leadership effectiveness, approaches to learning, and approaches to studying leadership education.
Sponsored by the Academy of Educational Leadership, AELJ encourages theoretical, empirical and applied research in higher education (except economic or entrepreneurship education). More details on the types of manuscripts published and the categories of research accepted are displayed in the Journal Matrix section of this website.
Authors who would like to discuss the potential interest in a manuscript may contact the Editorial staff.
Journal of Educational Controversy
In this article, in answering the question do Black Lives Matter in the U.S. education industrial complex, we begin with a description of how the education industrial serves white supremacy. In our discussion of anti-blackness and racial bias, we also acknowledge the racialization of disabilities and the historical intersections between racial oppression and the marginalization of people with disabilities. More specifically, we examine the discourse and reticence about markers of differences (e.g., race, gender, ability status, race, and class) and interrogate how social categorizations are manipulated and co-opted to repurpose differences in ways that serve the education industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. Finally, we discuss how the discourse about the value of the lives of Charles Kinsey, a service provider who is Black, and Arnaldo Rio Soto, an adult with disabilities who is Hispanic, underscores the role that the education industrial complex plays in perpetuating racism, ableism, and the disposability of Black, Brown, and disabled bodies.
Aronson, Brittany A. and Boveda, Mildred (2017) "The Intersection of White Supremacy and the Education Industrial Complex: An Analysis of #BlackLivesMatter and the Criminalization of People with Disabilities," Journal of Educational Controversy: Vol. 12 : No. 1 , Article 6.
Available at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol12/iss1/6
Subjects - Topical (LCSH)
Black lives matter movement White supremacy movements--United States Education--Political aspects--United States Racism Discrimination against people with disabilities