Interesting article by  Edward B. Fiske (former Times education editor and author of the Fiske Guide to Colleges) about (a) how Reagan appointed a commission to push a political agenda that included voluntary prayers in schools, but the commission he appointed came up with a report that focused on quality of education and (b) why economic productivity of a country  is not correlated with educational achievements.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25fiske.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all)

Op-Ed Contributor

A Nation at a Loss

NYT 2008/04/25/Opinion

TOMORROW is the 25th anniversary of “A Nation at Risk,” a remarkable document that became a milestone in the history of American education — albeit in ways that its creators neither planned, anticipated or even wanted.

In August 1981, Education Secretary T. H. Bell created a National Commission on Excellence in Education to examine, in the report’s words, “the widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system.” Secretary Bell’s expectation, he later said, was that the report would paint a rosy picture of American education and correct all those widespread negative perceptions.

Instead, on April 26, 1983, the commission released a sweeping 65-page indictment of the quality of teaching and learning in American primary and secondary schools couched in a style of apocalyptic rhetoric rarely found in blue-ribbon commission reports.

“The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people,” it warned. “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

To his credit, Secretary Bell, a moderate Republican who had been hoping for some political relief from critics on his right, stood by these unexpected words from his commission — and thereby became the unwitting father of the modern school reform movement.

Secretary Bell’s boss, President Ronald Reagan, was also taken aback by “A Nation at Risk,” although for different reasons. He took office in 1981 with a three-fold agenda for education: abolishing the Department of Education, promoting tuition tax credits and vouchers and restoring voluntary prayer in the schools. Using the bully pulpit and purse of the federal government to promote “excellence” in teaching and learning was not on the list.

When members of the White House staff saw an early copy of “A Nation at Risk,” they were distressed to find no mention of their political agenda and threatened to cancel the ceremony in which the president would receive the first copy. Secretary Bell and commission members replied that such topics were at best tangential to their assigned topic of excellence in teaching and learning.

Eventually a compromise was reached. The president agreed to receive the commission and accept the first copy of “A Nation at Risk” at a White House ceremony, and he used his remarks to reaffirm his political objectives — none of which were mentioned in the report. Several members of the commission later confided that they left Washington that day in a depressed mood, convinced that they had been “used” and were destined to be ignored.

Then came the biggest twist of all. “A Nation at Risk” resonated with Americans, who seemingly agreed that there was indeed something “seriously remiss” in their schools. White House pollsters picked this up. The president began visiting schools all over the country, usually in the company of Secretary Bell, who until then, as head of a department scheduled for elimination, had never seen the inside of Air Force One.

The most important legacy of “A Nation at Risk” was to put the quality of education on the national political agenda — where it has remained ever since. The last 25 years have seen a succession of projects and movements aimed at increasing the quality of American primary and secondary schools: standards-based reform, the 1989 “education summit” that set six “national goals” for education, the push for school choice and, most recently, the No Child Left Behind legislation. Proponents of each have taken pains to portray themselves as the heirs of “A Nation at Risk.”

The apocalyptic rhetoric of the opening section of “A Nation at Risk” isn’t the only element of the report that has had a lasting impact. One of the main ideas enshrined in the document — that quality of schooling is directly linked to economic competitiveness — has also shaped the way Americans think about education. This particular theory, however, hasn’t been borne out by history.

In 1983, the causal connection between education and the economy seemed obvious. Americans were living in awe of the Japanese “economic miracle” and assumed that it was made possible by a school system whose students consistently routed ours on all those comparative international achievement tests. But then the Japanese economy soured — even though it still had the same education system — and we began asking ourselves another question: If American schools are so bad, why is our economy doing so well?

With the wisdom of hindsight, it is clear that the link between educational excellence and economic security is not as simple as “A Nation at Risk” made it seem. By the mid-1980s, policymakers in Japan, South Korea and Singapore were already beginning to complain that their educational systems focused too much on rote learning and memorization. They continue to envy American schools because they teach creativity and the problem-solving skills critical to prospering in the global economy.

Indeed, a consensus seems to be emerging among educational experts around the world that American schools operate within the context of an enabling environment — an open economy, strong legal and banking systems, an entrepreneurial culture — conducive to economic progress.

To put it bluntly, American students may not know as much as their counterparts around the Pacific Rim, but our society allows them to make better use of what they do know. The question now is whether this historic advantage will suffice at a time when knowledge of math, science and technology is becoming increasingly critical. Maybe we need both the enabling environment and more rigor in these areas.

But while the theory behind “A Nation at Risk” may no longer hold (mediocre education inevitably leads to a weak economy), the report’s desperate language may be more justified than ever, for American education is in turmoil.

Most troubling now are the numbers on educational attainment. One reason that the American economy was so dominant throughout the 20th century is that we provided more education to more citizens than other industrialized countries. “A Nation at Risk” noted with pride that American schools “now graduate 75 percent of our young people from high school.”

