|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
American Indians; Cultural Pluralism; Public Policy; Educational Policy; Social Development; Academic Standards; American Indian History; American Indian Studies; United States History; Qualitative Research; State Standards; Curriculum Research; Content Analysis; Program Content; Politics of Education; Social Attitudes; Political Attitudes; Social Bias
Abstract:
This qualitative textual analysis investigates the ideological lenses through which U.S. History content standards for grades 5-12 for Arizona and Washington frame interactions between American Indians and European Americans during U.S. national development. The study's multiperspective critical conceptual framework interrogates the standards not only on the basis of inclusion of American Indians in curriculum content, but also on the different ways in which this inclusion challenges, problematizes, or disrupts simplistic social representations in curriculum documents. The analysis reveals stark differences between how the respective state education policy makers conceptualize American Indian-European American interactions. In Arizona historical content "is" the curriculum, while in Washington historical content "informs" the curriculum, which is geared toward critical reflectiveness about public policy issues. Both standards documents ultimately fall short in promoting critical thinking about American Indian-European American interactions because they succumb to separate pratfalls of multicultural inclusion orthodoxy. Arizona policy makers tend to shoehorn content on American Indians into a singular and simplistic narrative of U.S. economic, political, and social development, while Washington policy makers tend to construct artificial social binaries to create an accessible and relevant narrative template. The standards documents exemplify the zero-sum nature of curricular politics, wherein we can learn as much about a society's ascendant values from what gets "excluded" from the curriculum as from what gets "included" in the curriculum.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-07-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Capacity Building; Program Content; Human Capital; School Personnel; Social Capital; School Culture; Alignment (Education); Educational Resources; Classification; Evaluation Criteria; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education
Abstract:
It is an oft-heard refrain in schools: "These schools lack the capacity they need." Or, "We need to build capacity in schools so that students can achieve." In district offices, statehouses, and elsewhere, the sentiment is repeated in various forms, but the term "capacity" is almost always used. What do education leaders mean when they use the word capacity? Some people use the word to mean the intangible behaviors or characteristics that are needed for a school to improve, while others use capacity as a synonym for ability or knowledge. Meanwhile, economists often talk about capacity in terms of quantities or outcomes that an organization is able to produce. Given the nearly ubiquitous use of the term in education policy discourse, the authors offer a common framework for analyzing capacity that educators, policymakers, and researchers alike can apply and understand with consistency. Their goal is not to provide an easy, new, one-sentence definition, but rather to create a shared language that can be applied to research and improvement efforts in schools. In this Policy Brief, they break capacity down into component parts, explaining how each one builds off the next and contributes to the overall concept. Their hope is that the four research-based components they suggest--human capital, social capital, program coherence, and resources (building on Hatch, 2009; Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2000; Spillane & Thompson, 1997; Corcoran & Goertz, 1995)--will stimulate discussion of a widely accepted meaning of capacity in both research and practice. Their secondary goal is to demonstrate what it means to be a high-, medium-, or low-capacity school. Accordingly, they apply their components-based definition to data collected from 11 schools in Pennsylvania. After using the approach designed to assess school capacity, they classify each school as high, medium, or low and identify themes from the three resulting groups. This applied analysis allows them to provide a descriptive illustration of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of each classification. (Contains 17 sources.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (148K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Sexuality; Sex Education; Program Content; Cultural Context; Ethics; Educational Attitudes
Abstract:
The idea that pleasure might form a part of sexuality education is no longer a "new" idea in the field of sexuality studies. In this paper we examine how originally conceived notions of pleasure have been "put to work" and theoretically "taken up" in relation to sexuality and education. It is our contention that because of the nature of discourse and varying cultural and political contexts, pleasure has been operationalised in ways we did not intend or foresee. Throughout this discussion we seek to discern the discursive limits of visions of pleasure to illuminate their normalising potential. Drawing on Foucault's thoughts about pleasure as having "no passport" and queer theoretical understandings of this concept, we argue for a re-conceptualisation of the potential of pleasure in sexuality education. In particular we identify the need for wedging open spaces for the possibility of ethical pleasures, in forms that are not heteronormatively pre-conceived or mandatory.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Sex Education; Homosexuality; Foreign Countries; National Curriculum; Compulsory Education; Sexuality; Educational Change; Educational Attitudes; Politics of Education; Instructional Innovation; Program Content
Abstract:
While there is little political opposition towards sex education as such in Norway, recent attempts at reforming the subject reveal underlying heteronormative presumptions that seem resistant to reform. While a focus on homosexuality is included in the national curriculum at all levels of compulsory education, the sexual practices involved in same-sex relations remain conspicuously absent from the education provided. This paper provides an overview of contemporary Norwegian sex education, and discusses its primary shortcoming: the absence of a focus on sex acts other than coitus. The political challenges to good sex education in Norway emerge when this absence of sex acts is addressed by innovative teaching programmes that focus on sexual pleasure. Norwegian political consensus about a free and equal sexual culture does not seem able to embrace the discussion of specific sexual practices in the classroom. (Contains 1 figure and 6 notes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
