Artifacts of change: An archaeology of school-based educational reform

Interchange ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 27 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 279-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Educational Reform ◽  
School Based

scholarly journals The Anxiety of Educational Reform and Innovation: Bridging of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies within Practice Educational Reform of Curriculum in Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beni Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Educational Reform ◽  
National Curriculum ◽  
Field Education ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
School Based ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
Reform And Innovation ◽  
The Government

Reform and innovation are important issues in the educational field. Education is dynamic and changing depends on globalization demands. To counterbalance for these changes, there are two strategies to make education change. Top down and bottom up strategies. Top down and bottom up have advantages and disadvantages to the reform and innovation of educational. For instance, the advantage of top-down is the government have the power to make policy, do research about national curriculum and implement that policy in the education area, especially at school but for making policy, regulation, research and implement government have spent more money without significant result. In another hand, the benefit of bottom-up is the innovation of education easily to find and grow up because they have involved directly in the change in school, also understand what they need in education because the teachers and the principle have strong connection with the students and indirectly evaluate the national curriculum which is appropriate or not. Nevertheless, school community as the representative of bottom-up did not have the power to bring that innovation in the top level because there is no connecting purpose between government and school. In addition, the big effect is the top-down, bottom-up has the different points of view to look into education. Furthermore, to solve that problem, there are some approaches could be bond to both strategies such as the collaborative, negotiate, conceptual, and strategic clarification, school-based management and strong site councils. Based on several previous researchers that approach is the best option for bridging the educational purpose between top down and bottom up.

scholarly journals Studi komparatif reformasi pendidikan di Singapura dan Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-79
Author(s):  
Miftahus Sa'adah
Keyword(s):  
International Education ◽  
Educational Reform ◽  
School Level ◽  
Young Generation ◽  
Excellent Model ◽  
School Based ◽  
Educational Framework ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Educational Decentralization ◽  
School Learning

Perubahan zaman menuju era globalisasi menuntut dunia pendidikan untuk berkiprah secara aktif mempersiapkan generasi muda dalam menyongsong tantangan zaman. Kerangka pendidikan yang selama ini diterapkan juga harus beradaptasi dengan tuntutan zaman. Dalam menghadapi tantangan ini, sejumlah Negara telah menginisiasi diberlakukannya reformasi pendidikan. Artikel ini membahas tentang program-program refomasi pendidikan di dua Negara dengan latar belakang dan kondisi serta ideologi yang berbeda yaitu  Singapura dan Indonesia. Diantara program refomasi pendidikan di Singapura adalah Teach less, Learn More; Thinking School, Learning Nation, dan School Excellent Model. Sedangkan kebijakan refeormasi pendidikan di Indonesia diantaranya diselenggarakan dengan desentralisasi pendidikan dalam kerangka manajemen berbasis sekolah, Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan dan Kurikulum 2013, serta program sertifikasi guru. Dari hasil pembahasan, dapat diketahui bahwa Singapura telah berhasil menyelenggarakan reformasi pendidikan. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari kualitas pendidikan Singapura yang masuk dalam ranking teratas Negara-negara dengan pencapaian standar pendidikan internasional. Sementara itu, Indonesia nampak masih harus berjuang untuk mencapai tujuan reformasi pendidikan. Hasil implementasi pendidikan yang berbeda di kedua Negara ini tentu dikarenakan perbedaan latar belakang, serta kondisi sosial, ekonomi, politik budaya dan geografis kedua Negara tersebut. Dengan demikian, dapat  disimpulkan bahwa banyak factor yang mempengaruhi keberhasilan penyelengaraan reformasi pendidikan di sebuah Negara.  AbstractGlobalization requires education to actively take part in preparing the young generation to face the challenges. The educational framework which has been implemented should also adapt to the existing new challenges. To deal with this, a number of countries have initiated the implementation of educational reform. This article discusses educational reformation programs conducted in two countries which have a different background as well as different ideology, social, economic, political, and geographical circumstances i.e., Singapore and Indonesia. Some of the main educational reform agendas in Singapore are Teach less, Learn More; Thinking School, Learning Nation, and School Excellent Model. Meanwhile, educational reform programs in Indonesia are conducted through educational decentralization within the framework of school-based management, School-level Curriculum, and the 2013 curriculum and teacher certification. It can be understood that Singapore has succeeded in conducting educational reform. This can be seen from the quality of Singapore's education which has been ranked high in achieving the benchmark of international education standard. Meanwhile, Indonesia still needs to struggle to achieve the desired outcomes of educational reform agendas. The differing result of educational reform revealed in these two countries resulted from different backgrounds of the countries. Thus, it can be concluded that there are a number of factors influencing the success of educational reform agendas in a country.

