PROSPECTS FOR REFORMIn the 1991 edition of The New Meaning of Educatio terjemahan - PROSPECTS FOR REFORMIn the 1991 edition of The New Meaning of Educatio Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

PROSPECTS FOR REFORMIn the 1991 edi

PROSPECTS FOR REFORM

In the 1991 edition of The New Meaning of Educational Change, Chapter 1 contained the following paragraph:

As we approach the 1990s we are in the midst of an educational reform movement the likes of which we have never before seen. This time reform efforts are more comprehensive and backed up by more resources and follow-through. We should find out over the course of the next decade whether our now considerable knowledge about the do’s and don’ts of implementing educational improvements can be put to good use. (Fullan,
1991, p. 13, emphasis in original)

Well, the next decade has just passed. And we do know more, much more. These lessons will be highlighted throughout the book.
I have argued in the Change Forces trilogy (Fullan, 1993, 1999, forthcoming) that teachers are “moral change agents”—that the moral purpose of schools is to make a difference in the lives of students and that making a difference is literally to make
changes that matter. This raises the larger question concerning the relationship between
public schools and democracy. In many ways this represents the unfinished legacy of


John Dewey. Cohen (1998) argues that Dewey was not child-centered as an end in itself, but rather for the purpose of developing a new system of curriculum and instruction rooted in scientific and social problem-solving through the development of new, more democratic social relations. Schools were to become counter-cultural agencies that would “correct the human and social devastation of industrial capitalism” (Cohen, 1998, p. 427). Need I say that the problem of potential human destruction (and growth) has become compounded in the chaotic conditions of postmodern society?
As Cohen says, Dewey never addressed the problem of how such a public school system could develop let alone thrive in a society that it was to help make over. And we do know that, as it has turned out so far, schools are a much more conservative agency for the status quo than a revolutionary force for transformation.
For starters, developing the capacity for schools to serve as “moral change agents”
means understanding the relationship be-tween democracy and the public school system. In Galbraith’s (1996, p. 17) Good Society:

Education not only makes democracy possible; it also makes it essential. Education not only brings into existence a population with an understanding of the public tasks; it also creates their demand to be heard.

Similarly, Saul (1995) says that a primary purpose of education is “to show individuals how they can function together in a society” (p. 138, emphasis in original).
In modern society the relationship between democracy and schooling has always been too abstract, or perhaps taken for granted and thereby often neglected. It should no longer be. As Andy Hargreaves and I said in What’s Worth Fighting for Out There?: “Teachers
and parents observe democracy deteriorating every time the gap between the privileged
and the underprivileged learner widens” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998, p. 15). Public schools need to develop what Coleman (1990) termed “social capital”—to help produce citizens who have the commitment, skills, and disposition to foster norms of civility, compassion, fairness, trust, collaborative engagement, and constructive critiques under conditions of great social diversity. Schools also need to develop intellectual capital— problem-solving skills in a technological world—so that all students can learn. This too is a moral purpose. To become committed to the development of social and intellectual capital is to understand the goal of moral purpose; to address it productively is to delve into the intricacies of complexity and change.
We have learned over the past decade that the process of educational reform is much more complex than had been anticipated. Even apparent successes have fundamental flaws. For example, in our development work we have been interested in how long it takes to turn around a poor performing school or district to become a good or better performing system. Our current conclusion is that you can turn around an elementary school in about 3 years, a high school in about 6 years, and a school district (depending on size) in about 8 years (Fullan, 1999, 2000b).
As valid as these general conclusions are, there are three problems. First, the time lines are too long. Given the sense of urgency, people rightly ask: Can these time lines be accelerated? Say, reduced by half? Incidentally, all these successes have involved “the
use of the change knowledge” documented in this book. The question is: By more


