首页> 外文OA文献 >The problem of simplification: Think-tanks, recipes, equity and ‘Turning around low-performing schools’
【2h】

The problem of simplification: Think-tanks, recipes, equity and ‘Turning around low-performing schools’

机译:简化问题:智囊团,食谱,公平性和“扭转表现不佳的学校”

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Non-government actors such as think-tanks are playing an important role in Australian policy work. As governments increasingly outsource policy work previously done by education departments and academics to these new policy actors, more think-tanks have emerged that represent a wide range of political views and ideological positions. This paper looks at the emergence of the Grattan Institute as one significant player in Australian education policy with a particular emphasis on Grattan’s report ‘Turning around low-performing schools’. Grattan exemplifies many of the facets of Barber’s ‘deliverology’, as they produce reports designed to be easily digested, simply actioned and provide reassurance that there is an answer, often through focusing on ‘what works’ recipes. ‘Turning around low-performing schools’ is a perfect example of this deliverology. However, a close analysis of the Report suggests that it contains four major problems which seriously impact its usefulness for schools and policymakers: it ignores data that may be more important in explaining the turn-around of schools, the Report is overly reliant on NAPLAN data, there are reasons to be suspicious about the evidence assembled, and finally the Report falls into a classic trap of logic—the post hoc fallacy.
机译:非政府组织,例如智囊团,在澳大利亚的政策工作中发挥着重要作用。随着政府越来越多地将教育部门和学者先前从事的政策工作外包给这些新的政策参与者,出现了更多的智囊团,它们代表着广泛的政治观点和意识形态立场。本文着眼于Grattan学院作为澳大利亚教育政策的重要参与者的崛起,其中特别强调了Grattan的报告“扭转表现不佳的学校”。 Grattan体现了Barber的“交付学”的许多方面,因为它们生成的报告易于理解,只需采取行动即可,并且通常通过关注“有效的方法”来保证答案的存在。 “扭转表现不佳的学校”就是这种交付方式的一个很好的例子。但是,对该报告进行的仔细分析表明,该报告包含四个主要问题,这些问题严重影响了其对学校和决策者的实用性:它忽略了可能对解释学校的转变更为重要的数据,该报告过于依赖NAPLAN数据,我们有理由怀疑所收集的证据,最后报告陷入了经典的逻辑陷阱-事后谬误。

著录项

  • 作者

    Loughland, T.; Thompson, G.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2016
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号