That figure has now dropped to less than 70 percent, and the United States, which used to lead the world in sending high school graduates on to higher education, has declined to fifth in the proportion of young adults who participate in higher education and is 16th out of 27 industrialized countries in the proportion who complete college, according to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

The striking thing about the performance of American students on international comparisons is not that, on average, they are in the middle of the pack — which was also true in 1983 — but that we have a disproportionate share of low-performing students. We are failing to provide nearly one-third of our young people with even the minimal education required to be functioning citizens and workers in a global economy.

This is particularly distressing news at a time when the baby boomers are aging and a growing proportion of the future work force comes from groups — members of ethnic and racial minorities, students from low-income families, recent immigrants — that have been ill served by our education system. The challenge today is to build access as well as excellence. That’s the new definition of “a nation a risk” — and ample reason for a new commission to awaken the nation to the need to educate all our young people.

Tel:  +94 (11) 269 1228 / 268 4845
Fax:  +94 (11) 268 6843
www.lawandsocietytrust.org

LST FORUM

New Education Act:

Issues and ProposedRecommendations

By

Dr. SujataGamage

Coordintor, EducationForum

Director, KnowledgeNetworks

LIRNEasia

Thurs 24 April

5pm @

3, KynseyTerrace

Colombo08

RSVP Janaki 2691228/2684845 Emaillst@eureka.lk

From Article by Bruce Sheerin, Ministry of Education, New Zealand

(http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=1756152/cl=13/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/wppdf?file=5kzr6wrctk9p.pdf)

The government of New Zealand delegates property expenditure decisions to each individual school. Such a decentralised environment creates a challenge for school boards and principals to obtain advice on the complex issues around designing schools. To inform schools, the Ministry of Education provides numerous publications related to design and selected best practice samples via its website.

Local decision making

New Zealand schools have been responsible for their own maintenance since 1989 and for all their school property decisions since 2000. Each school’s board of trustees (largely made up of elected parent representatives) is funded via a five-year budget to carry out its own maintenance, additions and refurbishments. The belief is that those who are closest to where education takes place are best placed to create the optimum environments for their students and teachers. When a new school is to be built, the Ministry of Education sets up an establishment board of trustees to work with a designer, a project manager and a construction company. They ensure that the new school meets the needs of the curriculum, quality teaching and the community. The ministry does not determine the shape or form of the school design other than to assure that there are sufficient numbers of teaching rooms and that the project falls within the budget. Informing schools Publications The ministry offers a series of publications to guide schools in their decision making on interior design, acoustics, heating and insulation, lighting, ventilation, and air quality. Much of this material is based on research undertaken by the Building Research Association of New Zealand Ltd. and on surveys of school trustees, principals, teachers and students about their expectations for top quality teaching and learning environments2 (www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/classroomdesignsurvey). Designing Quality Learning Spaces is a detailed and highly graphic publication targeted to board members, principals and teachers. It offers them a better understanding of the important factors in school design and helps them ensure their designers deliver high quality environments. The document assists school leaders in making informed decisions, based on current research, in order to provide their teachers and students with learning environments that are comfortable, healthy, and designed for the best possible teaching and learning. The publication is set out on the website as five separate PDF files for easy downloading (www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/DesigningLearningSpaces).

Source:

New Zealand: Modernising Schools in a Decentralised Environment

ISSN 1609-7548

New Zealand: Modernising Schools in a Decentralised Environment

PEB Exchange 2008/2

© OECD 2008

PUBLIC schools in NSW will be free to hire their own teachers under changes announced yesterday, but the union has threatened to fight the move.

Education Minister John Della Bosca said all government schools would have the option of advertising openly to fill vacancies.

Schools would still have the choice of asking the Education Department to appoint a teacher, as occurs in the current system. But from the second term in 2010, principals will no longer be obliged to accept the teacher at the top of the department’s transfer list.

Selection panels for the vacancies will comprise the principal, a teacher nominated by staff and representatives from the wider school community, such as the PC.

Research fellow with the Centre for Independent Studies Jennifer Buckingham said the changes brought NSW in line with South Australia and Western Australia, and closer to the fully autonomous system in Victoria, where principals have the power to hire and fire and run their own budget.

But the NSW Teachers Federation signalled industrial action to fight the move, which it said would abolish the supply line of teachers into disadvantaged areas and was the first step in dismantling centralised control over schools.

In a briefing on the changes sent to teachers yesterday, the director-general of the Education Department, Michael Coutts-Trotter, also said incentives to attract staff to rural schools would be reviewed and additional incentives developed to encourage staff to move to where they were most needed.

He said schools had no say in about 90 per cent of classroom teacher appointments. “Only three in every 100 classroom teaching positions are open to all qualified teachers,” he said.

The system of priority placements would remain to cater for teachers wanting to move out of so-called hardship postings.

But senior vice-president of the NSW Teachers Federation Gary Zadkovich said schools did not compete on an equal footing in their ability to hire staff.

