zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
Seekonk Community Resource List School Based Supports: GEORGE R. MARTIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Betsy Thompson School Psychologist (508) 336-7558 Donald Schenk School Adjustment Counselor (508) 336-7558 Lisa McLintock School Nurse (508) 336-7558 MILDRED H. AITKEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Cicatiello School Psychologist (508) 336-5230 Tara Haggarty School Adjustment Counselor (508) 336-5230 Laurie Soares School (508) 336-5230 DR. KEVIN M. HURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL: Marisha Znosko School Psychologist (508) 761-7570 znoskom@seekonkschools.org Beth Czech Guidance Counselor (508) 761-7570 Sonya Lehane Guidance Counselor (508) 761-7570 Catherine Balasco Therapeutic Support Specialist (508) 761-7570 balascoc@seekonkschools.org Linda McCoart School Nurse (508) 761-7570 mccoartl@seekonkschools.org SEEKONK HIGH SCHOOL: Keri Kozlowski School Psychologist kozlowskik@seekonkschools.org
Kathleen Wilson School Adjustment Counselor Kayla Nastari Therapeutic Support Specialist Pat Rok School Nurse Christine Whatley Guidance Director whatleyc@seekonkschools.org Melissa Guidance Counselor Larry Byrne Guidance Counselor Edward Cunard Guidance Counselor (508) 336- 0312 Community Based Supports: Community Counseling of Bristol County Taunton-508-828-9116 Attleboro- 508-222-8812 www. Department of Children and Families (DCF) Taunton/Attleboro Area Office Mill River Place, Suite 21 1 Washington St. Taunton, MA 02780 (508) 821-7000 Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 617-573-1100 Deputy Linda M. Pacheco Director of Public Safety Education Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (508)995-6400 x2598 Family and Community Resources Incorporated 18 Newton St. Brockton, MA 508-583-6498 Crisis line: 508-583-6498 Fenway Health LGBT Peer Listening Line 617-267-2535 Gary Dube Ph.D Program Director Justice Resource Institute Juvenile Clinic Program Fall River, MA (508) 828-1304 x203
indirectly related to specific recommendations, views or opinions expressed about any matter contained in this document. The Centre for Strategic Economic Studies and Victoria University disclaim any responsibility, and not be liable for data provided by SEEK Limited and market analysis based on these data. SEEK Limited and its related bodies corporate, their respective directors, officers, and employees disclaim any responsibility, and shall not be liable, for any loss, damage, claim, liability, proceedings, cost or expense (“Liability”) arising directly or indirectly (and whether in tort (including negligence), contract, equity or otherwise) out of or in connection with the contents of and/or any omissions from the contents of this document and/or any communications in relation to them.
Presentation schedule: 1 - 3: LSB C4 (SHI, Wei) Group 4 – 6: LSB C3 (MA, Jing) Group 7 – 9: ERB 405 (LI, Jing) Group 10 – 12: ERB 706 (ZENG, Xingshan) Group 13 – 15: ERB 713 (WU, Xixin) Group 16 – 19: ERB 804 (LIAO, Ming)
Lymphoma Liver Esophagus Corpus Uteri Leukemia Gastric Brain & Other Nervous System Cervical Areas: Outcomes (All) Treatment Palliative & End-of-Life Care Health Care Systems Health Disparities Economics of Cancer Economics of Cancer - Health Care Costs Risk Factors Research Methodology None Survivorship Economics of Cancer - Cost of Illness Screening Clinical Outcomes Prevention Surveillance Preventive & Screening Services Quality of Care Tobacco Health Behaviors & Survivorship Policy Methods for Assessing Risk Factors Epidemiologic, Experimental, & Methodological Studies Epidemiology Studies & Related Methods Guidance & Policy Research Decision-Making Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes Research Measures & Methods Summary of Publications
Similarly, connect beams with How many modules could you connect with? What can you call the black peg? How many modules you connect with? What can you call the blue peg? Build Build a Rectangle using beams and pegs How many beams did you use? How many pegs did you use? Turn and twist your Rectangle. Did it turn? Build a Square using beams and pegs How many did you use? How many pegs did you use? Turn and twist your Square. Did it turn? a Triangle using beams and pegs How many beams did you use? How many pegs did you use? Are all the sides of your Triangle equal? Turn and twist your Triangle. Did it turn? Which one do you think is the strongest structure Square Triangle Rectangle.Why?
Use of career development practices and research. (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Washington, and Wisconsin). Professional development that helps educators mentor all students, especially those with disabilities, and particularly students with the more significant disabilities (e.g., Kentucky). Statewide training to teachers and school staff aligned to National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) standards for Family and School Partnerships. ACCESS TO GENERIC SERVICES AND SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS SUPPORTS AND ACCOMMODATIONS Students have adequate access to generic services and systems as well as appropriate supports and accommodations. Examples: ILP programs and strategies that incorporate universal design for learning principles to ensure that all youth have access to fully engage in career development activities (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin). Guidance for quality work-based learning experiences that include youth with disabilities and addresses the provision of essential related services and supports to encourage full participation (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut). Special education policies specify identified accommodations and supports that enable youth to make progress toward career and life goals (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin). GUIDANCE TO BUSINESSES Businesses have clear guidance on the ADA and FLSA, and student preparedness efforts align with business community needs. Examples: Programs include “soft skills,” such as self-awareness, self-regulation, persuasion and influencing, communications, conflict management leadership, strategic thinking, and problem solving (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut).
