Medium 9781475815894

IJER Vol 1-N3

Views: 595
Ratings: (0)
The mission of the International Journal of Educational Reform (IJER) is to keep readers up-to-date with worldwide developments in education reform by providing scholarly information and practical analysis from recognized international authorities. As the only peer-reviewed scholarly publication that combines authors’ voices without regard for the political affiliations perspectives, or research methodologies, IJER provides readers with a balanced view of all sides of the political and educational mainstream. To this end, IJER includes, but is not limited to, inquiry based and opinion pieces on developments in such areas as policy, administration, curriculum, instruction, law, and research.
IJER should thus be of interest to professional educators with decision-making roles and policymakers at all levels turn since it provides a broad-based conversation between and among policymakers, practitioners, and academicians about reform goals, objectives, and methods for success throughout the world.
Readers can call on IJER to learn from an international group of reform implementers by discovering what they can do that has actually worked. IJER can also help readers to understand the pitfalls of current reforms in order to avoid making similar mistakes. Finally, it is the mission of IJER to help readers to learn about key issues in school reform from movers and shakers who help to study and shape the power base directing educational reform in the U.S. and the world.

List price: $46.99

Remix
Remove
Annual Subscriptions (4/year) Subscribe Discounts for Institutions
 

12 Articles

Format Buy Remix

The Myth of High Public Spending on American Education

ePub

F. HOWARD NELSON

Associate Director of Research

American Federation of Teachers

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, D. C. 20001

Until recently, nearly everyone in the United States believed that the U.S. spent more on education than other nations no matter how you measured education spending. This notion persisted despite the absence of any study proving the point. The ideology of the American common school – holding that all children had a right to an equal education at public expense through the age of 18 without early educational tracking, and a good shot at a college education without regard to parental income – allowed no other ranking for the U.S. besides number 1. In spite of some feelings that teachers were more respected, better prepared, and better paid in other countries (Barrow & Suter, 1988), no politician, scholar, think tank, or educational interest group attacked the self-evidency of high American spending on education. The combination of apparently high spending with low scores on international tests for U.S. students served to rule out increasing or maintaining financial support for education as a key component of educational reform.

See All Chapters

Education’s Quest for the Grail: The Search for Fiscal Equity in the Bluegrass State

ePub

BETIY E. STEFFY

Associate Professor

University of Kentucky

Lexington, Kentucky 40506

Finding an equitable method for coping with the disparity in wealth between school systems has been public education’s equivalent of the medieval search for the Holy Grail: it is a seemingly endless quest.

Removing disparities between rich and poor in an essentially democratic, capitalist country confronts a host of putative “rights,” such as school district boundaries; the extent of the development of wealth to tax within and without those boundaries; the entanglement of the individual rights of parents to choose where to live; and for the wealthier, to live and send their children to school wherever they choose.

The growing gap between social haves and have-nots was forcefully illustrated in Jonathan Kozol’s shattering book Savage Inequalities (1992), in which he noted: “There is a deep-seated reverence for fair play in the United States, and in many areas of life we see the consequences in a genuine distaste for loaded dice; but this is not the case in education, health care, or inheritance of wealth. In these elemental areas we want the game to be unfair and we have made it so; and it will likely so remain” (p. 223). “In public schooling, social policy has been turned back almost one hundred years” (p. 4).

See All Chapters

The Equity Audit in School Reform: Building a Theory for Institutional Research

ePub

WILLIAM K. POSTON, JR.

Section Leader

Educational Administration

College of Education

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011-3190

When Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal,” he established forever the value and comparable worth of each individual in American society. This powerful belief of America’s founders remains a driving force in advancing the level of attainment and quality of our schools for all children even today. Efforts at school reform continue to grapple with ways and means for improving education for all children. All children, despite ethnic group, race, national origin, sex, or handicap, should have equal opportunity to master the best of what educational institutions have to offer.

Despite years of effort by educators to produce comparable results for all groups of children, inequality in educational outcomes persists (Frasier, 1989). Discrepancies between groups, particularly between low and high socioeconomic levels, have plagued school improvement efforts for decades; however, the value and ethic of providing equal opportunity have not diminished among school reformers. The words of John Dewey still ring true: “What the best persons in our society hope for their children, society should want for all of its children.”

See All Chapters

The Equity Audit in School Reform: Three Case Studies of Educational Disparity and Incongruity

ePub

JACQUELINE K. MITCHELL1 and WILLIAM K. POSTON, JR.2

College of Education

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011-3190

If education were true to the democratic philosophy, no group of children, identifiable by race, gender, or socioencomic status, would show less achievement in our schools than any other group. However, educational research shows that achievement is greatly uneven among ethnic, gender, and economic group (Banks, 1983). Minority groups are over represented in special education. Females are under represented in the high technology areas in upper grades. Low SES students are over represented in low track curricula (Gay, 1983; Lanasa and Potter,1984).

