Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.37271/009-20/978-966-2716-50-4/2020-68/1
L. Kolesnyk, Tetiana Matusavech, Iryna Shaposhnikova
{"title":"Democracy in education: examining the experiences, perspectives, and perceptions of democracy in primary teacher education in ukraine Research report","authors":"L. Kolesnyk, Tetiana Matusavech, Iryna Shaposhnikova","doi":"10.37271/009-20/978-966-2716-50-4/2020-68/1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37271/009-20/978-966-2716-50-4/2020-68/1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30278,"journal":{"name":"Democracy Education","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83659704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In her 2014 book, On the Same rack: How School Can Join the TwentyFirstCentury Struggle Against Resegregation, Burris builds upon the compelling case made for detracking put forth by Oakes and others in the 1970s and ’80s. Decades after the detracking pioneers, Burris revisits the tracking practices still prevalent in America’s public schools through the lenses of those who are in the racial or ethnic minority and who are poor and at a time when school accountability often drives school practice and school choice to additional layers of sorting. Given the compelling research, why do we need another book to make the case— to hold up the impact of tracking on student achievement, social outcomes, school culture, and expectations? In light of today’s “reforms” and new expectations for all students to graduate college and career ready, we absolutely do need a deeper conversation on the implications of tracking. Burris (2014) builds her compelling discussion on Oakes’s early findings on racial stratification imposed by tracking, reminding us of the 1976 US Commission on Civil Rights’ finding: “The commission referred to ability grouping as ‘the most common cause of classroom segregation’” (p. 8). Today tracking practices are more subtle, with students of color responding to social and peer pressures, mixed messages from school personnel, and lack of confidence when making school and course choices. With Burris’s (2014) detailed and artful review of the history and research, readers are compelled to affirm that tracking of any sort or for any proposed higher purpose promotes achievement inequities that this country cannot afford. Further, the most current research presented affirms that tracking harms students placed in lower tracks and that these same students excel when placed in higher tracks, making a renewed case for the higher track being the one core curriculum for all students. Despite the progress that has been made under the umbrella of graduating all students college and career ready, the politics around power and privilege remains with us. Burris’s (2014) passion for detracking and equity for all students evolved from her personal journey to detrack South Side High School, where she is principal, in the Rockville Centre School District of New York. This story gets to the heart of core programs, practices, and policies that have ensured inequity of achievement in our public schools. On the surface it is a journey of successful transformation. Looking more deeply, Burris charts the strategies she implemented and orchestrated to support all students, demonstrating the essential need for wraparound services, increased shared leadership, and focus on instructional practice to shift the culture
在2014年出版的《在同一个架子上:学校如何加入二十一世纪反对种族隔离的斗争》一书中，伯里斯以奥克斯等人在上世纪七八十年代提出的令人信服的脱轨理由为基础。几十年后，伯里斯重新审视了在美国公立学校仍然普遍存在的跟踪做法，通过那些少数族裔和穷人的镜头，在学校问责制经常将学校实践和学校选择推向额外的分类层次的时候。考虑到这些令人信服的研究，为什么我们还需要另一本书来证明这一点——来证明跟踪对学生成绩、社会成果、学校文化和期望的影响?鉴于今天的“改革”和对所有学生大学毕业和就业准备的新期望，我们绝对需要就跟踪的影响进行更深入的讨论。Burris(2014)在Oakes关于跟踪造成的种族分层的早期发现的基础上进行了令人信服的讨论，让我们想起1976年美国民权委员会的发现:“该委员会将能力分组称为‘教室隔离的最常见原因’”(第8页)。今天的跟踪实践更加微妙，有色人种学生对社会和同伴压力的反应，来自学校工作人员的混合信息，以及在选择学校和课程时缺乏信心。伯里斯(Burris, 2014)对历史和研究进行了详细而巧妙的回顾，读者不得不肯定，任何形式的追踪或任何提议的更高目的都会助长这个国家无法承受的成就不平等。此外，最新的研究证实，跟踪对低年级的学生有害，而这些学生在高年级时表现优异，这再次证明了高年级是所有学生的一个核心课程。尽管在所有学生都为大学毕业和就业做好准备的情况下取得了进步，但围绕权力和特权的政治仍然存在。Burris(2014)对所有学生的脱轨和公平的热情源于她在纽约Rockville中心学区的南区高中(South Side High School)的个人经历，她在那里担任校长。这个故事触及了导致我们公立学校成绩不平等的核心项目、实践和政策的核心。表面上看，这是一次成功转型之旅。更深入地看，Burris描绘了她实施和精心策划的策略，以支持所有学生，展示了对全方位服务的基本需求，增加了共同领导能力，并专注于教学实践，以改变文化
{"title":"A New Imperative for Detracking Schools. A Book Review of On the Same Track:How Schools Can Join the Twenty-First-Century Struggle Against Resegregation","authors":"P. D. Fisher","doi":"10.5860/choice.185019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.185019","url":null,"abstract":"In her 2014 book, On the Same rack: How School Can Join the TwentyFirstCentury Struggle Against Resegregation, Burris builds upon the compelling case made for detracking put forth by Oakes and others in the 1970s and ’80s. Decades after the detracking pioneers, Burris revisits the tracking practices still prevalent in America’s public schools through the lenses of those who are in the racial or ethnic minority and who are poor and at a time when school accountability often drives school practice and school choice to additional layers of sorting. Given the compelling research, why do we need another book to make the case— to hold up the impact of tracking on student achievement, social outcomes, school culture, and expectations? In light of today’s “reforms” and new expectations for all students to graduate college and career ready, we absolutely do need a deeper conversation on the implications of tracking. Burris (2014) builds her compelling discussion on Oakes’s early findings on racial stratification imposed by tracking, reminding us of the 1976 US Commission on Civil Rights’ finding: “The commission referred to ability grouping as ‘the most common cause of classroom