20th August 2015 14th September 2015 potential application (open to anyone interested in applying for CIF) October to November 2015 Sifting: Sifting and selection process December 2015 Awards: Contracts and funding awarded January 2016 Delivery: Start of funded projects It will be expected that CIF application proposals be developed through a co-produced process with all members of the relevant Change Network or and submitted by the dates above. Community Innovation Fund Decision Process The decision-making process for the allocation of funds will have the full participation of people with lived experience as will the process of development for the final terms of reference for the funds. See Me has created a Allocation working group which consists of members of the See Me team, representatives from our partner organisations and volunteers of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. The working group will oversee the assessment and approval of applications. Obligations Successful applicants will enter into a formal contract with See Me to support the delivery of their plans through a Grant Agreement setting out the rights and responsibilities of each party, process of review and audit. Obligations on funded applicants will include: Funding must be used for the agreed purpose Thorough record keeping to enable accountability for the expenditure All development work must be shared openly with See Me and wider communities through agreed mechanisms Projects must fully participate in the See Me evaluation process Reporting on progress will happen in line with agreed arrangements Presentation at See Me annual learning events. Accountability The decisions of the Grant Allocation working group will be final and not subject to appeal. All decisions will be reported to the See Me management team and Advisory Board. The
Medical certificate 2018 Senior External Examination This certificate must be completed by a medical practitioner. I, __________________________________________________________________, registered medical practitioner, (name, professional qualification) of _______________________________________________________, provider no. ____________________________, (address of practice) examined _________________________________________________________________________________________ (patient’s name) on ___________________________________________________. In my opinion, the person has (date/s of consultations) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ (name of medical condition) This person’s medical condition will affect them in the following ways when sitting examination/s: Name any prescribed medications this person is taking and list any side effects: Signature Date / /
Name: Colonoscopy Skills Improvement (CSI) Course Date: Teaching Centre: Please indicate which CanMEDS roles you felt were addressed during this educational activity? □ Medical Expert □ Scholar □ Collaborator □ Communicator □ Leader □ Professional □ Health Advocate This Activity has helped me determine that my knowledge and/or colonoscopy performance are current or consistent with current evidence. Yes No I need to further explore colonoscopy skills in the following area(s): To help address this performance gap, I can pursue the following strategies: To ensure I can reach the above target, I shall anticipate: I shall follow up on my progress on (date):___________________________ In reflection, I have increased my knowledge and performance of colonoscopy technique, or I have further review to undertake by doing the following: Please record your hours of Section 3 credit on MAINPORT at https://login.royalcollege.ca/oamlogin/login.jsp Name: Train the Endoscopy Trainer (TET) Course Date: Teaching Centre:
Statement of financial activities for the year ended 31 March 2016 Note Unrestricted Restricted 2016 2015 Total Income and endowments from: £ £ £ £ Charitable activities Investment income 3 91,190 - 96,942 15 Total income 5,767 91,190 96,957 165,997 Expenditure on: Charitable activities 4 - Governance costs 5 - 874 874 1,421 Total expenditure - 106,573 106,573 184,464 Net income/(expenditure) for the year 5,767 (15,383) (9,616) (18,467) Total funds brought forward 2,070 18,075 20,145 38,612 Total funds carried forward 7,837 2,692 10,529 20,145
Notes to the accounts (continued) 8 Restricted funds 2015 Incoming Outgoing 2016 resources resources Sustainable Swansea £ (522) £ £ £ 605 SEF Development and Strategy Work 6,746 11,279 (17,318) 707 Low Carbon Swansea 5,093 7,400 (11,637) 856 Clear Streams / Smart Nature 6,758 29,124 (35,358) 524 18,075 91,190 (106,573) 2,692
Achievement Self-Evaluation Refer to the School Inspection Handbook (September 2013) pages 29 to 34 Attainment and progress last year (Summer 2012 to summer 2013): EYFS (add/change rows if you formally record assessments at different times) DEVELOPMENT MATTERS AGE BAND % OF CHILDREN WORKING WITHIN 40-60+ Development Matters Band (use sub groups to show progress – A = Secure; B = Developing; C= entering) (ELG assessment – 1 = emerging, 2 = expected, 3 = exceeding) PSED Physical Development Communication and Language Literacy Maths Understanding of the World Expressive Arts and Design Entry: A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % End of Term 3: A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % A: % B: % C: % End of Term 6: 1 – % 2 – % 3 - % 1 – % 2 – % 3 - % 1 – % 2 – % 3 – % 1 – % 2 – % 3 - % 1 – % 2 – % 3 - % 1 – % 2 – % 3 - % 1 – % 2 – % 3 - % Make an evaluative comment about skill levels on entry and about children’s progress as the year develops. NB Inspection update from September 2013 states that a greater account will be taken of how well younger children are taught. Children who reach a GOOD level of development across the early learning goals must be reaching at least a 2B by the end of KS1. Progress made by each year group from summer 2012 to summer 2013 as measured by APS: Attainment and progress data (APS) Reading Writing Maths evaluation