intensive and more thorough use of the change knowledge, can we accelerate the process of successful change? The answer is yes, which we will see does not solve the problem.
Second, the number of examples of turnaround is small. There is only a minority of elementary schools, and fewer high schools and school districts, that are engaged in this manner. In other words, we hav
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
PROSPECTS FOR REFORMIn the 1991 edition of The New Meaning of Educational Change, Chapter 1 contained the following paragraph:As we approach the 1990s we are in the midst of an educational reform movement the likes of which we have never before seen. This time reform efforts are more comprehensive and backed up by more resources and follow-through. We should find out over the course of the next decade whether our now considerable knowledge about the do’s and don’ts of implementing educational improvements can be put to good use. (Fullan,1991, p. 13, emphasis in original)Well, the next decade has just passed. And we do know more, much more. These lessons will be highlighted throughout the book.I have argued in the Change Forces trilogy (Fullan, 1993, 1999, forthcoming) that teachers are “moral change agents”—that the moral purpose of schools is to make a difference in the lives of students and that making a difference is literally to makechanges that matter. This raises the larger question concerning the relationship betweenpublic schools and democracy. In many ways this represents the unfinished legacy of John Dewey. Cohen (1998) argues that Dewey was not child-centered as an end in itself, but rather for the purpose of developing a new system of curriculum and instruction rooted in scientific and social problem-solving through the development of new, more democratic social relations. Schools were to become counter-cultural agencies that would “correct the human and social devastation of industrial capitalism” (Cohen, 1998, p. 427). Need I say that the problem of potential human destruction (and growth) has become compounded in the chaotic conditions of postmodern society?As Cohen says, Dewey never addressed the problem of how such a public school system could develop let alone thrive in a society that it was to help make over. And we do know that, as it has turned out so far, schools are a much more conservative agency for the status quo than a revolutionary force for transformation.For starters, developing the capacity for schools to serve as “moral change agents”means understanding the relationship be-tween democracy and the public school system. In Galbraith’s (1996, p. 17) Good Society:Education not only makes democracy possible; it also makes it essential. Education not only brings into existence a population with an understanding of the public tasks; it also creates their demand to be heard.Similarly, Saul (1995) says that a primary purpose of education is “to show individuals how they can function together in a society” (p. 138, emphasis in original).In modern society the relationship between democracy and schooling has always been too abstract, or perhaps taken for granted and thereby often neglected. It should no longer be. As Andy Hargreaves and I said in What’s Worth Fighting for Out There?: “Teachersand parents observe democracy deteriorating every time the gap between the privilegedand the underprivileged learner widens” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998, p. 15). Public schools need to develop what Coleman (1990) termed “social capital”—to help produce citizens who have the commitment, skills, and disposition to foster norms of civility, compassion, fairness, trust, collaborative engagement, and constructive critiques under conditions of great social diversity. Schools also need to develop intellectual capital— problem-solving skills in a technological world—so that all students can learn. This too is a moral purpose. To become committed to the development of social and intellectual capital is to understand the goal of moral purpose; to address it productively is to delve into the intricacies of complexity and change.We have learned over the past decade that the process of educational reform is much more complex than had been anticipated. Even apparent successes have fundamental flaws. For example, in our development work we have been interested in how long it takes to turn around a poor performing school or district to become a good or better performing system. Our current conclusion is that you can turn around an elementary school in about 3 years, a high school in about 6 years, and a school district (depending on size) in about 8 years (Fullan, 1999, 2000b).As valid as these general conclusions are, there are three problems. First, the time lines are too long. Given the sense of urgency, people rightly ask: Can these time lines be accelerated? Say, reduced by half? Incidentally, all these successes have involved “theuse of the change knowledge” documented in this book. The question is: By more intensive and more thorough use of the change knowledge, can we accelerate the process of successful change? The answer is yes, which we will see does not solve the problem.Second, the number of examples of turnaround is small. There is only a minority of elementary schools, and fewer high schools and school districts, that are engaged in this manner. In other words, we hav
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
PROSPEK UNTUK REFORMASI

Dalam 1991 edisi The New Meaning of Educational Change, Bab 1 berisi paragraf berikut:

Ketika kita mendekati 1990 kita berada di tengah-tengah gerakan reformasi pendidikan orang seperti yang kita tidak pernah dilihat sebelumnya. Upaya reformasi saat ini lebih komprehensif dan didukung oleh sumber daya lebih dan tindak lanjut. Kita harus mencari tahu selama dekade berikutnya apakah pengetahuan sekarang cukup kita tentang perintah dan larangan pelaksanaan perbaikan pendidikan dapat dimanfaatkan dengan baik. (Fullan,
1991, hal. 13, penekanan dalam aslinya)

Nah, pada dekade berikutnya baru saja berlalu. Dan kita tahu lebih banyak, banyak lagi. Pelajaran ini akan disorot dalam buku ini.
Saya berpendapat dalam trilogi Ganti Angkatan (Fullan, 1993, 1999,
akan datang) bahwa guru "moral yang agen perubahan" -bahwa tujuan moral sekolah adalah untuk membuat perbedaan dalam kehidupan siswa dan yang membuat perbedaan secara harfiah untuk membuat perubahan yang penting. Hal ini menimbulkan pertanyaan besar mengenai hubungan antara
sekolah umum dan demokrasi. Dalam banyak hal ini merupakan warisan yang belum selesai dari


