Degrees in Inequality
Degrees in Inequality
复制标题
不平等程度
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
I. Snyder
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
I. Snyder
这本书有许多令人钦佩的品质。在公开订阅社会正义议程冒着被嘲笑的风险的时候，这是一本勇敢的书。它并不回避确定大学-特别是砂岩-作为不可分割的任何解释为什么澳大利亚中等教育是不公平的。两位作者都在一所大学工作：墨尔本大学。这本书还为课程和结构改革建立了一个令人信服的案例。通过对诸如保留率和辍学率、贫困与成就之间的关系以及性别与成就之间的关系等问题的仔细分析，它有力地论证了我们的教育体系被持续存在的机会不平等所撕裂。然而，使它成为一本重要的书的是它的奖学金。在过去十年中，在一系列州和联邦资助的研究项目中收集了大量的统计数据，《不民主的学校教育》对谁在学校成功，谁在学校失败进行了系统的概述。为了构建这幅澳大利亚大众中等教育和高等教育在机会和结果上都是不民主的图景，本书提出了一系列重要问题，并提供了支持调查结果的数据。用行话来说，这是“以证据为基础”的。这种方法已经存在了十多年，但主要集中在医学领域。循证医学起源于世纪中期的巴黎，甚至更早，它可以被描述为认真、明确和明智地使用当前最好的证据来做出有关患者护理的决定。他们的论点是，优秀的医生既要利用临床专业知识，又要利用来自系统研究的最佳外部证据，而这两者本身都是不够的。最近，对循证方法的呼吁已从医学转向社会科学，包括教育。在美国，联邦立法，如2001年的《不让一个孩子掉队法》，使政策制定者、研究人员和教师的注意力集中在教育“科学”研究的性质和价值上。该法案要求联邦赠款接受者将其资金用于“基于证据的战略”。当然，人们对这一要求褒贬不一，这是正确的，因为它意味着只有一种正确的方法来进行教育研究，有效地贬低了过去40年在开辟新的可能性方面取得的所有进步。然而，一个有用的结果是E D U C A T I O N的刺激，
THIS BOOK HAS a number of admirable qualities. In times when open subscription to a social justice agenda runs the risk of ridicule, it is a brave book. It does not shy away from identifying the universities — specifically, the sandstones — as integral to any explanation of why Australian secondary education is inequitable. And both authors work in one: the University of Melbourne. The book also builds a compelling case for curriculum and structural reform. Through the careful analysis of issues such as retention and dropout rates, the relation between poverty and achievement, and between gender and achievement, it argues potently that our education system is disturbingly riven by persistent inequalities of opportunity. What makes it a significant book, however, is its scholarship. Drawing extensively on statistical data, collected in a range of state and federally funded research projects carried out over the last decade, Undemocratic Schooling presents a systematic overview of who succeeds and who fails at school. To construct this picture of how mass secondary education and higher education in Australia are undemocratic in both opportunities and outcomes, the book asks a series of important questions and provides data to support the findings. It is, in the parlance, ‘evidence-based’. This approach has been around for over a decade, but located mainly in the field of medicine. With philosophical origins in mid-19th century Paris, or even earlier, evidencebased medicine can be described as the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of patients. The argument is that good doctors use both clinical expertise and the best available external evidence from systematic research, and that neither is enough on its own. More recently, the call for evidence-based approaches has moved beyond medicine to the social sciences, including education. In the USA, federal legislation, such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, has focused the attention of policy-makers, researchers and teachers on the nature and value of ‘scientific’ research in education. The Act requires federal grantees to use their funds on ‘evidence-based strategies’. Of course, this requirement has had a mixed reception, and rightly so, as it implies that there is only one proper way to do educational research, effectively trivialising all the advances of the past forty years in opening up new possibilities. One useful outcome, however, has been the stimulation of E D U C A T I O N