2012/13 Year Group (cohort size) APS Summer 2012 APS Summer 2013 APS Progress APS Summer 2012 APS Summer 2013 APS Progress APS Summer 2012 APS Summer 2013 APS Progress Yr 1 ( ) Yr 2 ( ) Yr 3 ( ) Yr 4 ( ) Yr 5 ( ) Yr 6 ( ) Make an evaluative comment the progress of each year group relative to the progress of the whole school. Point out if pupil mobility makes a significant impact on the progress calculation or adjust the summer 2012 scores to reflect just the pupils for whom you have 2013 data. Comment appropriate on the context of each year group, for example if there is a high proportion with SEND. Proportions making better than expected progress from summer 2012 to summer2013 (Better than expected progress is defined as 3 sub-levels [6points] in Years 1 and 2, 2 sub-levels [4 points] in Years 3 to 6). Reading Whole cohort Reading Non - Pupil premium Reading Pupil premium Writing Whole cohort Writing Non-Pupil Premium Writing Pupil Premium Maths cohort Maths Non-Pupil Premium Maths Pupil Premium Year 1 % % % % % % % % %
On-going progress (to be updated following assessments in the autumn, spring and summer. Beware the impact of pupil mobility): (Delete or move this table if it is unhelpful in demonstrating progress in your school.) ATTAINMENT (APS) Writing Current Year Group (cohort size) Summer 2012 Date: Autumn 2012 Date: Spring 2013 Date: Summer 2013 Date: Summer 2013 Target: Summer 2012 Date: Autumn 2012 Date: Spring 2013 Date: Summer 2013 Date: Summer 2013 Target: Summer 2012 Date: Autumn 2012 Date: Spring 2013 Date: Summer 2013 Date: Summer 2013 Target: Yr 1 ( ) Yr 2 ( ) Yr 3 ( ) Yr 4 ( ) Yr 5 ( ) Yr 6 ( )
#6 Communication & Collaboration Establish stakeholder buy-in Yes No Stakeholders receive information and give feedback Stakeholders are aware of the program and supportive Stakeholders receive updates and data #6 Communication & Collaboration Facilitate meaningful family involvement as a means of improving services and results for children Yes No Family is solicited as part of the planning process SEFEL information is shared in multiple ways Family involvement is supported Families are involved in planning for individual children #6 Communication & Collaboration Communicate behavior expectations for preschool classrooms Yes No Behavior expectations for all preschool classrooms are developed Expectations to both children and staff Expectations are developmentally appropriate Expectations are shared with families Expectations are posted #5 Yes No
Targeted number of classes reached fidelity on the TPOT by end of school year Target number from Implementation Plan (Item #5.1): ___ Actual number at fidelity: ___ Targeted total number of classrooms received SEFEL coaching by end of school year Target number from Implementation Plan (Item #5.2: ___ Actual number that received coaching: ___ Targeted total percentage of preschool classes received coaching by end of school year Target percentage from Implementation Plan (Item #5.3): ___ Actual percentage: ___ Your LEA uses Instructional Practices checklists with all classrooms
Research Instruction & Practices Teachers use evidence-based strategies for teaching and acknowledge the implementation expectations for preschool classrooms, as indicated by level of fidelity on the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) Teachers collect and submit level and classroom data #4 Problem-Solving for Improvement Use established procedures for responding to challenging behaviors Yes No A team-based process for addressing challenging behavior is developed A resource person with behavioral expertise is identified as team member Strategies for partnering with families are identified Strategies for responding to problem behavior in the classroom are developed A process for problem solving with other teachers is developed A process for responding to crisis situations is developed
Local Education Agency (LEA) name: Year joined NC SEFEL: Review date: Total years as a SEFEL site: Total number of SEFEL coaches as of review date: Total number of preschool classrooms in LEA: Total number of classrooms implementing SEFEL (receive TPOTs): Implementation Leadership Team members: LEA Self-Assessment Core Element Key Implementation Steps Brief Description of Criteria to SEFEL Practice Profile for detailed description and instructions for rating) LEA Rating 0=Beginning 1=Developmental Variation 2=Expected Implementation Comments #5 Research Based Instruction & Practices Establish a leadership team Yes No Team has broad representation Team has administrative support Team has regular meetings Target number of meetings from Implementation Plan (Item #1.1): ___ Actual number of meetings held: ___ Team has established a clear mission/purpose Team reviews the signed assurances and submits the assurances, spending plan, implementation plan, and professional development plan Targeted number attended the annual SEFEL Summit Target number from Implementation Plan (Item #1.2): ___ Actual number that attended: ___ Team reviews and revises the plan at least annually
#6 Communication & Collaboration Establish stakeholder buy-in Yes No Stakeholders receive information and give feedback Stakeholders are aware of the program and supportive Stakeholders receive updates and data #6 Communication & Collaboration Facilitate meaningful family involvement as a means of improving services and results for children Yes No Family input is solicited as part of the planning process SEFEL information is shared in multiple ways Family involvement is supported Families are involved in planning for individual children #6 Communication & Collaboration Communicate behavior expectations for preschool classrooms Yes No Behavior expectations for all preschool classrooms are developed Expectations apply to both children and staff Expectations are developmentally appropriate Expectations are shared with families Expectations are posted #5 Yes No
