综合素质评价
合集下载
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
207
A
growing public pressure for school accountability (Marsh & Willis, 2003). To satisfy the need for choice and diversity (Conley, 2002), the popularity of alternative education regained its momentum in the mid-1990s in the form of public and private voucher programs, charter schools, and magnet programs. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2001), which conducted the first national study of public alternative schools and programs serving at-risk students, stated that 10,900 public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students served approximately 612,900 students in the United States during the 2000–2001 school year. In this period, 39% of all school districts nationwide offered alternative schools or programs, and this number is growing every year. The study also reported that alternative schools are located disproportionately in urban districts, districts with high-minority student populations, and districts with high-poverty concentrations, making them susceptible to social, political, economic, and educational inequalities (NCES). Some of these alternative schools have succeeded by satisfying “the need to provide choice and diversity within a monopolistic bureaucratic giant of public education” (Conley, p. 177). For instance, alternative schools in the state of Washington have succeeded as alternatives to traditional public education, effectively meeting students’ differing needs (see Billings, 1995). However, public alternative schools presently run by school districts struggle with negative stigmas as dumping grounds or warehouses for at-risk students who are falling behind, have behavioral problems, or are juvenile delinquents. These stigmas are some of the biggest obstacles barring the success of alternative education (Arnove & Strout, 1980; Conrath, 2001; Dryfoos, 1997; Kelly, 1993; Kim, 2006; Mcgee, 2001; Waxman, 1992). These negative stigmas have a tacit assumption that students’
To cite this article: Jeong-Hee Kim & Kay Ann Taylor (2008) Rethinking Alternative Education to Break the Cycle of Educational Inequality and Inequity, The Journal of Educational Research, 101:4, 207-219, DOI: 10.3200/JOER.101.4.207-219 To link to this article: /10.3200/JOER.101.4.207-219
The Journal of Educational Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: /loi/vjer20
ABSTRACT The growing number of alternative schools seems to correlate with the mounting population of disenfranchised students. The higher the number of disenfranchised students, the more alternative schools are being built. This correlation may be caused by social, economic, and political issues that bring about pervasive social injustice, which reinforces the cycle of educational inequality. In this qualitative study, the authors examined 1 alternative high school from a critical perspective to determine whether the school benefited students to the extent that it broke the cycle of educational inequality. Using critical theory as a theoretical framework, the authors found that the school provided a caring environment for students and gained their trust. However, the school did not offer a meaningful and equitable alternative education that benefited the students. This failure led the authors to question for whom this school is truly an alternative. Keywords: alternative education, cycle of educational inequality, disenfranchised students
This article was downloaded by: [Qufu Normal University] On: 07 September 2014, At: 06:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Rethinking AlterEducational Inequality and Inequity
JEONG-HEE KIM KAY ANN TAYLOR
Kansas State University
Downloaded by [Qufu Normal University] at 06:21 07 September 2014
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at /page/terms-and-conditions
lternative schools were prolific in the late 1960s and in the 1970s across the United States. As the civil rights movement gained momentum, educational priorities were shifted back to the progressive education movement by people who were dissatisfied with the traditional curriculum (Conley, 2002; Goodman, 1999; Raywid, 1995; Young, 1990). Alternative schools offered students opportunities for success according to the belief that one unified curriculum is not sufficient for all. These schools emphasized the development of self-concept, problemsolving, and humanistic approaches (Conley). Chapter 1, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, greatly supported alternative education. Program funding for Chapter 1 was designed to prevent student dropout and academic failure (Land & Legters, 2002). The development of alternative education was based on the idea that some students may learn better in an environment structured differently than that of traditional academic public schools. Unfortunately, many alternative schools in the 1970s did not last long because of structural or financial mismanagement: They had difficulty enduring
Rethinking Alternative Education to Break the Cycle of Educational Inequality and Inequity
Jeong-Hee Kim & Kay Ann Taylor
a a a
