Suchergebnisse

Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness. ; Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness.

Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness. ; Los servicios públicos pueden desarrollar dos prácticas contrapuestas de rendición de cuentas: el modelo convencional hace hincapié en que ser responsable es "tener en cuenta", que se espera responder a preguntas sobre el rendimiento y que las respuestas son evaluadas por los superiores medidos en función de algún estándar o expectativa, seguido de la alabanza o culpa correspondiente y se aplica la sanción. Este modo de rendición de cuentas expresa la jerarquía de autoridad. Un proceso muy diferente alienta el diálogo sobre la rendición de cuentas entre los profesionales y los públicos, que "dan cuenta" ofreciendo un relato que interpreta y explica lo que ha sucedido y por qué ha tenido lugar. Este artículo observa estas prácticas contrapuestas en el desarrollo de la gobernanza escolar en Inglaterra y aboga por la importancia del diálogo para mejorar el aprendizaje y la capacidad de respuesta democrática. ; Universidad de Granada. Departamento de Didáctica y Organización Escolar. Grupo FORCE (HUM-386)

In the context of declining rolls, contracting resources and mounting youth unemployment, The Department of Education and Science, encouraged by successive Administrations since the mid-1970s, has intervened to direct and restructure education. The paper argues that although there were differences of strategy within the DES there was nevertheless an underlying consensus on policy: to prepare a more vocational curriculum, to rationalize resources, and differentiate opportunities. The Department has claimed that the contradiction between its duty to control education and the powers made available have frustrated its purposes. This paper concludes, however, that the promotion of ideologies and practices of stratification contradict its principal duty to develop through education, individual powers and capacities.

The UK's Dept of Education & Science, in the context of declining enrollments, contracting resources, & mounting youth unemployment, has intervened to direct & restructure education, encouraged by successive administrations since the mid-1970s. Although there were differences of strategy within the Dept, there was an underlying consensus on policy: to prepare a more vocational curriculum, to rationalize resources, & to differentiate opportunities. The Dept has claimed that the contradiction between its duty to control education & the powers made available to it have frustrated its purposes. It appears, however, that the promotion of ideologies & practices of stratification contradict its principal duty: to develop individual powers & capacities through education. Modified HA.

Role of the British Department of Education and Science since the mid-1970s; based on conference paper. Focuses on the creation of policy for the 16-19 age group.