Examining Contemporary Education-reform Efforts in the United States

2005 ◽  
pp. 65-84
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-69
Author(s):  
H. B. Danesh

This article proposes that the universally acknowledged need for education reform requires both new conceptual and methodological approaches. At the core of this reform is transformation from conflict-based to peace-based educational concepts and practices aimed at creating school environments that promote academic and relational excellence, are safe and nurturing, and are free from bullying and violence. The article draws from the research done and lessons learned from more than sixteen ongoing years of implementation of Education for Peace (EFP)—a comprehensive peace-based education program—in more than one thousand schools, involving thousands of educators, and several hundred thousand students (K-12) in the highly conflicted and traumatized war-torn country of Bosnia and Herzegovina and more recently in schools in the United States, Mexico, Bermuda, and elsewhere.


1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. v-vii
Author(s):  
AbdulHamid AbuSulayman

The earliest ijtihad, in the face of societal changes, can be traced backto the period of Khalifah Umar bin al-Khattab. The methodology ofjuristic preference (istihsan) was developed later as one way of institutingIslamic reform. It emerged as a response to the inadequacy of themethod of mere deduction. Other forms of intellectual reform can beseen in the works of Al-Ghazali in Ihya’ ‘Ulkn al-Din and Tahafat al-Falsifah, and in Ibn Rushd’s response, Tahafat al-Tahafat.Many of these early efforts toward intellectual reform were individualand accidental in nature and did not reflect any methodological school orinstitution. Reformers and creative thinkers seemed as flashes in the historyof Islamic thought. As the European challenge to the Ummahmounted, and the cultural and scientific imitation failed, many Muslimreformers surrendered themselves to culturally copying Europe whilecontinuing to praise the heritage of the Ummah and the sublime valuesand concepts embedded in its legacy.The movement for Islamization of knowledge tried to dig deep intoIslamic intellectual tradition in order to provide Muslim thinkers with thecapabilities and potential for the reform of contemporary Islamic thoughtand methodology. The genesis of the movement can be traced to the birthof the Association of Muslim Social Scientists in the United States and -Canada (AMSS) in 1972, the establishment of the International Instituteof Islamic Thought (IIIT) in 1981, and the development of theIslamization of Knowledge program of the International IslamicUniversity of Malaysia (IIUM) in 1989.As a result of these efforts, the ideas of Islamization of knowledge andIslamic methodological reform have become central themes in the worksof Muslim scholars, who find that these concepts give direction and purposeto their work. If we use the metaphor of a seed to describe the roleof intellectual and methodological reform in developing and reformingsocieties, then political, economic, technological and all other contributionsand reforms can be seen as the fruits of civilization. The questionthat presents itself is, if the seed is there-meaning proper thinking ...


Author(s):  
Jeremy Burman

Jean Piaget (1896–1980) is known for his contributions to developmental psychology and educational theory. His name is associated especially with Stage Theory. That we believe him to have focused solely on cognitive development, however, is not because he did. This is instead the result of the popularization of his writings in the United States during the Cold War. (A period of crisis and subsequent education reform.) The overpowering influence of those interests blinded us to his larger framework, which he called “genetic epistemology,” and of which his stages were just a part. To address the resulting and continuing misunderstandings, this essay presents original historical scholarship—distilling over a thousand pages of archival documents (correspondence, diary entries, budgets, and reports)—to provide an insider’s look at Piaget’s research program from the perspective of the Rockefeller Foundation: genetic epistemology’s primary funding agency in the United States from the mid-1950s through the early-1960s. The result is an examination of how a group of interested Americans came to understand Piaget’s writings in French in the period just prior to their wider popularization in English, as well as of how Piaget presented himself and his ideas during the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. My goal, however, is not to summarize the whole of this misunderstood program. Instead, I aim to provide a source of archivally-grounded perspective that will allow for new insights about the Genevan School that are unrelated to American Cold War interests. In the process, we also derive new means to see how Piaget’s experimental examinations of the development of individual knowledge served to inform his team’s investigations of the evolution of science (and vice versa).


