{"title":"American High Schools and the Liberal Arts Tradition","authors":"A. Powell","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2003.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2003.0018","url":null,"abstract":"The term liberal arts usually conjures up one central idea; that is, effective liberal arts education as strong academic achievement. A second, less dominant, and frequently neglected notion regards effective liberal arts education as producing intellectual interests and habits that endure throughout adult life. The two ideas are complementary and not in opposition. But they are different. The dominant idea associates the liberal arts with a collection of academic subjects or disciplines, most often divided into three broad and overlapping groups. For example, they are labeled by the National Center for Education Statistics as humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and natural sciences. The humanities embrace the imaginative and spiritual life of humankind. The social sciences address human institutions and relations as they have developed over time. The natural sciences cover the world of nature. The number of liberal arts has grown remarkably, in the form of area studies, gender and ethnic studies, other multiand interdisciplinary fields, and entirely new subjects. The three subject areas are regarded as liberal because the knowledge they contain liberates and deepens understanding of life and because the methods they employ and the cognitive and other skills they teach make greater understanding more likely.1 Good performance in the liberal arts seems almost synonymous with good achievement in the study of academic subjects. The crucial indicators of performance are usually examinations—tests created by teachers, tests created and sometimes mandated by government, tests created by private organizations such as the International Baccalaureate or the College Board. Academic performance is usually assessed soon after instruction has occurred—at the end of a unit, project, term, or course. Performance is what","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"3 1","pages":"37 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88377482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reform, Resistance,. .. Retreat? The Predictable Politics of Accountability in Virginia","authors":"Frederick M. Hess","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2002.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2002.0007","url":null,"abstract":"but the implementation of such regimes produces visible costs that tend to be more politically salient than the accompanying educational benefits. The benefits are diffuse and long-term while the costs are immediate and concentrated, creating a political dynamic that tends to aid critics of highstakes accountability.3 The Allure of Outcome Accountability In seeking to ensure school quality, policymakers have two fundamental methods at their disposal. The traditional approach has been to govern by focusing on the inputs, instead of on the outcomes, of schooling. Policymakers often seek to ensure school quality by requiring that schools spend specified amounts of money per pupil, have facilities that meet set criteria, employ teachers with certain certifications, and so on. Because inputs may not be used in a way that translates into results, input monitoring is characterized by regulation and micromanagement. Public schools and school personnel have traditionally been judged on the basis of whether or not they comply with regulations and mandates governing inputs. Policymakers have evaluated schools based upon their fealty to policy directives, not upon student performance or progress. In large part, this approach emerged as a lowest common denominator compromise among policymakers reluctant to resolve disputes about the relative merit of com71 Frederick M. Hess *F.Hess 2/22/02 10:13 AM Page 71","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"74 1","pages":"122 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83744601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