Research Instruction & Practices Teachers use evidence-based strategies for teaching and acknowledge the implementation expectations for preschool classrooms, as indicated by level of fidelity on the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) Teachers collect and submit child level and classroom data #4 Problem-Solving for Improvement Use established procedures for responding to challenging behaviors Yes No A team-based process for addressing challenging behavior is developed A resource person with behavioral expertise is identified as team member Strategies for partnering with families are identified Strategies for responding to problem behavior in the classroom are developed A process for problem solving with other teachers is developed A process for responding to crisis situations is developed
*sole, 1st author,2nd author,…etc Previous Research Funding List All External Grants received in the last 3 years (add rows as needed): Title of Research Project Project ID Type of Grant Grant Amount Project Duration Role* *PI, Lead PI, etc List All Internal Grants received in the last 3 years including summer grants (add rows as needed): Title of Research Project Project ID Type of Grant Approved Grant Amount Project Duration Role* Final Report Submitted *PI, Lead PI, etc Budget Breakdown (before including any software, equipment or book, please make sure it is not available in or not supported by QU) College / Center Project Title Principal Investigator Co-Investigator Project Duration Description QTY Unit Price Sub-Total 1st Year 2nd Year Total A. Support Personnel 0 Research Assistants / Engineers 0 Clerical / Technician 0
management Welfare Quality of Teaching, Learning and Assessment pupil and Learner Outcomes OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS Outstanding The quality of teaching, learning and assessment is outstanding. All other key judgements are likely to be outstanding. In exceptional circumstances one of the key judgements may be good, as long as there is convincing evidence that the school is improving this area rapidly and securely towards outstanding. The school’s thoughtful and wide-ranging promotion of pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and their physical well-being enables pupils to thrive. Safeguarding is effective. Good The quality of teaching, learning and assessment is at least good. All other key judgements are likely to be good or outstanding. In exceptional circumstances one of the key judgement areas may require improvement, as long as there is convincing evidence that the school is improving it rapidly and securely towards good. Deliberate and effective action is to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and their physical well-being. Safeguarding is effective. Requires improvement
considers and approves priorities 9. The governing body engages with key stakeholders Parents engagement with governors in HMail Parents can engage at parents evenings Consultation on school changes The governing body has a clear strategy for reporting to and engaging with all pupils, parents, carers, staff and the wider community. Minutes of governing body and committee meetings show evidence of: governors attending or receiving reports from meetings of pupils , parents’ evenings, , PTA events, school events interrogation of the results of pupil, parent and staff surveys (including Ofsted’s site) open meetings with parents, wider community establishment of links with local churches, businesses and community organisations collaboration with schools and other organisations, locally and nationally Minutes will demonstrate that any agreed actions identified from engagement with stakeholders are carried out and used to support school improvement planning where applicable. These actions are reported back as appropriate. This might include: newsletters and reports publication on the academy’s web site communication with all assemblies open meetings local media publicity
B 1 4 55 Integer nec sapien nec ante convallis sodales a sit amet augue. Ut dapibus, nunc eu dapibus porttitor, nisl quam tincidunt lectus, vehicula vulputate sem justo vel ipsum. Aenean vitae semper dolor. Quisque sed purus quis nisl condimentum gravida vitae sit amet justo. In tempus blandit nulla laoreet tincidunt. Nunc nunc nibh, commodo tempor venenatis a, consectetur eu nibh. Nam at metus mauris, eget molestie velit. Sed dapibus dolor volutpat magna porttitor vel vehicula risus interdum. Aliquam erat volutpat. . References Gamelin FX, Baquet G, Berthoin S, Thevenet D, Nourry C, Nottin S, Bosquet L (2009) Effect of high intensity intermittent training on heart rate variability in prepubescent children. Eur J Appl Physiol 105:731-738. doi:10.1007/s00421-008-0955-8
SEED Funding Panel Criteria NAME OF PROJECT: BID AUTHOR/S: Applicants have completed SEED applications in accordance with guidelines and on a form which focuses on the following criteria. Please can you score each bid in relation to the following criteria. Scrutiny criteria A Exceptional relationship to criterion B Good relationship to criterion C Weak relationship to criterion Proposal has a clear and worthwhile rationale Method is robust, able to be conducted within budget & timeframe. Project plan is realistic and logical and will be able to be executed in time and on budget Project is likely to have a positive impact & be valuable to staff and students. The bid articulates a & imaginative dissemination strategy. Procedural aspects are complete (ethics and sign off). There is a strategic fit with L&T and achievement supporting strategy FEEDBACK COMMENTS:
