Deductive reasoning always starts from a general premise (something about an entire class of things), and arrives at a specific premise (something about one member of that class). To use the standard examples as mentioned by Jo Wehler in his answer, "All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Hence Socrates is mortal." is deductive reasoning. The premise is stated over the group (all humans). Socrates is identified as a member of that group. Deductive reasoning is then applied to declare "Socrates is mortal," because he is a member of a group all of whom is mortal.
Inductive reasoning always starts from a specific premise (something about an individual) or a collection of specific premises, and arrives at a general premise (something about an entire group). Again, using the standard examples, "Every swan I have seen is white. Therefore, all swans are white." is an example of inductive reasoning. The premise is about a collection of specific entities (the set of swans I have seen have all been white). Inductive reasoning leads us to a general premise that all swans are white.
As for your specific example, of Jennifer being on time, your deductive example is cheating of sorts. You state (emphasis mine):
The fact that jennifer leaves for school at 7 and that she is always
on time, are premises established from her history of departures and
arrivals at school and therefore can be treated as generalizations
which mutually are responsible for the conclusion or particular
instance of these premises, that is her assumption that she will
always be on time if she leaves at 7.
In the bolded statement, you have engaged in inductive reasoning. There is nothing in the original axioms which indicate the truthhood of this statement. You have simply made the intuitive leap to a conclusion.
This points out a key to inductive reasoning: it is very often trivial to take an inductive reasoning claim and break it apart into an inductive part followed by a deductive part. Often, when doing so, the inductive assumptions you get to use are smaller and easier to manage.
As an example in math, consider my favorite theorems: Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. They make some frighteningly deep claims about the abilities of mathematical proofs. They claim that many proofs we desperately wish could exist are, in fact, impossible. This would be a gigantic inductive reasoning leap, given that most people actually believed the contrary. His proof breaks that claim up into two parts. The first is an inductive step: he assumed the Peano axioms of arithmetic. For those who are not familiar, these are pretty benign axioms. Handwaving the exactness, they basically describe the ability to count to a number in a very formal manner. It is rare to disagree with the Peano axioms of arithmetic because they're just so natural. Godel then proceeded to attach a giant block of deductive reasoning that proved his claims about the limits of proofs.
This bothered many mathematicians. Godel's results were not popular at the time, but he had succeeded as isolating the inductive portions of his theory to only the most basic of concepts no mathematician dared challenge.
(As a result, many mathematicians have challenged the basic assumptions, and in doing so dodged Godel's claims. However, they have to continuously be cautious. If they accidentally accept his assumptions along the way, the deductive part of his proof comes back in full force)