通过民主安克雷奇的镜头审视和发展专业标准

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Charlaine Simpson, Anna Beck, Louise Campbell
{"title":"通过民主安克雷奇的镜头审视和发展专业标准","authors":"Charlaine Simpson,&nbsp;Anna Beck,&nbsp;Louise Campbell","doi":"10.1002/berj.4090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The recent review of the Scottish professional standards for teachers, led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, offered a unique perspective to interrogate participative approaches in policy-making in the Scottish education context and to provide insights and implications for future policy-making. Using one of the authors’ experiences as a General Teaching Council Scotland Officer during the review of the professional standards, this paper conceptualises the consultation process as a form of democratic governance, using Sørensen and Torfing's framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This perspective places policy-making within a governance structure that is created by networks that interact, overlap and are entangled with each other, implying a decentralised form of governance. An analysis of the stages of the review process demonstrated that it was participatory. However, there was an over-reliance on the established policy-making community. In addition, authentic participation was restricted as choices were limited by the metagovernor. We argue that Sørensen and Torfing's anchorage points for democratic legitimacy allow an interrogation of the extent to which policy-making in Scottish education is authentically democratic and conclude by offering a framework of critical questions for more transparent democratic participation in future iterations of similar professional standards reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":51410,"journal":{"name":"British Educational Research Journal","volume":"51 2","pages":"572-591"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/berj.4090","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The review and development of professional standards through the lens of Democratic Anchorage points\",\"authors\":\"Charlaine Simpson,&nbsp;Anna Beck,&nbsp;Louise Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/berj.4090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The recent review of the Scottish professional standards for teachers, led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, offered a unique perspective to interrogate participative approaches in policy-making in the Scottish education context and to provide insights and implications for future policy-making. Using one of the authors’ experiences as a General Teaching Council Scotland Officer during the review of the professional standards, this paper conceptualises the consultation process as a form of democratic governance, using Sørensen and Torfing's framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This perspective places policy-making within a governance structure that is created by networks that interact, overlap and are entangled with each other, implying a decentralised form of governance. An analysis of the stages of the review process demonstrated that it was participatory. However, there was an over-reliance on the established policy-making community. In addition, authentic participation was restricted as choices were limited by the metagovernor. We argue that Sørensen and Torfing's anchorage points for democratic legitimacy allow an interrogation of the extent to which policy-making in Scottish education is authentically democratic and conclude by offering a framework of critical questions for more transparent democratic participation in future iterations of similar professional standards reviews.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Educational Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"572-591\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/berj.4090\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Educational Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4090\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4090","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近由苏格兰总教学委员会领导的对苏格兰教师专业标准的审查,提供了一个独特的视角来质疑苏格兰教育背景下决策中的参与式方法,并为未来的决策提供见解和启示。本文利用作者在审查专业标准期间担任苏格兰教学委员会官员的经历,将协商过程概念化为民主治理的一种形式,并使用Sørensen和Torfing构建的四个支点,使治理网络具有民主合法性。这种观点将决策置于一个治理结构中,这个治理结构是由相互作用、重叠和相互纠缠的网络创建的,这意味着一种分散的治理形式。对审查进程各阶段的分析表明,它是参与性的。但是,过度依赖既定的决策团体。此外,由于选择受到元州长的限制,真实参与受到了限制。我们认为,Sørensen和Torfing对民主合法性的固定点允许对苏格兰教育决策在多大程度上是真正民主的质疑,并通过提供一个关键问题的框架来结束,以便在未来类似专业标准审查的迭代中更透明地民主参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The review and development of professional standards through the lens of Democratic Anchorage points

The review and development of professional standards through the lens of Democratic Anchorage points

The recent review of the Scottish professional standards for teachers, led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, offered a unique perspective to interrogate participative approaches in policy-making in the Scottish education context and to provide insights and implications for future policy-making. Using one of the authors’ experiences as a General Teaching Council Scotland Officer during the review of the professional standards, this paper conceptualises the consultation process as a form of democratic governance, using Sørensen and Torfing's framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This perspective places policy-making within a governance structure that is created by networks that interact, overlap and are entangled with each other, implying a decentralised form of governance. An analysis of the stages of the review process demonstrated that it was participatory. However, there was an over-reliance on the established policy-making community. In addition, authentic participation was restricted as choices were limited by the metagovernor. We argue that Sørensen and Torfing's anchorage points for democratic legitimacy allow an interrogation of the extent to which policy-making in Scottish education is authentically democratic and conclude by offering a framework of critical questions for more transparent democratic participation in future iterations of similar professional standards reviews.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Educational Research Journal
British Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The British Educational Research Journal is an international peer reviewed medium for the publication of articles of interest to researchers in education and has rapidly become a major focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world. For further information on the association please visit the British Educational Research Association web site. The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes reports of case studies, experiments and surveys, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues and of underlying assumptions in educational research, accounts of research in progress, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信