John Dewey. Cohen (1998) berpendapat bahwa Dewey tidak berpusat pada anak sebagai tujuan itu sendiri, melainkan untuk tujuan mengembangkan sistem baru kurikulum dan pengajaran berakar pada ilmu pengetahuan dan sosial pemecahan masalah melalui pengembangan, hubungan sosial yang lebih demokratis baru . Sekolah yang menjadi lembaga kontra-budaya yang akan "memperbaiki kehancuran manusia dan sosial dari kapitalisme industri" (Cohen, 1998, hal. 427). Perlu saya mengatakan bahwa masalah kehancuran manusia yang potensial (dan pertumbuhan) telah menjadi diperparah dalam kondisi kacau masyarakat postmodern?
Sebagai Cohen mengatakan, Dewey tidak pernah membahas masalah bagaimana suatu sistem sekolah umum bisa berkembang apalagi berkembang dalam masyarakat bahwa itu adalah untuk membantu membuat lebih. Dan kita tahu bahwa, karena ternyata sejauh ini, sekolah seorang agen jauh lebih konservatif untuk status quo dari kekuatan revolusioner untuk transformasi.
Sebagai permulaan, pengembangan kapasitas bagi sekolah untuk melayani sebagai "agen perubahan moral"
berarti memahami hubungan demokrasi menjadi-tween dan sistem sekolah umum. Dalam Galbraith (. 1996, hal 17) Masyarakat Baik:

Pendidikan tidak hanya membuat demokrasi mungkin; itu juga membuatnya penting. Pendidikan tidak hanya membawa ke dalam keberadaan populasi dengan pemahaman tentang tugas-tugas publik; juga menciptakan permintaan mereka untuk didengar.

Demikian pula, Saul (1995) mengatakan bahwa tujuan utama pendidikan adalah "untuk menunjukkan individu bagaimana mereka dapat berfungsi bersama-sama dalam suatu masyarakat" (138 p., Penekanan dalam aslinya).
Dalam masyarakat modern hubungan antara demokrasi dan pendidikan selalu terlalu abstrak, atau mungkin diambil untuk diberikan dan dengan demikian sering diabaikan. Ini seharusnya tidak lagi menjadi. Seperti Andy Hargreaves dan aku berkata dalam Terdekat Layak Berjuang untuk Out There ?: "Guru
dan orang tua mengamati demokrasi memburuk setiap kali kesenjangan antara istimewa
dan pelajar kurang mampu melebar" (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998, hal. 15). sekolah umum perlu mengembangkan apa Coleman (1990) disebut "modal sosial" -untuk membantu menghasilkan warga negara yang memiliki komitmen, keterampilan, dan disposisi untuk mendorong norma-norma kesopanan, kasih sayang, keadilan, kepercayaan, keterlibatan kolaboratif, dan kritik yang konstruktif dalam kondisi keragaman sosial yang besar. Sekolah juga perlu mengembangkan padat modal intelektual keterampilan pemecahan masalah dalam teknologi dunia-sehingga semua siswa dapat belajar. Ini juga merupakan tujuan moral. Untuk menjadi berkomitmen untuk pengembangan modal sosial dan intelektual adalah memahami tujuan dari tujuan moral; untuk mengatasi hal produktif adalah untuk menyelidiki seluk-beluk kompleksitas dan perubahan.
Kami telah belajar selama dekade terakhir bahwa proses reformasi pendidikan jauh lebih kompleks daripada yang telah diantisipasi. Bahkan keberhasilan jelas memiliki kelemahan mendasar. Misalnya, dalam pekerjaan pembangunan kita telah tertarik pada berapa lama untuk berbalik sekolah yang berperforma buruk atau kabupaten untuk menjadi sistem yang berkinerja baik atau lebih baik. Kesimpulan kami saat ini adalah bahwa Anda dapat berbalik sebuah sekolah dasar di sekitar 3 tahun, sekolah tinggi di sekitar 6 tahun, dan distrik sekolah (tergantung ukuran) di sekitar 8 tahun (Fullan, 1999, 2000b).
Sebagai valid karena ini kesimpulan umum, ada tiga masalah. Pertama, garis waktu yang terlalu lama. Mengingat rasa urgensi, orang benar bertanya: Dapatkah garis waktu ini dipercepat? Katakanlah, berkurang setengahnya? Kebetulan, semua keberhasilan ini telah melibatkan "yang
menggunakan pengetahuan perubahan" didokumentasikan dalam buku ini. Pertanyaannya adalah: Dengan lebih


penggunaan intensif dan lebih menyeluruh dari pengetahuan perubahan, bisa kita mempercepat proses perubahan yang berhasil? jawabannya adalah ya, yang akan kita lihat tidak memecahkan masalah.
Kedua, jumlah contoh perputaran kecil. Hanya ada sebagian kecil sekolah dasar, dan sekolah tinggi yang lebih sedikit dan sekolah, yang terlibat dengan cara ini. Dengan kata lain, kita hav
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: