The Casual Approach: Probation Officers in Court
In: Probation journal: the journal of community and criminal justice, Band 25, Heft 4, S. 125-128
ISSN: 1741-3079
14 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Probation journal: the journal of community and criminal justice, Band 25, Heft 4, S. 125-128
ISSN: 1741-3079
In: Probation journal: the journal of community and criminal justice, Band 25, Heft 4, S. 142-142
ISSN: 1741-3079
In: Probation journal: the journal of community and criminal justice, Band 25, Heft 1, S. 17-19
ISSN: 1741-3079
In: Advances in contemporary educational thought series 20
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 120, Heft 3, S. 547-548
ISSN: 1538-165X
In: Political science quarterly: PSQ ; the journal public and international affairs, Band 120, Heft 3, S. 547-548
ISSN: 0032-3195
Sixteen states have adopted school report card accountability systems that assign A-F letter grades to schools. Other states are now engaged in deliberation about whether they, too, should adopt such systems. This paper examines A-F accountability systems with respect to three kinds of validity. First, it examines whether or not these accountability systems are valid as a measure, that is, do these systems validly measure school quality? Second, it examines whether or not they are valid as a policy instrument. or, how far do A-F accountability systems fulfill the stated aims of their proponents—empowering parents, providing "simple" and "common sense" measures of educational quality, and so on? Finally, it examines whether or not A-F systems are valid as a democratic framework:, how well do these systems align with the broader goals of educating students for democratic citizenship and of incorporating parents and community members in democratic deliberation about policies for their public schools? The paper concludes that A-F accountability systems are invalid along each of these lines, and provides recommendations for democratically developing and implementing criteria for school assessment. ; Dieciséis estados han adoptado sistemas de rendición de cuentas de tarjetas de calificaciones escolares que asignan calificaciones de letra A-F a las escuelas. Otros estados ahora están involucrados en la deliberación sobre si ellos también deberían adoptar tales sistemas. Este documento examina los sistemas de rendición de cuentas de A-F con respecto a tres tipos de validez. Primero, examina si estos sistemas de rendición de cuentas son válidos como medida, es decir, ¿estos sistemas valen válidamente la calidad de la escuela? En segundo lugar, examina si son o no válidos como un instrumento de política. o, ¿hasta qué punto los sistemas de rendición de cuentas de A-F cumplen los objetivos declarados de sus defensores -apoderando a los padres, proporcionando medidas "simples" y de "sentido común" de calidad educativa, etc.? Finalmente, examina si los sistemas A-F son válidos como marco democrático: ¿qué tan bien se alinean estos sistemas con los objetivos más amplios de educar a los estudiantes para una ciudadanía democrática y de incorporar a padres y miembros de la comunidad en una deliberación democrática sobre las políticas para sus escuelas públicas? El documento concluye que los sistemas de rendición de cuentas A-F no son válidos a lo largo de cada una de estas líneas y ofrece recomendaciones para desarrollar y aplicar criterios democráticamente para la evaluación escolar. ; Dezesseis estados adotaram sistemas de responsabilidade de cartões de nível escolar que atribuem notas de grau A-F às escolas. Outros estados estão agora envolvidos na deliberação sobre se eles também devem adotar tais sistemas. Este artigo examina os sistemas de responsabilização da A-F em relação a três tipos de validade. Em primeiro lugar, examina se esses sistemas de prestação de contas são válidos como medida, ou seja, esses sistemas são válidos para a qualidade da escola? Em segundo lugar, ele examina se eles são ou não válidos como uma ferramenta de política. ou, em que medida os sistemas de responsabilização da A-F atendem aos objetivos declarados de seus defensores - capacitando os pais fornecendo medidas "simples" e de "senso comum" de qualidade educacional, etc.? Finalmente, examina se os sistemas AF são válidos como um quadro democrático: quão bem esses sistemas se alinham com os objetivos mais amplos de educar estudantes para a cidadania democrática e incorporar os pais e membros da comunidade em uma deliberação democrática sobre as políticas para as escolas públicas? O documento conclui que os sistemas de responsabilização da A-F não são válidos ao longo de cada uma dessas linhas e fornece recomendações para desenvolver e aplicar critérios de forma democrática para avaliação escolar.
BASE
Sixteen states have adopted school report card accountability systems that assign A-F letter grades to schools. Other states are now engaged in deliberation about whether they, too, should adopt such systems. This brief examines A-F accountability systems with respect to three kinds of validity. First, it examines whether or not they are valid as a measure. That is, do these systems validly measure school quality? Second, it examines whether or not they are valid as a policy instrument. That is, how far do A-F accountability systems fulfill the stated aims of their proponents—empowering parents, providing "simple" and "common sense" measures of educational quality, and so on? Finally, it examines whether or not A-F systems are valid as a democratic framework. That is, how well do these systems align with the broader goals of educating students for democratic citizenship and of incorporating parents and community members in democratic deliberation about policies for their public schools? The brief concludes that A-F accountability systems are invalid along each of these lines, and provides recommendations for democratically developing and implementing criteria for school assessment.
BASE
Democratic policymaking and democratic education have been undermined by the passage of No Child Left Behind. This brief offers guidelines for future federal education policy that addresses the loss of local control brought on by recent reforms.
BASE
In: New directions for evaluation: a publication of the American Evaluation Association, Band 2000, Heft 85, S. 3-12
ISSN: 1534-875X
AbstractJudging evaluations on the basis of their potential for democratic deliberation includes consideration of three interrelated criteria: inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation.
The authors use the tools of philosophy and the insights from evaluation practice to cut through current confusion about values and the interplay of facts and values. Four views of facts and values in evaluation are analyzed: those rooted in a fact-value dichotomy and those of radical constructivists, postmodernists, and deliberative democrats. The arguments are tough, the prose concise, and the insights compelling
In: Key debates in educational policy series
In: University of Colorado at Boulder (2010)
SSRN