Improving Speech and Language Services through Effective Time Management

1983 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara W. Travers
Keyword(s):  
Time Management ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Work Area ◽  
Paper Work ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Therapeutic Services

This paper presents strategies for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the school-based speech-language pathologist. Various time management strategies are adapted and outlined for three major areas of concern: using time, organizing the work area, and managing paper work. It is suggested that the use of such methods will aid the speech-language pathologist in coping with federal, state, and local regulations while continuing to provide quality therapeutic services.

Speech-Language Pathologists' Perceptions of School-Based Services for Children With Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 469-478
Author(s):  
Sarah Allen ◽  
Robert Mayo
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Working Relationships ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
School Aged Children ◽  
School Based ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Positive Feelings ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Perceptions Of School

Purpose School-aged children with hearing loss are best served by a multidisciplinary team of professionals. The purpose of this research was to assess school-based speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perceptions of their access to, involvement of, and working relationships with educational audiologists in their current work setting. Method An online survey was developed and distributed to school-based SLPs in North Carolina. Results A significant difference in access to and involvement of educational audiologists across the state was found. Conclusions This research contributes to professional knowledge by providing information about current perceptions in the field about interprofessional practice in a school-based setting. Overall, SLPs reported positive feelings about their working relationship with educational audiologists and feel the workload is distributed fairly.

Considering the Language Disorder Label Debate From a School Speech-Language Pathology Lens

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Murza ◽  
Barbara J. Ehren
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Education Act

Purpose The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent The ASHA Leader articles, there is international momentum to change specific language impairment to developmental language disorder . Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the developmental language disorder label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities.

Reading Risk in Children With Speech Sound Disorder: Prevalence, Persistence, and Predictors

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 3714-3726
Author(s):  
Sherine R. Tambyraja ◽  
Kelly Farquharson ◽  
Laura Justice
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Sound Production ◽  
Speech Therapy ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Reading Difficulties ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Speech Sound Disorder ◽  
Word Decoding ◽  
School Year ◽  
School Based

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which school-age children with speech sound disorder (SSD) exhibit concomitant reading difficulties and examine the extent to which phonological processing and speech production abilities are associated with increased likelihood of reading risks. Method Data were obtained from 120 kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade children who were in receipt of school-based speech therapy services. Children were categorized as being “at risk” for reading difficulties if standardized scores on a word decoding measure were 1 SD or more from the mean. The selected predictors of reading risk included children's rapid automatized naming ability, phonological awareness (PA), and accuracy of speech sound production. Results Descriptive results indicated that just over 25% of children receiving school-based speech therapy for an SSD exhibited concomitant deficits in word decoding and that those exhibiting risk at the beginning of the school year were likely to continue to be at risk at the end of the school year. Results from a hierarchical logistic regression suggested that, after accounting for children's age, general language abilities, and socioeconomic status, both PA and speech sound production abilities were significantly associated with the likelihood of being classified as at risk. Conclusions School-age children with SSD are at increased risk for reading difficulties that are likely to persist throughout an academic year. The severity of phonological deficits, reflected by PA and speech output, may be important indicators of subsequent reading problems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document