This research analyzes the effects of educational governance on the quality of basic education in two Latin American countries. Educational governance is operationalized using four factors: decentralization, accountability, provision and financing, and incentives. Through the use of a mixed-methods approachâusing statistical techniques and 60 semi-structured interviews with different key players in the education fieldâthe study illuminates some mechanisms through which governance influences quality. The main findings are that, contra some assertions made by policy makers, institutional arrangements matter in a non-unidirectional way. However, the research shows that educational governance is not the main explanatory variable when explaining the quality of basic education. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Proponents of the charter school movement often claim that the decentralized, autonomous nature of charter schools from district and state authority allows teachers greater influence over school policy both instructionally and administratively. Using a data set of 1,427 New York City schools, we empirically examine the extent to which organizational characteristics predict the amount of policy influence charter schools and traditional public schools grant to teachers. Results indicate not only do charter schools grant their teachers less policy influence but also other organizational features are stronger predictors of teacher policy influence including several nonlinear relationships. Directions for future research are discussed.
In Trinidad and Tobago, there have been substantive efforts to reform mathematics education. Through the implementation of new policies, the reformers have promoted changes in mathematics curriculum and instruction. A focus of the reform has been that of increasing opportunities for students to engage in reasoning and proving. However, little is known about how these policies affect the opportunities for reasoning and proof in the written curriculum, the teaching of proof, and students' learning. Furthermore, we are yet to know how the high-stake assessment measures interact with these new policies to impact the teaching and learning of proof. \n \nIn this dissertation, my overarching question asks: What are the implications of reform on the teaching and learning of secondary school mathematics in Trinidad and Tobago? To answer this question, I conducted three studies, which examined the content, teaching, and studentsâ conceptions. All the studies are situated in the teaching reasoning and proof when introducing geometry concepts. In the first study, I conduct a curriculum analysis focused on examining the opportunities for reasoning and proof in the three recommended secondary school textbooks. In the second study, I conduct classroom observations of teachersâ geometry instruction focusing on opportunities for engaging students in reasoning and proof. In the third study, I examine geometry studentsâ conceptions of proof. The three studies are intended to provide an overview of the impact of reform on instructional issues in relation to the dynamics between teachers, student, and content (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003). \n \nFor the first study, I adapt a framework developed by Otten, Gilbertson, Males, and Clark (2014) to investigate the quality and quantity of the opportunities for students to engage in or reflect on reasoning and proof. The findings highlight some unique characteristics of the recommended textbooks such as, (a) the promotion of the explanatory role of proof through the affordances of what I define as the Geometric Calculation with Number and Explanation (GCNE) exercises, (b) the necessary scaffolding of proof construction through activities and exercises promoting pattern identification, conjecturing, and developing of informal non-proof arguments, and (c) the varying advocacy for Geometry as an area in the curriculum where students can experience the work of real mathematicians and see the intellectual of proof in their mathematical experiences. All these characteristics align with the reformersâ vision for the teaching and learning of reasoning and proof in secondary school mathematics. \n \nIn the second study, I examine the nature of the teaching of reasoning and proof in secondary school. I use classroom observations along with pre- and post-observations interview data of three teachers to determine (a) the classroom microculture (i.e., classroom mathematical practices and sociomathematical norms), (b) teachersâ pedagogical decisions, and (c) teachersâ use of the Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate (CSEC) examination materials and textbooks. I also determine whether the teachersâ instruction demonstrate the four characteristics of reform-based mathematics teaching (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004). My analysis of classroom observations of the three teachers suggests that their instructional practices exhibit elements of reform-based instruction. These include teachersâ use of open-ended and direct questions to solicit studentsâ mathematical ideas and teachersâ consideration of students as the source of mathematical ideas. Each teacher established sociomathematical norms that governed how and when a student can ask questions. In this case, questioning helped students articulate their ideas when responding to questions and clarifying their understanding of other's ideas when they posed a question. Teachers also established sociomathematical norms that outlined what counts as a valid proof and what counts as an acceptable answer during instruction. The aforementioned norms supported the expectation that students must always provide explanations for their mathematical thinking, which is another characteristic of reform-based teaching. Teachers used group work and whole class discussions to offer opportunities for collaborative learning, which facilitated their creation of a social constructivist environment for learning reasoning and proof. Teachers used the reform-oriented curriculum materials to provide opportunities for construction of proofs. However, the textbooks and curriculum were limited in their support for proving some geometrical results. Overall, the teachers emphasized the making and testing of conjectures, which afforded students with authentic mathematical experiences that promoted the development of mathematical knowledge. \n \nIn the third study, I use the six principles of proof understanding (McCrone & Martin, 2009) to examine 21 studentsâ conceptions of proof. I use semi-structured interviews to gather studentsâ perspectives of (a) the roles of proof, (b) structure and generality of proof, and (c) the opportunities for proof in the curriculum materials. The findings indicate that the students considered proof as serving the roles of explanation, verification, systemization, and appreciation in mathematics. The latter role helps students see the value and purpose of the mathematical results they learn (a) for applications during problem solving and (b) within the axiomatic system of Geometry results. The aforementioned roles also help students see the intellectual need for reasoning and proof in their mathematical experiences. Studentsâ talk suggests that, their teachersâ and the external examinersâ expectations of the structure, generality, and validity of proof influence their notions of what constitutes a proof. Students also consider the examination opportunities that require the development of reasoned explanations as possible opportunities to construct proof arguments. \n \nThe combined findings of these three studies could help researchers understand the implications of the recent reform recommendations on the teaching and learning of proof in Trinidad and Tobago. Firstly, these findings can be useful to policy makers and education stakeholders in their future efforts for developing the national curriculum, revision or development of instructional policies, and recommendations of textbooks and instructional support materials. Secondly, these findings can help curriculum designers, examiners, and teachers in creating future opportunities in the national curriculum and CSEC mathematics syllabus to support studentsâ learning of proof in Trinidad and Tobago. Thirdly, these findings can help educational stakeholders understand the type of support that is needed for teachersâ future professional development and studentsâ competency with reasoning and proof on CSEC examinations. This international study is a case of the larger issues surrounding reform implications in a centralized governed educational system, which offers uniform prescriptive guidance for teaching and uniform curriculum support for learning. Furthermore this work potentially adds to the ongoing discussions in mathematics education about the interplay between policy, practice, and student learning.
