- Reading Chapter 21 (R/D8*) : Pick out two trends or issues that particularly surprised you and/or hit home and explain why.
The idea of systemic change really hit home with me. It makes sense that if you want to improve that it requires a change in the whole system. Also the inclusion of all stakeholders really helps a district see what is wanted or needed. We use the NCA (North Central Accreditation) process at our high school where I work. We are in the first year of the continual process where we are identifying improvements for our school. While I was reading I was trying to see if NCA was an ecological systemic process. After thinking about it I would have to say no. It does not include all stakeholders (parents, students, and support staff) in the process. It also does not include the entire district in mind. I do see that from their website they do have a district wide accreditation process. While looking at the NCA website it lists what schools and our districts must do to meet accreditation. It also states that an accreditation fees, “are used to provide accredited schools and school systems with research-based standards, nationally-trained quality assurance review team chairs, high-quality resources and tools, and ongoing professional development. The annual dues for the school system are based on the number of schools under the jurisdiction of the school system. Additionally, the school system is responsible for a District Accreditation Quality Assurance Review Visit fee assessed once every five years to offset the costs associated with conducting the Quality Assurance Review.”. I know the reading made a difference between piecemeal and systemic change. They also stated that some programs tell schools what they need to be like with no way or system to get there. To me it seems that NCA is similar to both. It contains what a school will be like and provides a means to get there however leaves out valuable stakeholders in the process. It also makes me wonder if some systems were really put into place to help improve schools or to make money on the accountability movement.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that the schools are looking at imporvements to just line the pockets of the accountability movement. I believe we are all trying to meet this No Child Left Behind Program--I don't necessarily agree with this, as I still believe learning is individualized and the No Child Left Behind doesn't take this into consideration. I think we all need to step back and see what we can do to improve learning/teaching to offer all students the same opportunities. I think more than technology is needed here, but at least thats a start.
ReplyDeleteMargie
Margaret,
ReplyDeleteI was not saying the schools are trying to line their pockets, I was making a statement that a lot of these certification companies similar to NCA are making a lot of money off this accountability movement. I think its good that schools look at themselves and see if they are meeting the needs of all their stakeholders. If anything I learned from the chapter that schools do not need these companies, they can in fact do a lot of the work themselves instead of spending money on the company to do it to carry a certification or endorsement. That money could be used in the school. I see that it is almost like paying to have you name on the whos-who list. Does this clear it up better?
Yes, the reading about systemic vs. piecemeal changes within schools was very interesting and enlightening. It definitely made me think, and it does make sense that if a disctrict or system really wants to change, that it should be systemic and should not be "a little here," "a little there." We have another similarity in reflections! I also mentioned liking how the systemic programs outlined in our text were sure to include everyone in on the process, you said it as all "stakeholders." It is so very important for everyone that is connected to a district to be involved in it's process of change. There are opinions given at different levels that would be greatly missed if only the leadership or administration of school systems were to lead and carry out the changes.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately only time can tell if certain programs are in place to really help schools change for the better or are just around to make a buck. It is very sad.
I also agree that the other stakeholders are a very important part of schools and should not be left out of the process of making major changes. Students, parents, staff, and community members are what a school is really all about...not the who's who list as you mentioned. A lot of the accredidation seems just to be something schools put on the home page of a website..."this school is accredited by _______." I haven't personally seen anything more come of it. I suppose it might influence one or two families to choose that school, but is that worth all of the money and overhaul? I agree that if changes need to made, they can be made from the inside by the people who are most affected. I hope that your school's accredidation program really does follow through with the resources is says it will provide. At least that would be of some help.
ReplyDeleteThe stakeholders argument is a an interesting one to me. Not ever place I have worked as included all types of employees in decision making processes. My current school does and it really is amazing what a difference it makes. Instead of someone trying to put themselves in some else's shoes that person can be there and give their opinion on a certain topic, it can make a difference. The one that i think gets left out to much in education is the parents, this is truly who we work for, and they should have a say in decisions. We try to have parents on as many committees as we can at our school, and it does seem to help over all morale.
ReplyDelete2 years ago my district went through the same NCA accreditation process, and I can remember wondering about all of the other stakeholders. Like you, I think that the outside perspective of parents and community members should be valued and considered during the evaluation process.
ReplyDelete