Search results

Elizabeth told her parents she wants to be an inventor but they said she should be a dentist. Elizabeth told us that being a dentist is okay with her because they make stuff – they still invent so she can be a dentist. (Field notes, March 9, 2007)Today as Ji-Sook shared her collage with the class, she emphasized her family in Korea, her church, and the Bible, three topics that came up several times. She talked about Betta, her fish who is also her family and who she talks to when she is sad. Her symbols of belonging were trees and friendship: trees are about belonging for without them the ground would be cracked, there would no oxygen and we would be dead; friendship is like a broken toy – both can be mended. (Field notes, May 9, 2007)

As we gradually awakened to Loyla's, Ji-Sook's, and Brent's familial curriculum making, described in earlier chapters, we grew increasingly aware of tensions shaped by their experiences in their familial and school curriculum making. Our earlier chapters show something of these tensions. In this chapter we return to a focus on tensions by exploring the tensions embodied by Loyla, Brent, and Ji-Sook as they lived in these two curriculum-making places. As we inquire into the children's embodied tensions, we do so with a sense of wanting to restory the potential of tensions on school landscapes and in composing lives. We also want to show something of ways in which attention to children's embodied tensions makes visible the gaps and silences they experienced in living in these two curriculum-making places.

This chapter aims at shedding light upon how transforming or detrending a series can substantially impact predictions of mixed causal-noncausal (MAR) models, namely dynamic processes that depend not only on their lags but also on their leads. MAR models have been successfully implemented on commodity prices as they allow to generate nonlinear features such as locally explosive episodes (denoted here as bubbles) in a strictly stationary setting. The authors consider multiple detrending methods and investigate, using Monte Carlo simulations, to what extent they preserve the bubble patterns observed in the raw data. MAR models relies on the dynamics observed in the series alone and does not require economical background to construct a structural model, which can sometimes be intricate to specify or which may lack parsimony. The authors investigate oil prices and estimate probabilities of crashes before and during the first 2020 wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors consider three different mechanical detrending methods and compare them to a detrending performed using the level of strategic petroleum reserves.

This chapter develops a no-arbitrage, futures equilibrium cost-of-carry model to demonstrate that the existence of cointegration between spot and futures prices in the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) crude oil market depends crucially on the time-series properties of the underlying model. In marked contrast to previous studies, the futures equilibrium model utilizes information contained in both the quality delivery option and convenience yield as a timing delivery option in the NYMEX contract. Econometric tests of the speculative efficiency hypothesis (also termed the “unbiasedness hypothesis”) are developed and common tests of this hypothesis examined. The empirical results overwhelming support the hypotheses that the NYMEX future price is an unbiased predictor of future spot prices and that no-arbitrage opportunities are available. The results also demonstrate why common tests of the speculative efficiency hypothesis and simple arbitrage models often reject one or both of these hypotheses.

Gatekeepers play an important role in research conducted with children and youth. Although qualitative researchers frequently discuss institutional and individual gatekeepers, such as schools and parents, little attention has been paid to the role that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play in determining who is allowed to research particular populations and the ramifications of these decisions for findings involving children and youth. In order to examine this role, we compare negotiations of two researchers working on separate projects with similar populations with the IRB of a large Midwestern university. In both cases, it is likely that board members used their own personal experience and expertise in making assumptions about the race, social class, and gender of the researchers and their participants. The fact that these experiences are supported by findings across a wide range of IRBs highlights the extent to which qualitative research with children is changed (or even prevented) by those with little knowledge of typical qualitative methodologies and the cultural contexts in which research takes place. While those such as principals, teachers, and parents who are traditionally recognized as gatekeepers control access to specific locations, their denial of access only requires researchers to seek other research sites. IRBs, in contrast, control whether researchers are able to conduct research at any site. Although they wield considerably more control over research studies than typical gatekeepers, the fact that they are housed in the institutions at which academic researchers work also means that we can play a role in their improvement.

When Brent McBride and Nancy Barbour approached me with a proposal for an Advances in Early Education and Day Care theme volume on child development laboratory schools, I was eager to pursue the topic with them. This Advances series has always been dedicated serving as a forum to furthering the knowledge base on all aspects of early education, broadly defined. The disciplinary roots of the field are necessarily interdisciplinary, reflecting the range of disciplines that are relevant to us, including sociology, psychology, policy studies, curriculum studies, history, and related fields. A fair amount of our existing knowledge base was generated in campus laboratory programs, which were designed to be interdisciplinary, as Barbour shows us in her chapter in this volume. At the same time, I am aware of some of the turmoil and transformation that has shaken campus child development programs over the past two decades (Keyes, 1991); venerable programs have closed, converted from nursery schools to child care, altered to reflect communities beyond the ivory tower of campus, or asked to do things that they had never done in the past. What might a special volume on campus laboratory programs for children tell us about the state of knowledge, and the state of the field of early childhood education and care?

The case for child development laboratory programs has never been more pressing than it is at this time. The three-part mission of facilitating and supporting teaching, research, and outreach activities has guided the activities of child development laboratory programs since their inception. Although these programs continue to be important players in the child development and early childhood education arenas, many are being asked to provide justification for their continued existence. In recent years campuses have reconsidered, reconceptualized, and restructured the ways in which these laboratory programs fit within the agendas and missions of the universities where they are located, the local communities surrounding the universities, and the child development and early childhood education professions in general.

This article explores the neglected issue of the overrepresentation in the child protection system of children from ethnic, cultural, religious, racial, and linguistic minorities. It focuses on the accommodation of children’s diverse backgrounds within the s 31(2) threshold and s1 “best interests” stages of intervention under the Children Act 1989. First, it introduces the ethnic child protection penalty as a new tool for capturing the complex nature of overrepresentation of these children. Second, it proposes a framework for understanding the judicial approach in higher court decisions on the current extent and nature of accommodation. Third, it employs the penalty concept to help explain why case law analysis reveals difficulties with the current factor-based approach, whereas empirical research suggests generally satisfactory accommodation in practice. It concludes by proposing a contextualized framework for decision-making in relation to child protection.