Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Forum#2 integrative project ii

100 views

Published on

School Improvement Paradigms

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Forum#2 integrative project ii

  1. 1. TEACHER: Miguel Ponce M.S. STUDENT: Lorena Pruna Inside-Out" and "Outside-In": Learning from Past and Present School Improvement Paradigms INTEGRATIVE PROJECT II
  2. 2. Continuing challenge is to enhance knowledge to, eventually, provide schools with methods that will have a high probability of success. The classic "external R&D" approach and The "school-based, facultycentered "Approach: They yield information that can enable us to tackle the problems of school improvement more effectively.
  3. 3. THE CLASSIC R&D APPROACH (RESEARCH/DEVELOP/IMPLEMENT/ DISSEMINATE) • In the area of program development, this paradigm has contributed a large number of curricular, instructional, and technological models that demonstrated effects on student learning in the field-test sites. * They not only enabled children to acquire information, complex concepts, skills, and ways of thinking and solving problems effectively, but also increased their capacity to learn.
  4. 4. To assess the effectiveness of the R&D approach to school improvement, we need to consider separately the results of the research and development component and the results of the dissemination/implementation component. * Using scholars and experts within a curriculum area or field of study to design the programs *Using in-school practitioners to think about and review materials and to fieldtest documents, procedures, specific strategies, and the program as a whole but not using them as major program designers; *Building an indepth, carefully-rationalized curriculum; *Studying the knowledge base in and out of education for information, instructional strategies, and materials to support student interaction with this curriculum; *Maintaining a high level of quality in program materials, with an emphasis on accuracy of content and instructional strategies that lead students to engage with the curriculum as young scholars of the field; * Careful field-testing of the developed program curriculum materials and instructional strategies * Disseminating only programs that had documented positive effects on students. CHARACTERISTICS
  5. 5. THE SCHOOL-BASED, FACULTY-CENTERED APPROACH: approach to school improvement is "school-based, faculty-centered school improvement" or "site-based management" (SBM). • There is some degree of shared decision-making between teachers and administrators within a school. • Frequently there is a representative decision-making council, such as a school Leadership Team or Executive Council. * Schools using the site-based approach must have district/school board approval for site-based management. * In some districts, school staff and Councils have control of the full school budget. * A school improvement program or plan is generally developed by the school Council or a task force group. * Schools often belong to a network or group, composed of schools within and/or beyond the school district. * One - School faculties have the capability to engage in site-based research and development.
  6. 6. To assess the effectiveness of the R&D approach to school improvement, we need to consider separately the results of the research and development component and the results of the dissemination/implementation component. LEARNING FROM THE R&D AND THE SITE-BASED APPROACHES From Both Paradigms: A Hypothesis about Results.: approaches depend on developing local faculty energy to generate school improvement, on the premise that faculties have or can develop the knowledge necessary to build innovations that conform to the needs of the local community.
  7. 7. From Both Paradigms: Characteristics of Successful Schools: * All focused their development energies directly on benefits for students. * All used the knowledge base for ideas or actual innovations * All generated formative evaluation processes in which they studied the implementation and its effects on students. * Most generated broad-based staff involvement schemes, and many included parents and community/local institutions from both the public and private sectors. * Most provided time for couegial activity that would sustain innovations.
  8. 8. From Comparing Both Paradigms and the Knowledge Base: • In most schools, the approach, program, or innovation selected is not supported with adequate staff development to enable implementation. • In most schools, the redesign of the workplace to sustain implementation of the approach, program, or innovation selected does not occur. • Comparing the operational focus of the R&D approach to the operational focus of the school-based approach.
  9. 9. COMMON MISTAKES, COMMON SOLUTIONS: INQUIRY, INQUIRY, INQUIRY! Mistakes of two paradigms: * They believed they had a sure-fire strategy, that they were unlikely to fail and, thus, didn't conduct school improvement as an inquiry, making modifications as they went. * The advocates were sure their strategy would work. When it didn't, they failed to strengthen the support systems but, rather, lengthened the time line for success. The careful tending of the faculty culture, the provision of adequate staff development, and a focus on the centrality of student learning, there is a very high probability of success, whichever paradigm is selected.
  10. 10. It is argued that these new models of improvement stand a chance of overcoming the difficulties that past improvement has had in affecting outcomes, and a number of areas of potential development for the paradigm are outlined for it to fulfil its promise, particularly in the areas of context specificity, focusing on learning in classrooms and concentrating on understanding 'the capacity for improvement'.

×