Author(s):  
Valentina Migliarini ◽  
Subini Annamma

Strategies for behavioral management have been traditionally derived from an individualistic, psychological orientation. As such, behavioral management is about correcting and preventing disruption caused by the “difficult” students and about reinforcing positive comportment of the “good” ones. However, increased classroom diversity and inclusive and multicultural education reform efforts, in the United States and in most Western societies, warrant attention to the ways preservice teachers develop beliefs and attitudes toward behavior management that (re)produce systemic inequities along lines of race, disability, and intersecting identities. Early-21st-century legislation requiring free and equitable education in the least restrictive environment mandates that school professionals serve the needs of all students, especially those located at the interstices of multiple differences in inclusive settings. These combined commitments create tensions in teacher education, demanding that educators rethink relationships with students so that they are not simply recreating the trends of mass incarceration within schools. Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) shifts the questions that are asked from “How can we fix students who disobey rules?” to “How can preservice teacher education and existing behavioral management courses be transformed so that they are not steeped in color evasion and silent on interlocking systems of oppression?” DisCrit provides an opportunity to (re)organize classrooms, moving away from “fixing” the individual—be it the student or the teacher—and shifting toward justice. As such, it is important to pay attention not only to the characteristics, dispositions, attitudes, and students’ and teachers’ behaviors but also to the structural features of the situation in which they operate. By cultivating relationships rooted in solidarity, in which teachers understand the ways students are systemically oppressed, how those oppressions are (re)produced in classrooms, and what they can do to resist those oppressions in terms of pedagogy, curriculum, and relationship, repositions students and families are regarded as valuable members. Consequently, DisCrit has the potential to prepare future teachers to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interactions and active engagement in learning focused on creating solidarity in the classroom instead of managing. This results in curriculum, pedagogy, and relationships that are rooted in expansive notions of justice. DisCrit can help preservice teachers in addressing issues of diversity in the curriculum and in contemplating how discipline may be used as a tool of punishment, and of exclusion, or as a tool for learning. Ultimately, DisCrit as an intersectional and interdisciplinary framework can enrich existing preservice teachers’ beliefs about relationships in the classroom and connect these relationships to larger projects of dismantling inequities faced by multiply marginalized students.


1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogelio Pérez Perdomo

SummaryRogelio Pérez Perdomo is a Professor of Law at the Central University of Venezuela and an active member of the Latin American Council of Law and Development. A longstanding student of the purposes and methods of legal education, he has also made a special point to acquire knowledge about legal education in Europe and the United States.In this article Professor Pérez Perdomo discusses the inadequacies and shortcomings of the existing legal education programs in Latin America. He recognizes the growing awareness of such inadequacies on the part of many Latin American law teachers, and their dissatisfaction with the traditional systems and methods of law teaching. This dissatisfaction has generated many studies and discussions in the different Latin American countries, and it has also produced some changes and improvements. Professor Pérez Perdomo believes, however, that such changes fall significantly short of modern needs of adequate legal education. Concentrating on the situation in Venezuela, he compares it with current legal education innovations and developments in other Latin American countries, as well as in the major European countries and the United States.Professor Pérez Perdomo clearly admits his preference for further reforms of the legal education methods and programs in Venezuela (and, presumably, in other countries of Latin America). He views, however, student unrests as an invalid reason for such reforms because improvements must emerge from substantive needs rather than the temporary considerations of political expediency. Reforms must proceed from an appreciation of the true role of law and the legal profession.In a brief survey of the traditional and modern role of the law, especially its use as a vehicle for social and economic development, Professor Pérez Perdomo demonstrates the significance of their impact on legal education. Equally important, in his opinion, is the influence of foreign financial aid, e.g., the Ford Foundation, the International Legal Center, etc., which must have had a considerable impact on the emergence of new legal education trends. The effect of such influences has not yet been evaluated, but it is an important topic in any study of the effectiveness and desirability of international transfers of educational methods from one country to another. Thus, the United States legal education model encountered many difficulties in Latin America when the attempt was made to apply it there, and it can be used there only in a limited sense and in a significantly modified form.Professor Pérez Perdomo notes the following trends of legal education reform in Latin America: 1)The reorganization and “semestization” of law courses.2)The use of new teaching methods–tutorials, class discussions, working groups, and legal clinics–by various law schools in their efforts to enrich the content of their educational programs.3)The identification of the purposes and responsibilities of legal education in coordination with the general aims of law and the legal system.Professor Pérez Perdomo recognizes that many of these aspirations for reform are seriously affected by such factual limitations as, for example, the unfavorable numerical ratio of students to law faculty, inadequate teaching abilities of the professors, poverty and the small size of libraries, and the encumbersome administrative organization and fiscal procedure of universities. Despite these difficulties, Professor Pérez Perdomo is confident that the reform efforts will prevail and that many salutory improvements will eventually become evident in Latin American legal education.


2019 ◽  
pp. 003022281984047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. Corr

A previous article in this journal examined some aspects of the enduring influence of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s “five stages” model through a sampling of recent American textbooks in selected academic disciplines and professional fields. This article offers a parallel sampling of 47 textbooks published in 10 different countries outside the United States. The questions to be answered are as follows: Does the “five stages” model appear without significant change in the textbooks described here? Is the “five stages” model applied in these textbooks to issues involving loss, grief, and bereavement as well as to those involving terminal illness and dying? Is the “five stages” model criticized in some or all of these textbooks? If so, is the criticism sufficient to argue that, while the “five stages” model might be presented as an important historical framework, it should no longer be regarded as a sound theory to guide contemporary education and practice?


2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey E. Mirel ◽  
Maris A. Vinovskis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document