Lesson 1 – Read the lesson and watch this video: Complete assignment as directed. Lesson 2 – Read lesson and complete quiz Lesson 3 – Read lesson and attend Live Lesson Lesson 4- Read lesson and attend Live Lesson Lesson 5 – Read lesson, take quiz Lesson 6 – Read lesson, take quiz, call teacher for DBA Lesson 7 – HONORS only – Read lesson , write essay Week 3 The Pride unit focuses on writing an essay on the topic of individual, cultural, national, familial, or work-related pride. If you have extensive experience with essay writing (such as for Florida Writes) and feel confident with all parts of the writing process (prewriting, draft, revision), call your teacher about possible exemptions in this unit. Honors students need to have finished reading either Anthem or Great Expectations for Pride 7. Anthem is recommended if you need to complete the segment quickly. It can be accessed here: Pride Unit Lesson 1 – Read lesson, attend Live Lesson Lesson 2 – Read lesson, attend Live Lesson Lesson 3 – Read lesson, attend Live Lesson Lesson 4 – Read lesson, submit thesis statements and prewriting Lesson 5 – Read lesson, submit rough draft Lesson 6 – Read lesson, submit final draft and call teacher for DBA Lesson 7 – HONORS only – Submit project and take the quiz on the novel. Week 4 The work in this unit requires the novel you chose in week one. See the notes above. Obstacles unit Lesson 1 – Read lesson, call teacher to complete assignment on the phone. Lesson 2 – Read lesson, call teacher to complete assignment on the phone. Lesson 3 – Read lesson, call teacher to complete assignment on the phone. Lesson 4 – Read lesson and create a product that outlines a right that needs to be protected. Lesson 5 – Read lesson and watch this video : Complete assignment as directed. Lesson 6 – Read lesson, take quiz, call teacher for DBA Lesson 7 - HONORS only - Read lesson and complete research proposal
Please note: The following are proposed plans only, and the Local Board will not take action or make a decision regarding the following until after public hearings have been conducted and all public comment and input have been received and reviewed. Table 2A. WHEELESS ROAD ES CLOSURE--RECEIVING SCHOOLS, SIZE AND NPUs POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Receiving School Address Estimated Total Enrollment After Reassignment Potential NPUs Affected and Number of Students Reassigned Funding/Source Glenn Hills ES 2838 Glenn Hills Drive Augusta, GA 30906 519 (2017-2018) 66 students (NPU 37) 56 students (NPU 56) $0 Terrace Manor ES 3110 Tate Road Augusta, GA 30906 495 (2017-2018) 147 students (NPU 38N) $0 Wilkinson Gardens ES 1925 Kratha Drive Augusta, GA 30906 592 (2017-2018) 115 students (NPU 40) $0 Murphey MS 2216 Bungalow Road Augusta, GA 560 (2017-2018) Note: Estimated Effect on Feeder Patterns -27 students (NPU 37) -16 students (NPU 38S) $0 Glenn Hills MS 2941 Glenn Hills Drive Augusta, GA 574 (2017-2018) Note: Estimated Effect on Feeder Patterns 27 students (NPU 37) 16 students (NPU 38S) $0 Josey HS 1701 15th Street Augusta, GA 566 (2017-2018) Note: Estimated Effect on Feeder Patterns -15 students (NPU 38S) $0 Butler HS 2011 Lumpkin Road Augusta, GA 30906 783 (2017-2018) Note: Estimated Effect on Feeder Patterns -34 students (NPU 37) $0 Hills HS 2840 Glenn Hills Drive Augusta, GA 767 (2017-2018) Note: Estimated Effect on Feeder Patterns 34 students (NPU 37) 15 students (NPU 38S) $0 Table 2B. SEGO MS CLOSURE--RECEIVING SCHOOLS, SIZE AND NPUs POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Behavior/ Skills Required: Ability to make positive eye contact Effective verbal/ interpersonal communication Ability to use technology to search for information to answer customer questions Behavior/ Skills Rating: New Emerging Practicing Mastering Overall Proficiency Rating: New Emerging Practicing Mastering Primary Position Responsibility: Learning Competency Addressed: (select all that apply) Learning, Application, and Integration Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Intrapersonal Development Interpersonal Competence Humanitarianism and Civic Engagement Practical Competence Knowledge Required: Knowledge Rating: New Emerging Practicing Mastering Behavior/ Skills Required: Behavior/ Skills Rating: New Emerging Practicing Mastering Overall Proficiency Rating: New Emerging Practicing Mastering Learning Competency Behaviors and Skills
-----------------------------------------------ENDS-------------------------------------------------------------- Angus is available for interview on 0418 488 340 Biography An exploration geologist by profession and training, established his business, Leisure Solutions®, in 1993 and is now engaged in ecotourism/geotourism activities as an tour operator. In recent years he has served as inaugural Chair of the Geotourism Standing Committee of the Geological Society of Australia and is a member of the Geotourism Forum of Ecotourism Australia Ltd, serving initially as its Chair. Angus is also the designated spokesperson on geotourism for the Australian Geoscience Council. Over the past two decades, Angus has been engaged in executive roles relating to technology park development and hi-tech industry association work. In earlier years he has enjoyed various executive roles in major tourist attractions and in an alpine conservation/recreation area. For general media enquiries please contact Kate Charters (Convenor) 0408 882 871
SEED GRANT APPLICATION FORM 2017 Project title Principal investigator Themes of research Mental Health Cancer Obesity Cardiovascular Disease Diabetes Type of research Clinical Translational Does your research involve any kind of animal or human subjects? Yes No Note that AJF does not support clinical trial, only clinical research. Ethical Approval A copy should be submitted to the AJF within 3 months after the initial notification of the grant award. Submitted Date Submitted Not Applicable Approved Reference Yes No Level of award requested (maximum AED 300 K) Duration of award 1 Year 2 Years Signature of PI: Date of Submission: Signature of HoD: Date:
Undergraduate Courses (Clinical Program) Postgraduate Courses Career History and Professional Experience Titles Assistant professor of Pharamcognosy from 1982-1991 Lecturer of Pharamcognosy from Awards Projects Publications and Presentations El- Shamy, A.M; El- Hawary, S.S.; Rateb, M. E. M. and Yousef, E. M. A.; Production of parthenolide in organ and callus cultures of Tanacetum parthenium (L.); African Journal of Biotechnology vol. 6 (11), pp.l306- 1316,4 June (2007). El- Shamy, A.M; El- Hawary, S.S. and Rateb, M. E. M.; Quantitative Estimation of Parthenolide in Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Schultz- Bip. Cultivated in Egypt; Journal of AOAC International vol- 90, No.I, (2007).