Kansas State University Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
A
growing public pressure for school accountability (Marsh & Willis, 2003). To satisfy the need for choice and diversity (Conley, 2002), the popularity of alternative education regained its momentum in the mid-1990s in the form of public and private voucher programs, charter schools, and magnet programs. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2001), which conducted the first national study of public alternative schools and programs serving at-risk students, stated that 10,900 public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students served approximately 612,900 students in the United States during the 2000–2001 school year. In this period, 39% of all school districts nationwide offered alternative schools or programs, and this number is growing every year. The study also reported that alternative schools are located disproportionately in urban districts, districts with high-minority student populations, and districts with high-poverty concentrations, making them susceptible to social, political, economic, and educational inequalities (NCES). Some of these alternative schools have succeeded by satisfying “the need to provide choice and diversity within a monopolistic bureaucratic giant of public education” (Conley, p. 177). For instance, alternative schools in the state of Washington have succeeded as alternatives to traditional public education, effectively meeting students’ differing needs (see Billings, 1995). However, public alternative schools presently run by school districts struggle with negative stigmas as dumping grounds or warehouses for at-risk students who are falling behind, have behavioral problems, or are juvenile delinquents. These stigmas are some of the biggest obstacles barring the success of alternative education (Arnove & Strout, 1980; Conrath, 2001; Dryfoos, 1997; Kelly, 1993; Kim, 2006; Mcgee, 2001; Waxman, 1992). These negative stigmas have a tacit assumption that students’
To cite this article: Jeong-Hee Kim & Kay Ann Taylor (2008) Rethinking Alternative Education to Break the Cycle of Educational Inequality and Inequity, The Journal of Educational Research, 101:4, 207-219, DOI: 10.3200/JOER.101.4.207-219 To link to this article: /10.3200/JOER.101.4.207-219
The Journal of Educational Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: /loi/vjer20
ABSTRACT The growing number of alternative schools seems to correlate with the mounting population of disenfranchised students. The higher the number of disenfranchised students, the more alternative schools are being built. This correlation may be caused by social, economic, and political issues that bring about pervasive social injustice, which reinforces the cycle of educational inequality. In this qualitative study, the authors examined 1 alternative high school from a critical perspective to determine whether the school benefited students to the extent that it broke the cycle of educational inequality. Using critical theory as a theoretical framework, the authors found that the school provided a caring environment for students and gained their trust. However, the school did not offer a meaningful and equitable alternative education that benefited the students. This failure led the authors to question for whom this school is truly an alternative. Keywords: alternative education, cycle of educational inequality, disenfranchised students
This article was downloaded by: [Qufu Normal University] On: 07 September 2014, At: 06:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Rethinking AlterEducational Inequality and Inequity
JEONG-HEE KIM KAY ANN TAYLOR
Kansas State University
Downloaded by [Qufu Normal University] at 06:21 07 September 2014
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at /page/terms-and-conditions
lternative schools were prolific in the late 1960s and in the 1970s across the United States. As the civil rights movement gained momentum, educational priorities were shifted back to the progressive education movement by people who were dissatisfied with the traditional curriculum (Conley, 2002; Goodman, 1999; Raywid, 1995; Young, 1990). Alternative schools offered students opportunities for success according to the belief that one unified curriculum is not sufficient for all. These schools emphasized the development of self-concept, problemsolving, and humanistic approaches (Conley). Chapter 1, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, greatly supported alternative education. Program funding for Chapter 1 was designed to prevent student dropout and academic failure (Land & Legters, 2002). The development of alternative education was based on the idea that some students may learn better in an environment structured differently than that of traditional academic public schools. Unfortunately, many alternative schools in the 1970s did not last long because of structural or financial mismanagement: They had difficulty enduring
Rethinking Alternative Education to Break the Cycle of Educational Inequality and Inequity
Jeong-Hee Kim & Kay Ann Taylor
a a a
Kansas State University Published online: 07 Aug 2010.