洛杉矶学校的制度逻辑:多种模式是否扰乱了学校教育的语法?

IF 2 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Julie A. Marsh, Taylor N. Allbright, Katrina E. Bulkley, K. Kennedy, Tasminda K. Dhaliwal
{"title":"洛杉矶学校的制度逻辑:多种模式是否扰乱了学校教育的语法?","authors":"Julie A. Marsh, Taylor N. Allbright, Katrina E. Bulkley, K. Kennedy, Tasminda K. Dhaliwal","doi":"10.1086/709516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The structure of US public education is changing. Rather than exclusive district management of schools with standardized programs, new types of systems have emerged. In the case of “portfolio” systems, advocates argue that choice, performance-based accountability, and autonomy challenge traditional schooling and foster a diversity of options for parents. Yet there is limited empirical evidence on these claims. Our mixed-methods study examines the values and reported practices of schools in Los Angeles. We find limited evidence of variation across schools. Rather, institutional forces appear to be shaping common commitments to academics, whole child support, community, and professionalism, with some fine-grained differences connected to organizational characteristics. Ultimately, this lack of diversity and the complexity of multiple logics do not appear to challenge the idea of a shared “grammar of schooling” across schools. This research advances our understanding of institutional logics in schools and provides implications for policy and future research.","PeriodicalId":47629,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Education","volume":"126 1","pages":"603 - 651"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/709516","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Logics in Los Angeles Schools: Do Multiple Models Disrupt the Grammar of Schooling?\",\"authors\":\"Julie A. Marsh, Taylor N. Allbright, Katrina E. Bulkley, K. Kennedy, Tasminda K. Dhaliwal\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/709516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The structure of US public education is changing. Rather than exclusive district management of schools with standardized programs, new types of systems have emerged. In the case of “portfolio” systems, advocates argue that choice, performance-based accountability, and autonomy challenge traditional schooling and foster a diversity of options for parents. Yet there is limited empirical evidence on these claims. Our mixed-methods study examines the values and reported practices of schools in Los Angeles. We find limited evidence of variation across schools. Rather, institutional forces appear to be shaping common commitments to academics, whole child support, community, and professionalism, with some fine-grained differences connected to organizational characteristics. Ultimately, this lack of diversity and the complexity of multiple logics do not appear to challenge the idea of a shared “grammar of schooling” across schools. This research advances our understanding of institutional logics in schools and provides implications for policy and future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Education\",\"volume\":\"126 1\",\"pages\":\"603 - 651\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/709516\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/709516\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/709516","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

美国公共教育的结构正在发生变化。新类型的系统已经出现,而不是用标准化的程序对学校进行专属的地区管理。在“投资组合”系统的情况下,倡导者认为,选择、基于绩效的问责制和自主性挑战了传统的学校教育,并为家长培养了多样性的选择。然而,关于这些说法的经验证据有限。我们的混合方法研究考察了洛杉矶学校的价值观和报道的做法。我们发现学校之间差异的证据有限。相反,制度力量似乎正在形成对学术、全儿童支持、社区和专业精神的共同承诺,其中一些细微的差异与组织特征有关。最终,这种多样性的缺乏和多重逻辑的复杂性似乎并没有挑战学校之间共享“学校教育语法”的理念。这项研究促进了我们对学校制度逻辑的理解,并为政策和未来的研究提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Institutional Logics in Los Angeles Schools: Do Multiple Models Disrupt the Grammar of Schooling?
The structure of US public education is changing. Rather than exclusive district management of schools with standardized programs, new types of systems have emerged. In the case of “portfolio” systems, advocates argue that choice, performance-based accountability, and autonomy challenge traditional schooling and foster a diversity of options for parents. Yet there is limited empirical evidence on these claims. Our mixed-methods study examines the values and reported practices of schools in Los Angeles. We find limited evidence of variation across schools. Rather, institutional forces appear to be shaping common commitments to academics, whole child support, community, and professionalism, with some fine-grained differences connected to organizational characteristics. Ultimately, this lack of diversity and the complexity of multiple logics do not appear to challenge the idea of a shared “grammar of schooling” across schools. This research advances our understanding of institutional logics in schools and provides implications for policy and future research.
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
American Journal of Education
American Journal of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Founded as School Review in 1893, the American Journal of Education acquired its present name in November 1979. The Journal seeks to bridge and integrate the intellectual, methodological, and substantive diversity of educational scholarship, and to encourage a vigorous dialogue between educational scholars and practitioners. To achieve that goal, papers are published that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice.
×
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