The public school has always committed itself to strengthen some kind of discipline structure within itself,and to further upgrade the social integrating function of public school;some countries even try to make the public school to be a part of a bigger functional entity.However,the public school,as an imagined functional entity,has been confronting the separation of and conflicts between institutional structure and technological structure since the very beginning.A few scholars believe that it is not proper to relate the structural looseness with any kind of value judgment.They,therefore,define broadly as the decentralization of power,the actual causal independence,the invisibility of intervening behaviors or rules,the delaying of response,and the substitution among elements.In this way,loose coupling is equated with loose 'controlling',leaving a hint for their defense of the coupling.Such a broad definition of can refer to and blur several kinds of loose coupling.To understand as the conflict,separation and autonomous collaboration among structures will help us to recognize the flaw of loose structure within public school organizations.
In an era of increased accountability and challenging times for public finance, charter schools built on decentralization, grassroots accountability, and market forces may provide, in the spirit of "educational laboratories," lessons for increasing student achievement more efficiently through diverse and innovative management, organization, structures, and operations. Using stochastic frontier analysis, this study put that proposition to the test and found limited difference in technical efficiency, favoring noncharter public schools over charters.
Judicial decisions focusing on equal educational opportunity involve significant issues of educational governance and often involve explicit questions about the extent to which authority to make educational decisions should be centralized or decentralized across various institutions and entities. This review aims at clarifying scholarsâ understanding of court-driven reform of educational governance to leverage equal educational opportunities across the major fields of school desegregation, school finance reform, and school choice. Issues of centralization and decentralization have particularly emerged in courtsâ approaches to these fields with respect to both the judicial process and the substance of the policies themselves. An examination of these issues reveals a movement toward the decentralization of authority away from the courts that, at times, has reflected a growing judicial awareness of the courtsâ strengths and weaknesses. Based on this examination, a more effective role for the courts in reforms aimed at promoting equal educational opportunity is considered.
The inspection system is a visible link between the large numbers of village-based teachers and the district-level administration. While it may be successful in its âschool auditâ function, dissatisfaction with the system seems to be related to its inability to play a âteacher developmentâ role. Perhaps this failure is not of the inspection system, but of the mechanisms for teacher development. Other institutional mechanisms like the panchayati district education committee, the in-service training opportunities currently provided, or the meetings of school complexes and the pay-centre schools are unable to pay attention to teacher development issues. An alternative to such âtop downâ mechanisms is necessary. A perspective which puts the practices of teachers first can lead to decentralized âpeer learning systemsâ. These systems â teacher driven and controlled â can drawn on resources already available within existing information systems, for instance, the contributions of outstanding teachers or insights from the inspection reports. District-level management systems like the inspection set-up or in-service training centres, whether bureaucratic or panchayati, can play a supportive role in the financing and monitoring of such initiatives. Such a perspective can also provide an understanding of how, in the context of the current debate on democratic decentralization, a partnership between the teaching community, the administration and panchayati raj institutions can be solved.
Systemic educational policy recommends creating more ambitious instruction in schools through a centralized strategy of mandatory curriculum frameworks, high-stakes student assessments, and coordinated teacher training. This article suggests serious problems with such a strategy and recommends a decentralized alternative involving local choice of curricula, technical assistance, and professional development. Arguments for, problems with, and alternatives to the centralized strategy are examined in eight dimensions of educational policy: curriculum development, curriculum stratification, educational indicators, high-stakes examinations for students, school improvement, educational finance, educational governance, and teacher training. The article concludes with recommendations for policy and research.
The prospect is advanced that school districts which are introducing school-based management now may recentralize their decision-making authority later A study of five decentralized districts revealed many reasons why recentralization could occur. An important distinction between two kinds of decentralization was made: one organizational (in which decisions are delegated),the other political (in which authority is given fully to autonomous groups).Structural reasons for recentralization included lack of provision for accountability, lack of evidence of effectiveness, and the advent of retrenchment. Political reasons for recentralization included the unwillingness of central office staff to share power and the hostility of unions. Such realities suggest that unless districts proceed with decentralization thoughtfully and with commitment, they may abandon the innovation.