Given these group discrepancies, it’s obvious that educational environments aren’t working comparably for all groups of students. But what accounts for the difference? How can school reform address these discrepancies constructively? To answer these questions, we first have to diagnose the problems and issues in schooling equity. And that is precisely where the equity audit comes in.

See All Chapters

Significant Trends in Educational Finance 1980–85

ePub

JACK FLANIGAN,1 MIKE RICHARDSON1 and R. A. FLANIGAN2

Educational Administration

Clemson University

Clemson, SC 29634

Efforts to define educational reform have been largely unsatisfactory (see Sergiovanni & Moore, 1989). Educational reform in one state could be considered a trend or common practice in other states (Jordan & McKeown, 1990). Sarason (1990, 13) stated that most reform was couched “in terms of improving schools or the quality of education” but omitted the fundamental systems of education. In order to avoid confusion or controversy, educational reform in this paper is defined as reform that is being funded specifically by monies allocated for this purpose as specified by the state. No local initiatives at reform are considered.

Financing Reform

The fiscal year 1979–80 was a significant one in the financing of public elementary and secondary schools. According to Charles S. Benson (1985, 11), “state government for the first time became the primary supplier of revenue to support and maintain public elementary and secondary education.” For the first time in the nation’s history, state government replaced local school districts as the primary financial agent for public school (Odden & Picus, 1992). Benson (1985) specified that over $50.2 billion was spent by state governments on education, or 21 percent of the total revenues appropriated from state coffers.

See All Chapters

Emerging National Models of Schooling for At-Risk Students

ePub

TOM CHENOWETH

Assistant Professor

Department of Eucational Policy, Foundations & Administrative Studies

School of Education

Portland State University

Portland, OR 97207-0751

Urban public schools are not meeting student needs. In many urban school districts, students have been retained at least once by the end of elementary school (Slavin and Madden, 1988). Paradoxically, through research and practitioner wisdom, we know a great deal about the components and conditions necessary for school success. Yet, we seem to lack the technical skill and systematic commitment to combine them to create public elementary schools that effectively serve urban populations with significant numbers of at-risk students (Cuban, 1989).

This study examines three evolving models of schooling for at-risk students: the School Development model; the Success for All model; and the Accelerated School model. These models were chosen for study because they have been replicated in many different settings, are affiliated with university programs and have solid conceptual frameworks, and are comprehensive school-restructuring efforts. The author believes that by examining prominent model school programs at the national level, a set of policy guidelines for creating a “state of the art” public elementary school can be developed and hopefully implemented.

See All Chapters

Midway through School Reform in Chicago

ePub

G. ALFRED HESS, JR.

Executive Director

Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance

220 South State St., Suite 1212

Chicago, IL 60604.

The Chicago Public Schools are the focus of one of the most radical school reform efforts in the United States. Only the statewide reform efforts in Kentucky rival the comprehensiveness of the Chicago reforms.1 The Chicago reforms, adopted in December of 1988 (P.A. 85–1418), require the school system to raise its student achievement levels to national norms in five years, to reallocate the system’s resources away from the administration and towards schools, particularly those with high enrollments of economically disadvantaged students, and to establish local school councils (LSCs) as the basis for school-based management. The legislatively mandated reform act focused on an initial five-year implementation period.2 This report is an assessment of the implementation of the act at the mid-point in that five-year period.

See All Chapters

Getting to 2001

ePub

CHARLES W. RUDIGER

Business and Education Faculty, Dowling College, Oakdale, NY 11769

IRA W. KRINSKY

President, Ira W. Krinsky & Associates, Los Angeles, CA

“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work.”

Introduction

Daniel Burnham’s admonition was certainly taken cognizance of by President George Bush last Spring (1991) when he unveiled his plan to reform and improve the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. American 2000 Education Strategy calls for the major restructuring of the public school system and meeting the Six National Goals outlined by the president and the nation’s governors at Charlottesville, Virginia in the Fall of 1989. In the following pages we will examine and analyze the various proposals and strategies. But first we must make an important assertion; also, we will advise of our research procedures.

Clearly, the president intends to have his America 2000 plan in place at the commencement of the Third Millennium. To be technically and historically accurate, however, the 21st century will not begin until January 1, 2001. The concept of “zero” was not generally recognized until the Middle Ages. History in the Christian era began with Anno Domini I, and that’s good news for Mr. Bush and his successors, as it provides them—us—with an additional year to address a very ambitious agenda.

See All Chapters

Transforming Work Cultures and Learning Patterns: The School-Based Management Challenge

ePub

KAROLYN J. SNYDER

Professor of Education

Director, School Management Institute

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL 33620-7750

ROBERT H. ANDERSON

President

Pedamorphosis, Inc.