Population History of to child History of abuse to parent History of alcohol or drug related problems in family History of child witnessing violence History of alcohol or drug related problems in family History of mental illness of parent History of parent witnessing violence All Children 1.1 3.1 3.0 3.3 0.6 6.7 2.9 Language background other than English 0.4 0.9 0.6 1.4 0.3 1.3 1.5 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 6.0 13.4 15.7 16.7 2.0 18.1 12.6 Areas of most disadvantage (IRSD 1) 1.7 4.3 4.2 4.8 0.9 7.5 4.2 Areas of most disadvantage (IRSD 5) 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.3 4.9 1.4 One-parent family 5.5 17.1 13.5 16.5 2.6 17.6 13.3 Boys 1.2 3.4 3.2 3.6 0.6 7.2 3.1 Girls 1.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 0.6 6.9 2.9 Rural/Regional areas 2.0 4.9 4.9 5.3 0.7 10.1 4.4 Metropolitan areas 0.8 2.4 2.3 2.5 0.6 5.5 2.3
NAME:____________________ PD:_____ Seedfolks unit Packet Rubric/checklist: ____ 4 character sheets completed (20 pts) ____ Seed packet completed (20 pts) ____ Quilt square completed (see rubric) (20 pts) ____ Character completed (20 pts) ____ seminar (20 pts) All parts of the project are due _________________. Exploring the Folks in Seedfolks Fill out this sheet for FOUR of the characters in Seedfolks. You may pick whichever 4 you would like! You may need to use your inferencing skills to fill in some of the information if it is not explicitly given in the chapter.
Population Group History of to child History of abuse to parent History of alcohol or drug related problems in family History of child witnessing violence History of alcohol or drug related problems in family History of mental illness of parent History of parent witnessing violence All Children 1.2% 3.3% 3.6% 3.1% 1.0% 6.9% 3.1% Language background other than English 0.9% 1.7% 1.1% 1.9% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 4.2% 12.5% 14.6% 14.8% 2.6% 14.4% 11.6% Areas of most disadvantage (IRSD 1) 1.6% 4.2% 4.5% 4.4% 1.2% 7.2% 4.1% Areas of most disadvantage (IRSD 5) 0.8% 2.1% 2.2% 1.7% 0.9% 5.6% 2.0% One-parent family 4.5% 15.0% 13.5% 14.2% 3.1% 17.1% 11.5% Boys 1.3% 3.4% 3.8% 3.2% 1.0% 7.1% 3.2% Girls 1.2% 3.3% 3.7% 3.2% 1.1% 7.1% 3.1% Rural/Regional areas 1.7% 4.4% 5.1% 4.3% 1.1% 9.8% 3.9% Metropolitan 1.0% 2.8% 3.1% 2.7% 1.0% 5.8% 2.7%
ORAL health LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about their child's oral health (eg, teeth, gums etc) 161 13.9 14.0 14.0 speech/LANGUAGE LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have difficulties with speech and/or language 149 12.9 12.7 14.1 of the children above, those who are seeing a speech pathologist 43 29.0 32.2 33.8 SERVICE USE LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have attended a Maternal and Child Health Centre for their 3 ½ year old check 847 73.5 67.8 69.9 Children reported to have been seen by an optometrist in the past year 232 20.1 17.5 18.2 Children reported to have been seen by a GP in the past year 904 78.4 78.5 78.4 Children reported to have been seen by a paediatrician in the past year 136 11.8 9.7 10.4 Children reported to have been seen by a dentist in the past year 698 60.6 51.8 53.9 Children reported to have been seen by an audiologist/hearing specialist in the past year 107 9.3 9.8 10.1 Children reported to have participated in a kindergarten program led by a qualified education teacher 1,013 87.9 87.7 88.4 BEHAVIOURAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about the behaviour of their child 120 10.4 11.8 12.6 Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems The Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) is embedded within the SEHQ and comprises a number of questions that elicit responses about specific domains of learning, development and behaviour. Certain groupings of concerns have been found to be significant predictors of developmental or behavioural problems. Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children at high risk of developmental or behavioural problems 172 14.9 15.5 15.5 Children at moderate risk of developmental or behavioural problems 302 26.2 28.7 28.6
ORAL health LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about their child's oral health (eg, teeth, gums etc) 9 20.4 14.1 14.0 speech/LANGUAGE LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have difficulties with speech and/or language 12 26.9 17.8 14.1 of the children above, those who are seeing a speech pathologist 4 34.2 37.0 33.8 SERVICE USE LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have attended a Maternal and Child Health Centre for their 3 ½ year old check 36 79.9 75.8 69.9 Children reported to have been seen by an optometrist in the past year 7 15.1 20.3 18.2 Children reported to have been seen by a GP in the past year 26 59.0 78.3 78.4 Children reported to have been seen by a paediatrician in the past year np 6.6 12.6 10.4 Children reported to have been seen by a dentist in the past year 27 61.8 59.8 53.9 Children reported to have been seen by an audiologist/hearing specialist in the past year np 6.7 10.7 10.1 Children reported to have participated in a kindergarten program led by a qualified education teacher 40 90.9 90.4 88.4 BEHAVIOURAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about the behaviour of their child 7 16.4 14.9 12.6 Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems The Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) is embedded within the SEHQ and comprises a number of questions that elicit responses specific domains of learning, development and behaviour. Certain groupings of concerns have been found to be significant predictors of developmental or behavioural problems. Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children at high risk of developmental or behavioural problems 8 17.9 15.7 15.5 Children at moderate risk of developmental or behavioural problems 14 32.1 28.1 28.6
