I started out with Curriculum and Assessment since it's the section of the four that I know least about. "Who decides" led me to the concept of school-based management, which was interesting but I needed to know who decides overall curriculum and assessment on the state and national level before these discussions ever get to either the district or the school.
So I proceeded to investigate Standards Based Reform (reforming from input-based education). Outcomes-based reform is another name for SBR in some cases, and in others seems to be used to refer to particularly constructivist teaching and assessment measures of the outcomes that are set out to be achieved.
Having read some of the history, successes, and problems with SBR, I'm most intrigued by the great problem of its' becoming test-based reform, i.e., teaching to the test. I'm particularly curious about the new technology-based assessments that "they" say can measure creative and critical thinking in both verbal and quantitative arenas.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Watt, Michael (October 2009). The Movement for National Academic Standards: A Comparison of the Common Core State Standards Initiative in the USA and the National Curriculum in Australia.
Watt summarizes the differences in emphasis each "innovation" toward national curriuculum standards takes. The Common Core project (U.S.) stresses establishing benchmarks against state, national, and international standards, whereas the Australian National Curriculum stresses specificity in planning and "inventing and refining" new standards. The US project emphasizes research based decision making whereas the Australian project aims to build consensus decision making.
The paper is primarily a history of the development of both countries' programs, and therefore doesn't add a whole lot to a content-focused discussion of Standards Based Reform.
It's worth noting that the author concludes clearly that the U.S.'s benchmarking each state's standards against local and even international ones will lead to far greater standards than those reached in isolation by the Australian education committees. Similarly, Watt concludes that the States' research-based, decentralized decision-making process is likely to produce smarter, better-written standards than the Australia's centralized attempts as consensus-building between opposing groups.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Hamilton, Laura S., Stecher, Brian M., Yuan, Kun (December 2008). Standards-Based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions.
According to this paper, very generally Standards-Based reform (SBR) is a movement in educational policy and practice that, like Outcomes-based reform, aims to improve public education by emphasizing not what is provided to students, but what they are expected to know and know how to do. Early SBR theorists and practitioners set out to define standards for student achievement and then assess whether or not those standards had been met. The biggest problem these authors cite with SBR is that research clearly shows that it quickly became test-based reform, especially during the No Child Left Behind era.
Some "fixes" for this problem include the authors' recommendations that advances in test creation and administration, especially technological ones, could be used to assess critical thinking skills (both verbal and quantitative) and creative problem-solving skills. These new assessment measures could, according to the authors, make "teaching to the test" both unnecessary and impossible. Furthermore, the authors suggest administrative changes such as limiting testing to only three grades between first and twelfth, and redesigning tests such that not every student takes every part of every test, but instead, large groups of students take only selected portions of the test so as to gain a broader representation of skill levels in each testing subject area.
The authors conclude with specific recommendations for improving our practical application of the six fundamental elements of SBR--academic expectations, alignment of the educational system, assessment of student achievement, decentralization, support and tech. assistance, and accountability. They also include the great importance of assessing the effectiveness of SBR itself throughout its implementation.
Some "fixes" for this problem include the authors' recommendations that advances in test creation and administration, especially technological ones, could be used to assess critical thinking skills (both verbal and quantitative) and creative problem-solving skills. These new assessment measures could, according to the authors, make "teaching to the test" both unnecessary and impossible. Furthermore, the authors suggest administrative changes such as limiting testing to only three grades between first and twelfth, and redesigning tests such that not every student takes every part of every test, but instead, large groups of students take only selected portions of the test so as to gain a broader representation of skill levels in each testing subject area.
The authors conclude with specific recommendations for improving our practical application of the six fundamental elements of SBR--academic expectations, alignment of the educational system, assessment of student achievement, decentralization, support and tech. assistance, and accountability. They also include the great importance of assessing the effectiveness of SBR itself throughout its implementation.
David, Jane L. (May 1989). Synthesis of Research on School-Based Management. Educational Leadership. 46(8), 45-52.
These are obviously old pieces, but well worth perusal as a beginning point to a limited historical understanding of how "who decides curriculum" has been shifting in the public schools in the past 20-25 years. In the literature, one finds many advantages listed for school-based, instead of district-based, management--greater sense of ownership on the part of teachers and school staff; the ability of the management to respond to that school's student body's needs and skills; wiser expenditure of funds again based on what that school in particular needs, many times in great contrast to other schools in the district (Oswald). In addition to those advantages, David also recounts a school in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that used school-based management as a tool for desegregation.
David notes that in the 1960's and '70's, school-based management was used primarily to bring authority to a local community in a general way; whereas in the late 1980's, when she wrote this article, it was aimed at improving the quality of education and teacher satisfaction at specific schools. According to David, it all boils down to teachers' having (1) financial autonomy (at least to a significant degree), (2) autonomy in staffing decisions (choosing what positions will be available and who will fill them), and (2) curricular decision-making autonomy shared, in part, with students, parents, and other community members. Oswald sites difficulties with school-based management that hinge on the balance of power between teachers who want to participate, and what to do about teachers who want simply to teach their classes without managerial responsibilities. David's research points to the great satisfaction and even "exuberance" that teachers enjoy as a result of "real authority," and the strength that has to overcome political difficulties and even reluctance on the part of many teachers.
Assessments of various schools' experience with school-based management show that the two major pitfalls are (1) "substituting shared decision-making for authority," and (2) granting authority without leadership or support from the district. David concludes the review by noting that the shift to school-based management is a lengthy process--five to ten years according to research available at the time of her writing. Further, she writes that much still was to be learned about how the new management should be implemented based simply on observing and assessing the processes underway then.
David notes that in the 1960's and '70's, school-based management was used primarily to bring authority to a local community in a general way; whereas in the late 1980's, when she wrote this article, it was aimed at improving the quality of education and teacher satisfaction at specific schools. According to David, it all boils down to teachers' having (1) financial autonomy (at least to a significant degree), (2) autonomy in staffing decisions (choosing what positions will be available and who will fill them), and (2) curricular decision-making autonomy shared, in part, with students, parents, and other community members. Oswald sites difficulties with school-based management that hinge on the balance of power between teachers who want to participate, and what to do about teachers who want simply to teach their classes without managerial responsibilities. David's research points to the great satisfaction and even "exuberance" that teachers enjoy as a result of "real authority," and the strength that has to overcome political difficulties and even reluctance on the part of many teachers.
Assessments of various schools' experience with school-based management show that the two major pitfalls are (1) "substituting shared decision-making for authority," and (2) granting authority without leadership or support from the district. David concludes the review by noting that the shift to school-based management is a lengthy process--five to ten years according to research available at the time of her writing. Further, she writes that much still was to be learned about how the new management should be implemented based simply on observing and assessing the processes underway then.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
EyePlorer
I find this tool fascinating and potentially useful to certain people. The division of the topic is the most useful part, I think. It's just the way I teach students to come up with keywords: place, people, time period, society, discipline, etc. I find that following the links is a bit disappointing--I'm not getting more than a quick factlette on each subtopic, but that may be the point. For narrowing down a broad research topic, it's great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)