In the recent centuries the school turned to be the place with multiple disciplines and rules, especially in the area like Baltimore city where majority people believe schooling needs to be more strict. And the power classification between school, teacher and students, families are like hierarchy in military or government bureaucracy. However, while military product national defense and the bureaucratic system product civic production, the school's production, which is learning, cannot be evaluated and controlled like national defense material or GDP numbers. On the one hand, learning is self-reflected in a way that the educational outcome of students could be really independent from standard measurement. On the other hand, a strict power hierarchy system may limit the development of student by assigning them a specific role played in school. That is why Sander raised the question about the reform of school power hierarchy.
A new power hierarchy in school should base on the fact that school is not making students predictable and formatted. Such a transition is not only to increase priority onto the need of clients—students and families in the system. Also it required developing the capacity and connection of students and family in the process of educational implication. Although Sander's article has some general description, I am still wondering the specific operation they took and the organizational strategy specifically during that period of gap during the retreat of school power.
Reference
Sanders, M. (2013). Collaborating for
Change: How an Urban School District and
a Community-Based Organization Support and Sustain School, Family, and
Community Partnerships, 1693-1712.
1 comment:
Hey Tu! I agree that schools should give more decision-making powers and general input into the school's culture to the students, families, and community. It is the best way to build buy-in, engagement, and to really ensure that a school is meeting the needs of all stakeholders. The most successful schools I have been in do not have very strict top-down structures like the militaristic ones mentioned here; sure they have a leadership team, but they genuinely use input from the community very heavily through multiple touchpoints throughout the year.
Post a Comment