segregation’” (p. 8). Today tracking practices are more subtle, with students of color responding to social and peer pressures, mixed messages from school personnel, and lack of confidence when making school and course choices. With Burris’s (2014) detailed and artful review of the history and research, readers are compelled to affirm that tracking of any sort or for any proposed higher purpose promotes achievement inequities that this country cannot afford. Further, the most current research presented affirms that tracking harms students placed in lower tracks and that these same students excel when placed in higher tracks, making a renewed case for the higher track being the one core curriculum for all students. Despite the progress that has been made under the umbrella of graduating all students college and career ready, the politics around power and privilege remains with us. Burris’s (2014) passion for detracking and equity for all students evolved from her personal journey to detrack South Side High School, where she is principal, in the Rockville Centre School District of New York. This story gets to the heart of core programs, practices, and policies that have ensured inequity of achievement in our public schools. On the surface it is a journey of successful transformation. Looking more deeply, Burris charts the strategies she implemented and orchestrated to support all students, demonstrating the essential need for wraparound services, increased shared leadership, and focus on instructional practice to shift the culture","PeriodicalId":30278,"journal":{"name":"Democracy Education","volume":"51 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79398249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In her book These Kids: Identity, Agency, and Social Justice at a Last Chance High School, Kysa Nygreen explores the concepts of identity, agency, and social justice as they relate to students for whom the traditional American education system is not working. She uses the lens of last chance, or continuation, high schools to examine the often competing purposes of education and how those purposes are or are not fulfilled in continuation high schools. Nygreen’s approach is one of participatory action research, in which she recruits a small group of current or former continuation high school students. The point is not so much to detail the particular school but to capture the characteristics and perspectives of students who do not succeed in regular high schools. One important goal of this research was to “empower Jackson youth to demand better, more equitable educational opportunities” (Nygreen, 2013, p. 7). Through a clear historical examination and reflection on the research experience, These Kids explicates and explores the paradox of getting ahead in American schools and attempts to initiate an alternative discourse. The bulk of These Kids is a description of Nygreen’s research study. It includes the selection of participants; exploration of shared definitions of ideas important to the research, such as social justice; and planning for the research itself. Throughout the project the student participants were placed in leadership and decisionmaking roles. This experience and how the students reacted to these new roles indicated to the researchers that even a small group of people committed to creating more social justice and equity for underserved students could and would, unwittingly, replicate the constructs and politics of traditional education systems.
{"title":"Social Justice for These Kids? A Book Review of These Kids: Identity, Agency, and Social Justice at a Last Chance High School","authors":"Heidi L. Early-Hersey","doi":"10.5860/choice.51-4576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.51-4576","url":null,"abstract":"In her book These Kids: Identity, Agency, and Social Justice at a Last Chance High School, Kysa Nygreen explores the concepts of identity, agency, and social justice as they relate to students for whom the traditional American education system is not working. She uses the lens of last chance, or continuation, high schools to examine the often competing purposes of education and how those purposes are or are not fulfilled in continuation high schools. Nygreen’s approach is one of participatory action research, in which she recruits a small group of current or former continuation high school students. The point is not so much to detail the particular school but to capture the characteristics and perspectives of students who do not succeed in regular high schools. One important goal of this research was to “empower Jackson youth to demand better, more equitable educational opportunities” (Nygreen, 2013, p. 7). Through a clear historical examination and reflection on the research experience, These Kids explicates and explores the paradox of getting ahead in American schools and attempts to initiate an alternative discourse. The bulk of These Kids is a description of Nygreen’s research study. It includes the selection of participants; exploration of shared definitions of ideas important to the research, such as social justice; and planning for the research itself. Throughout the project the student participants were placed in leadership and decisionmaking roles. This experience and how the students reacted to these new roles indicated to the researchers that even a small group of people committed to creating more social justice and equity for underserved students could and would, unwittingly, replicate the constructs and politics of traditional education systems.","PeriodicalId":30278,"journal":{"name":"Democracy Education","volume":"35 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79680405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：