Help with filing divorce papers

In all three years of the pilot, the mentors in the survey sample had considerable experience in the profession - both in terms of their number of years in teaching and their current roles. Furthermore, mentors in primary schools were most often deputy heads or headteachers (around 60 per cent held these roles), whilst those in secondary 12 PART ONE schools were most often heads of department (45 per cent of mentor respondents from these schools held this responsibility in year 1, 42 per cent help with filing divorce papers in year 2 and 34 per cent in year 3). In each of the three years, around a quarter of the secondary mentors were deputy heads. In addition, at least four out help with filing divorce papers of five mentors, each year, stated that they had acted as a mentor for colleagues previously, and by the final year of the pilot, three out of five had prior experience of mentoring second and third years teachers as part of the EPD scheme. In order to make the survey instruments shorter in the third year of the evaluation, these items were removed. Full details of the characteristics of the mentor survey respondents can be found in Appendix 3. In sum, in both year 1 and year 2, three-quarters of mentors overall were female. This was predominately the case in primary schools, less so in secondary schools. In both years, mentors were predominately white (95 per cent or over), with small proportions of Indian, Black Caribbean, Black African and Pakistani. Survey of a comparative sample of teachers in non-EPD LEAs Year 2 of the EPD evaluation involved a questionnaire survey of a sample of second and third year teachers in schools outside the 12 EPD pilot LEAs. This afforded the opportunity to compare the attitudes and experiences of those who had experienced EPD and those who had not, thereby pointing to any added value of the EPD scheme. The comparative teacher survey sample In order to select the comparative teacher sample, the GTC very kindly gave NFER permission to use its database of teachers. The comparative help with filing divorce papers teacher sample was designed to match the EPD teacher sample as closely as possible. Firstly, all second and third year teachers in England were identified by the date they achieved qualified teacher status (QTS) and from this, 3,000 were selected to the following specification. The items in the comparative questionnaire mirrored those in the EPD teacher questionnaire, though as the comparative questionnaire respondents were outside the EPD pilot areas, there was no reference to EPD. Instead, the comparative questionnaire enquired about any professional development activities help with filing divorce papers undertaken over the course of the academic year 2002-03, the same period covered by the questionnaire to the EPD teachers in year 2 of the pilot. Primary and secondary versions of the comparative questionnaire were produced. Over 3,000 questionnaires were despatched in June 2003.

Two reminder letters were sent to any non-respondents, one of which included a replacement copy of the questionnaire. Appendix 2 presents details of the response rate for the comparative teacher survey broken down by the two instrument types used. The characteristics of the comparative teacher sample The top custom essay services characteristics of the comparative teacher survey respondents are displayed in Table 8. The comparative survey was undertaken in the second year of the pilot and their responses custom essay writing cheap contrasted with those of the year 2 EPD teacher survey sample (see section 2.

Professional essay writers for hire human resources graduate admission essay research paper format template pdf edexcel homework book answers application letter of teacher sample.

Therefore, the characteristics of these EPD teachers are also presented in the table to show the degree of similarity between the constituents of the two samples. Because of these differences, when contrasting the responses of EPD and comparative teachers, statistical tests were conducted to establish whether any variation in the ratings of the two groups was independently associated with participation in EPD rather than being attributable to the differences in the make-up of the EPD and comparative samples (see section 2. Full details of the characteristics of the comparative teacher survey respondents are given in Appendix 3 next to those of the year 2 EPD teachers. To sum up briefly though, the comparative teacher sample was, on average, slightly younger than the year 2 EPD teacher sample, perhaps because of its higher proportion of second year teachers.

The greatest proportion of the comparative teacher sample (40 per cent) was aged 25 or younger (the corresponding proportion for the year 2 EPD teacher sample was 32 per cent). The EPD teachers and the comparative teachers took almost identical routes into teaching, with two-thirds of both samples undertaking PGCEs. As with the year 2 EPD primary sample, the primary comparative sample included teachers of all year groups. Also mirroring EPD teachers, sciences were the most 15 PART ONE common subject specialism 6 of the secondary comparative sample. A similar proportion of the comparative and EPD teacher survey respondents held extra roles in school (71 per cent and 74 per cent respectively).

As was the case in the EPD teacher sample, third year teachers and primary teachers in the comparative sample most often cited additional duties. Analysis was undertaken using MAXQDA, a software package to assist qualitative data analysis. EPD survey data To aid comparability over the course of the help with filing divorce papers study, open-ended questionnaire items were coded by the same researcher each year, using coding frames developed in the first year of the evaluation and only modified as necessary to include newly emerging themes in subsequent years. The results were computer entered, and analysed by the project statistician using SPSS.

This allowed the research team to examine firstly the perceptions of all EPD teachers and then all mentors regardless of their phase of school. For the third year of the evaluation, there were just two instrument types (a teacher questionnaire and a mentor questionnaire) so frequencies for the entire EPD teacher sample then mentor sample could be produced without the need to merge instruments. Following the production of basic frequencies, in each year of the evaluation, the teacher and mentor data were then disaggregated by LEA and by school type (primary, secondary, special) to establish whether the LEA approach or phase of school affected their experience and views of the EPD scheme. In years 2 and 3 of the study, teacher responses were also analysed according to their year of teaching (second or third year).

These techniques were employed to identify the factors leading to outcomes from EPD for teachers and retention in the teaching profession (Part three), and impacts for mentors (Parts two and three).

Cheap custom essays online research paper topics global education argumentative essay should drugs be legalized argumentative essay about teenage depression capstone project meaning.