ORAL health LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about their child's oral health (eg, teeth, gums etc) 178 14.9 14.0 14.0 speech/LANGUAGE LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have difficulties with speech and/or language 162 13.6 12.7 14.1 of the children above, those who are seeing a speech pathologist 57 35.5 32.2 33.8 SERVICE USE LGA LGA VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have attended a Maternal and Child Health Centre for their 3 ½ year old check 858 71.9 67.8 69.9 Children reported to have been seen by an optometrist in the past year 250 21.0 17.5 18.2 Children reported to have been seen by a GP in the past year 992 83.2 78.5 78.4 Children reported to have been seen by a paediatrician in the past year 110 9.2 9.7 10.4 Children reported to have been seen by a dentist in the past year 638 53.4 51.8 53.9 Children reported to have been seen by an audiologist/hearing specialist in the past year 150 12.6 9.8 10.1 Children reported to have participated in a kindergarten program led by a qualified early education teacher 1,069 89.6 87.7 88.4 BEHAVIOURAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about the behaviour of their child 188 15.7 11.8 12.6 Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems The Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) is embedded within the SEHQ and comprises a number of questions that elicit responses about specific domains of learning, development and behaviour. Certain groupings of concerns have been found to be significant predictors of developmental or behavioural problems. Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children at high risk of developmental or behavioural problems 184 15.5 15.5 15.5 Children at moderate risk of developmental or behavioural problems 331 27.8 28.7 28.6
Very useful around conversation but hopeless when practicing /playing harmonica/recorder-I actually need to take them off when practicing In noisy groups or crowds All the time: 3 days experience with aid All the time, except sleep, shower, swim or danger of very strong wind Most of my waking hours except when outside All the time. Better than nothing but not yet satisfactory solution. Definitely need them for all social occasions. Turn them off for some friends who have loud voices. Need to turn one aid off when listening to music due to feedback. Difficult to watch TV on a plane due to feedback neighbors can hear. All waking time All the time; why not? All the time All the time All the time Useful at meetings but not in noisy areas All the time All the time - essential for me. All the time. Not useful for telephone not so good for TV watching with loud background music All the time. Restaurants. TV, but still need to read the subtitles. Cinema In crowds Most useful for clarity of hearing speech in intimate settings. Little use for conversation in a restaurant. Helpful, now in a for some Excellent for hearing high quality classical recordings in a very small studio recently built for me. Most of the time, including whilst driving but not as a passenger. Essential at meeting or watching TV, I still have problems with music. Almost All the time All the time. Less beneficial in noisy environments Most places, they do help but not as much as I think they could Restaurants, theatres, concerts Whenever in company with more than two others, always in cinema, restaurant etc. All the time
Overall how important to you is listening to music? What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please select the one most important to you Chi Square 26.90* Degrees of Freedom 44 p-value 0.98 A4-2. No significant difference: the value of music and the kind of music Overall how important to you is listening to Do you attend live music events? If so which kinds? Chi Square 5.71* Degrees of Freedom 16 p-value 0.99 A4-3. No significant difference: Value of Music and the kind of live venues attended How important is the quality of the when you do?
Children at high risk of behavioural and emotional problems The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is embedded within the SEHQ and is used to assess different aspects of child behaviours at the beginning of primary school, including prosocial behaviour, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems and conduct problems (Goodman 2001). The emotional scale measures a range of negative emotions, such as sadness, fear and worries. The conduct problem scale measures tendencies to display negative behaviours when interacting with others. The hyperactivity scale measures a range of behaviours, including restlessness, impulsiveness and concentration. The peer problems scale measures peer relationships, including not having friends, being picked on, playing by themselves or not being liked by other children. The prosocial behaviour scale measures positive social behaviours. Children at high risk of behavioural and emotional problems LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Emotional symptoms 90 6.1 5.5 6.1 Conduct problems 94 6.3 5.6 6.3 Hyperactivity 122 8.2 6.5 7.4 Peer problems 99 6.6 8.4 8.5 Pro social 39 2.6 3.5 3.3 Total difficulties (score in the 'high risk' range) 70 4.7 4.2 4.9 Family Stress LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Families experiencing high or very high stress during the month prior to the survey 160 10.8 8.0 8.8 The following shows the results reported by parents when asked whether their child had experienced any of the following stressors: family stress (CONTINUED) LGA LGA VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Alcohol or drug related problem in family 49 3.3 2.5 3.1 History of abuse to parent 51 3.4 2.5 3.2 History of abuse to child(ren) 20 1.3 0.8 1.1 Parent witness to violence 39 2.6 2.3 2.9 Child witness to violence 59 3.9 2.5 3.2 Gambling problem in family 9 0.6 0.6 0.7 History of mental illness of parent 119 8.0 5.6 7.0 * The number of SEHQ children with a valid postcode for concordance to a LGA. ** Children have been allocated to quintiles of disadvantage on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA).
