Education Policy Perils: Tackling the Tough Issues

Öz

Eğitim Politikası Riskleri: Zorlu Sorunlarla Mücadele

Öz

Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, eğitim sistemindeki sorunları çözmek için eğitim politikalarını halkın ihtiyaçlarını göz önüne alan, aktif, neoliberal ve kapitalist eğitim politikaları üretmektedir. Amerikan eğitim politikalarının gelişmiş bir ülke düzeyinde çok iyi yürütülüyor gibi görünmesi, aslında Amerikan eğitim politikalarının barındırdığı risklerin gözükmesine engel olmamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Amerikalı akademisyenler ve bilim insanları, son dönem Amerikan eğitim politikalarını her yönüyle eleştiren, risk ve tehditleri bilimsel açıdan tartışmakta ve bu konuları destekleyen araştırmalar yürütmektedir. Christopher H. Tienken ve Carol A. Mullen’ın editörlüğünü yaptığı “Eğitim Politikası Riskleri: Zorlu Sorunlarla Mücadele (Education Policy Perils: Tackling the Tough Issues)” isimli kitap, bu çalışmalardan biridir. Amerikan eğitim politikalarının ve küresel yönelimlerin getirdiği riskleri ve yanlış eğitim yönetimi stratejilerini açıkça ortaya koyan bu eser, her bir bölümü farklı akademisyenler tarafından hazırlanan 7 bölümden oluşmakta ve her bir bölüm Amerikan eğitim politikalarının farklı bir riskine değinmektedir. Bazı bölümlerde, yapılan araştırmalar ve sonuçları da paylaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitim Politikaları,Amerikan Eğitim sistemi,Eğitim reformları

Kaynakça

1. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2014). Comparative education, the ‘new paradigm’ and policy borrowing: constructing knowledge for education reform. Comparative Education, 50(2), 129-155. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2013.826497.
2. Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Dworkin, A. G., & Quiroz, P. A. (2019). The United States of America: Accountability, high-stakes testing, and the demography of educational inequality. In P. Stevens & A. Dworkin (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
4. English, F. W. (2013). Educational leadership in the age of greed. Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Publications.
5. Gandara, P., & Escamilla, K. (2017). Bilingual education in the United States. In O. Garcia, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education, (pp. 1-14). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_33-2.
6. Hess, F. M. & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-274.
7. Hott, B. L., Dibbs, R.-A., Naizer, G., Raymond, L., Reid, C. C., & Martin, A. (2018). Practitioner perceptions of algebra strategy and intervention use to support students with mathematics difficulty or disability in rural Texas. Rural Special Education Quarterly. doi:10.1177/8756870518795494.
8. Hoy, A. W. & Hoy, W. K. (2013). Instructional leadership: A research-based guide to learning in schools (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

9. Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes in state standards, school practices, and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(35). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2834
10. Leung, F. K. S. (2014). What can and should we learn from international studies of mathematics achievement? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 579-605.
11. Lockheed, M., & Wagemaker, H. (2013). International large-scale assessments: thermometers, whips or useful policy tools? Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 296-306.
12. Lubienski, C. (2003). School competition and promotion: Substantive and symbolic differentiation in local education markets. National Center fort he Study of Privatization in Education (Occasional paper no. 80). New York, NY: Teachers College.
13. McWilliams, J. A. (2019). Compete or close: Traditional neighborhood schools under pressure. Harvard Education Press.
14. Moffett, M. & Newsom, J. (2014, September 30). 3 former UNCG employees charged in moonlighting scandal. News & Records. Retrieved from www.news-record.com
15. Moos, L. (2017). Neo-liberal Governance Leads Education and Educational Leadership Astray. In M. Uljens & Y. M. Ylimaki (Eds.), Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik: Non-affirmetive Theory of Education (pp. 151-180). SpringerOpen: ISBN 978-3-319-58650-2 (eBook).
16. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Assessing the common core standards: Opportunities for improving measures of instruction. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 186-188. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11410232
17. Schneider, B. (2018). Incentives for reforming schools. In J. S. Coleman, B. Schneider, S. Plank, K. S. Schiller, R. Shouse, H. Wang, & S-.A. Lee (Eds.), Redesigning American Education, (pp. 1-12). Taylor & Francis Routledge: New York, NY.
18. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 917-936.
19. Trohler, D. (2015). The medicalization of current educational research and its effects on education policy and school reforms. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 749-764.
20. Westbury, I. (2008). Curriculum in practice. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
21. Wheatley, K. F. (2017). “Failing public schools”: the consequences of the misleading framing of American education policy. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(4), 1-15.