Tampa, FL 33688

WILLIAM L. JOHNSON

Dean and Professor of Education

Ambassador College

Big Sandy, TX 75755

Reinventing American schooling will require of educational leaders, at the very least, new capacities to dream of better futures for their students, and to develop fresh leadership talents in others for achieving new schooling outcomes. There exists no new budgeting system, new curriculum, new law, new instructional strategy, new calendar or schedule, new union contract, new planning system, or organizational structure that has within it the certain power to transform schooling so that every student succeeds routinely. Making dramatic changes in the schooling business, as many critics are urging, will be achieved only by those who have visions of new schooling futures for all students, for out of dreams are born the energy and zeal to overhaul outdated yet cherished education structures, decision-making processes, programs, and traditions.

See All Chapters

Legal

ePub

Todd A. DeMitcbell

Teachers stand at the crossroads of education. It is chiefly through their efforts that the goals of education are achieved or thwarted. As Susan Moore Johnson writes: “Who teaches matters” (1990, XIII). The teacher is the core of our highly bureaucratized system of education. Teachers perform their duty within their classroom both isolated and protected from other educators and outside forces. It is a “division of labor that assigns individual teachers considerable discretion in decisions whose effects are confined to their individual classrooms but affords them little voice in the larger decisions made outside those classrooms” (Shedd and Bacharach, 1991, XII). Once inside their classroom, teachers ostensibly have a lot of freedom to do their work. “When the classroom door closes the teacher typically has enormous latitude in deciding how to teach a lesson” (Maeroff, 1988, 3). One teacher remarked; “When I’m in my classroom, I know I’m in control. I can teach the way I want to teach, do what I want to do” (Lieberman and Miller, 1984, 14). The linchpin, then, of our system of education is the teacher in his or her classroom exercising a large amount of discretion as to how that classroom is run and how knowledge is imparted and skills taught. And, the discretion that teachers exercise in their classrooms predominantly takes the form of speech. “Classroom activities are carried out in large part by verbal interaction between students and teachers” (Ornstein, 1990, 537) and teachers monopolize that communication (Good and Brophy, 1987). Thus, teachers’ autonomy in the classroom is directly linked to their ability to control their speech. But, is that autonomy threatened?

See All Chapters

Instruction

ePub

John M. Jenkins

Our current literature and rhetoric abounds with the need to recast our public schools. Even the federal government and the state houses have gotten into the act. What previously was the province of the professional educators is now the parlance of the President and the governors. The national education goals adopted at the Charlottesville Summit are bold visions for a reality yet to be. They call for “radical changes” in the way we design and operate our schools. Their strategies are reminiscent of an earlier time in our nation’s history when innovation was in vogue.

The time was October 4, 1957 and America awakened to the news that the Russians had one upped the United States by placing a satellite in orbit around the earth. The Sputnik era had arrived and with it a clarion call to reform our schools. In response, an emphasis was placed on math and science, the tools to compete successfully in the cold war. Federal funds supported writing teams of college professors and classroom teachers to redesign curricula. Alphabet designators were used to describe math as SMSG (School Mathematics Study Group) and UICSM (University of Illinois Curriculum Study in Mathematics) and science as BSCS (Biological Science Curriculum Study), PSSC (Physical Science Curriculum Study), Chem Study and Chem Bond. The curricula were written to allow students to master the concepts and skills of the specific disciplines based on the notion that from mastery comes application.

See All Chapters

College

ePub

Richard P. Manatt

Historically most reforms in higher education have come from outside. In my inaugural column for The College Department (January, 1992) of this journal, I mentioned the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as one of the forces ratcheting up standards for colleges of education and the other departments across the institution that assist the college in the preparation of professional educators. The column also said that such higher expectations apparently were causing a loss of membership. Additionally, I mentioned Dr. Arthur Wise, formerly with the Rand Corporation, was NCATE’s new president and that I knew him to be very capable. Promising to revisit NCATE’s new standards, the column moved on to Professional Development Schools. Because my own department and college were in the throes of preparing for revisitation under the new standards, and because a change in deans had required two years of postponement, the results of ratcheting up of standards and the growing number of complaints led me to move the scheduling of the NCATE column ahead of the other promised topics.

See All Chapters

Details

Print Book
E-Books
Articles

Format name
ePub
Encrypted
No
Sku
I000000047627
Isbn
9781475815894
File size
4.54 MB
Printing
Allowed
Copying
Allowed
Read aloud
Allowed
Format name
ePub
Encrypted
No
Printing
Allowed
Copying
Allowed
Read aloud
Allowed
Sku
In metadata
Isbn
In metadata
File size
In metadata