https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15 en-us 2020-03-17 17:24:57 UTC 2020-03-20 23:53:42 UTC hello@padlet.com hilary_wilush https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/463731105 One thing that constantly gets brought up in all my courses is the idea of context, perspective, and past experience. These aspects are only some of the reasons why our interests and opinions differ from one another. 
When I think about policies and practice, I don't think it is possible to be objective. Datnow et al. (2002) supports this argument, claiming that even when reforms are supposed to be objective and organized, there are often informal negotiations and subjective opinions embedded in policy and reform. Hence why it is important to look at all the people and their interactions, opinions, power, and context when trying to analyze policy at all levels and stages (Datnow et al., 2002).  
This relates to the questions posed as the local school context may have differing views or ways of implementing policy than another context. Having a decentralized administration in theory would be great as they could cater to their particular context. However, it would in this case be up to that administrator to take the responsibility for this. What some people believe to be necessary, others may disregard. In other words, what the administrator believes in would likely be implemented, even if it does not support the community values or practices. ]]> 2020-03-17 20:51:00 UTC https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/463731105 https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/463797816 With respect to the quote, I think school level leaders have very little say and control in changes which occur in the schools they lead. As I have learned throughout my courses, accountability and administrative orders come from an increasingly top-down model, where there are many middle managers enforcing rules onto those they precede over. It would be great to have school level leaders make decisions for their specific school context, but then what set of standards would be put in place in order to ensure that school level leaders are meeting measures. As mentioned in Datnow et al. (2002), reforms are made by state legislators, district administrators, and principals, where I think they all look out for their own professional interests, and not necessarily take into account the most vulnerable people they serve. Principals and teachers are held accountable for improving outcomes for all students on standardized tests, yet systemic barriers are not factored in. Where prepackaged reform actions do not always take into consideration those they are trying to "reform." It may be a reform which looks good on paper, in order to fulfill administerial pressures, but does little for students and teachers. I personal think the American system is completely backwards. Schools and students which continue to struggle should not be penalized with reduced funding, but should be allocated more funding in order to provide the necessary support and resources for those struggling.

]]> 2020-03-17 22:10:07 UTC https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/463797816 https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/464979121 2020-03-18 18:47:43 UTC https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/464979121 https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/466902065 Datnow et al. (2002) suggests, one of the intentions of the systemic reform movement is to inspire change at the local level. Although this idea seems reasonable and attainable, I agree with the quote in that too many factors, including practical and political barriers will interfere with this process. In addition, a 'one size fits all' model of reform is not practical either, in that it may not consider the specialized needs of students, depending on their cultural, intellectual, or social status. If improving student outcomes is the primary goal in education, than a top-down approach only works on a theory-based macro level. For instance, by spending more time on literacy and numeracy, student outcomes will improve. As suggested in Datnow et al., (2002) top down implementation of standardized policies did not meet the diverse needs of students in the classroom. As a result, decentralized administration is helpful to ensure policy reform truly reflects the needs of the students it serves within a local context. However, this too gets complicated as the many stakeholders involved in implementation efforts at the local level have competing interests and face different challenges with respect to implementation. It is no wonder reform is difficult and time consuming to successfully implement on a mass level. Even the most well crafted policy when applied to everyone will result in inequities for some - both for the intended recipients and for the stakeholders initiating the change. ]]> 2020-03-19 19:31:17 UTC https://padlet.com/MissParmar/fslj3ajl9u15/wish/466902065