ORAL health LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about their child's oral health (eg, teeth, gums etc) 14 15.8 14.1 14.0 speech/LANGUAGE LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have difficulties with speech and/or language 19 21.1 17.8 14.1 of the children above, those who are seeing a speech pathologist 3 15.1 37.0 33.8 SERVICE USE LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have attended a Maternal and Health Centre for their 3 ½ year old check 74 81.1 75.8 69.9 Children reported to have been seen by an optometrist in the past year 8 8.4 20.3 18.2 Children reported to have been seen by a GP in the past year 67 72.6 78.3 78.4 Children reported to have been seen by a paediatrician in the past year 8 8.4 12.6 10.4 Children reported to have been seen by a dentist in the past year 53 57.9 59.8 53.9 Children reported to have been seen by an audiologist/hearing specialist in the past year 7 7.4 10.7 10.1 Children reported to have participated in a kindergarten program led by a qualified early education teacher 86 93.7 90.4 88.4 BEHAVIOURAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING LGA LGA Non VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about the behaviour of their child 16 17.9 14.9 12.6 Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems The Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) is embedded within the SEHQ and comprises a number of questions that elicit responses about specific domains of learning, development and behaviour. Certain groupings of concerns have been found to be significant predictors of developmental or behavioural problems. Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children at high risk of developmental or behavioural problems 18 20.0 15.7 15.5 Children at moderate risk of developmental or behavioural problems 31 33.7 28.1 28.6
Children at high risk of behavioural and emotional problems The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is embedded within the SEHQ and is used to assess different aspects of behaviours at the beginning of primary school, including prosocial behaviour, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems and conduct problems (Goodman 2001). The emotional scale measures a range of negative emotions, such as sadness, fear and worries. The conduct problem scale measures tendencies to display negative behaviours when interacting with others. The hyperactivity scale measures a range of behaviours, including restlessness, impulsiveness and concentration. The peer problems scale measures peer relationships, including not having friends, being picked on, playing by themselves or not being liked by other children. The prosocial behaviour scale measures positive social behaviours. Children at high risk of behavioural and emotional problems LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Emotional symptoms 18 4.3 5.5 6.1 Conduct problems 23 5.5 5.6 6.3 Hyperactivity 19 4.6 6.5 7.4 Peer problems 30 7.4 8.4 8.5 Pro social 11 2.6 3.5 3.3 Total difficulties (score in the 'high risk' range) 20 4.9 4.2 4.9 Family Stress LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Families experiencing high or very high stress during the month prior to the survey 24 5.9 8.0 8.8 The following shows the results reported by parents when asked whether their child had experienced any of the following stressors: family stress (CONTINUED) LGA LGA Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Alcohol or drug related problem in family 6 1.4 2.5 3.1 History of to parent np 0.7 2.5 3.2 History of abuse to child(ren) 0.8 1.1 Parent witness to violence 6 1.4 2.3 2.9 Child witness to violence np 0.5 2.5 3.2 Gambling problem in family np 0.2 0.6 0.7 History of mental illness of parent 13 3.2 5.6 7.0 * The number of SEHQ children with a valid postcode for concordance to a LGA. ** Children have been allocated to quintiles of disadvantage based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA).
ORAL health LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about their child's oral health (eg, teeth, gums etc) 52 11.6 14.1 14.0 speech/LANGUAGE LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have difficulties with speech and/or language 82 18.3 17.8 14.1 of the children above, those who are seeing a speech pathologist 27 32.7 37.0 33.8 SERVICE USE LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children reported to have attended a Maternal and Child Health Centre for their 3 ½ year old check 334 74.6 75.8 69.9 Children reported to have been seen by an optometrist in the past year 84 18.8 20.3 18.2 Children reported to have been seen by a GP in the past year 377 84.3 78.3 78.4 Children reported to have been seen by a paediatrician in the past year 68 15.2 12.6 10.4 Children reported to have been seen by a dentist in the past year 245 54.8 59.8 53.9 Children reported to have been seen by an audiologist/hearing specialist in the past year 58 12.9 10.7 10.1 Children reported to have participated in a kindergarten program led by a qualified early education teacher 405 90.6 90.4 88.4 BEHAVIOURAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Parents concerned about the behaviour of their child 73 16.3 14.9 12.6 Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems The Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) is embedded within the SEHQ and comprises a number of questions that elicit responses about specific domains of learning, development and behaviour. Certain groupings of concerns have been found to be significant predictors of developmental or behavioural problems. Children at risk of developmental and behavioural problems LGA LGA Non Metro VIC Number Per cent Per cent Per cent Children at high risk of developmental or behavioural problems 87 19.4 15.7 15.5 Children at moderate risk of developmental or behavioural problems 118 26.3 28.1 28.6