“We don’t have a level playing field when it comes to schools and their ability to recruit and retain teachers and we’re now looking at the effective dismantling of the statewide transfer system,” he said.

“That system provides security of employment … and also ensures teachers are supplied to schools in western Sydney and country areas where teachers are less likely to want to work.”

Mr Zadkovich said it was highly likely a range of political and industrial action would be taken against the measure.

A spokesman for Mr Della Bosca said the system was already being used in regional NSW and southwest Sydney and had attracted a good response to job ads, with as many as 30 applicants for one job in some cases.
Story Tools

limestone countertops at lowest prices test

Notice of Public Meeting

on

Recommendations for a New Education Act

February 18, Monday, 2008, 3p – 5p

Sri Lanka Foundation Institute

Sri Lanka Education Forum has been hosting a series of meetings to identify areas of agreement among civil society organizations regarding recommendations for a New Education Act to the Ministry of Education’s Committee to Draft a New Education Act. The final meeting in the series is to be held on February 18, 2008, Monday, 3pm to 5pm at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute.

The Education Forum is a group of professional, academic, corporate and civil society individuals and organizations representing teachers, principals, past pupils, educationists, entrepreneurs and well-wishers in education. The participants are bound by their common desire to develop, support and sustain a system of education that contributes to cultural, social and economic growth while ensuring freedom of choice and equality of opportunity to all.

Sujata N Gamage PhD MPA

Coordinator

Education Forum

V 011-4979795 0r 0770774-8470

F 011-277-5212

E sujatagamage@yahoo.com

www.educationforum.lk

Following is a summary of discussions so far.

January 24

RMB Senanayake (Economist); Tissa amarakoon, WA Upali Alwis, Y. Madavan (North Colombo Community Organization);  and Gamini Jayakody ((School Development Committee, Kotahena),); HM Dayananda (Principal, Kotahena Kanishta Vidyalaya); K Shanmugalingam (Viluthu); Nishantha Kamaldasa (Distance Education Center, SLIDA); Amal Siriwardena, Sujata gamage

January 31

RMB Senanayake, AMRB Amarakoon, Savimon Urugodawatte; Luxman Siriwardean, Sudath Ransinghe and Joseph Stalin; Sterling Perera, Amal Siriwardena, Sujata Gamage

February 07

Gamini Jayakody (School Development Committee, Kotahena), Nisha Arunatilake (Economist); Amal Siriwardena, Sujata Gamage

Decisions to Date

§  Prepare a preamble

§  Compile all past Legislation, Circulars and Policy Papers and make those available to all interested parties

§  Compile also the proposals from the members of the Forum

o   Mr. Gamini Jayakody  will prepare recommendations from a school development committee perspective

o   Mr. Daya\nanda will send the viewpoints of the Association of Princiapls  that he represents

o   Mr. Joseph Stalin will forward the recommendations from the Lanka Guru Sangamaya

o   Madhya Viyalleya AAdi Shisya Samagamaya and Viluthu  have already sent their proposals

o   English education should begin from Grade I (Gamini Jayakody)

o   If for some reason a private school were to close there should be safeguards for the parents and students (Nisha Arunatilaka)

o   Ms. Inoka will compile all the materials and idea

§  Prepare a draft set of proposals that may be submitted as a consensus document from the Forum

Harsha Aturupane

On the Directions of His Excellency the President, the Minister of Education, Hon. Susil Premajayantha has appointed a National Committee under the chairmanship of Dr G. B. Gunawardena and comprising panel of eminent scholars in the field of Education to inquire into the Education Ordinance No.31 of 1939 and its amendments, identify aspects appropriate for the present and formulate a New Act for General Education in Sri Lanka.

Accordingly, the Committee has commenced its activities on formulating a new Education Act.

As education has turned out to be the principal factor that affects the human resource development in the modern world and as persons from multifarious levels contributing to it cover entire society, the committee accepts that ideas and suggestions submitted by the general public and various institutions and organizations are of paramount importance in connection with this task. The knowledge base accumulated through a broad forum such as this, would help establish a more pragmatic and viable legal Framework for the future education in the country.

Having taken into consideration the above facts, the Committee has decided to hear and draw ideas and opinions from the public as well as various organizations and institutions.

Therefore, the Committee hereby calls upon institutions, organizations, various stakeholders, in the field of education and general public to forward their ideas on the contents of the proposed Act under the following sections related to education.

Section identified for the submission of ideas and suggestions:

1. Guiding Principles

• Rights, Duties and Privileges, and Equal opportunities
• Education for all
• Full development of Sri Lankans in all aspects
• Learning process
• Unity in policy and decentralization of Authority
• Professional Standards of Teachers and other Educational Personnel
• Resources – Sources and utilization
• Differently abled children
• Free and Compulsory Education
• Parent’s Role and their duties
• State and Education – Provision by Private Sector
• Involvement of Non Government Organizations in Education
• Community and School Education
• Medium of instruction, Teaching of Religion

2. Education System – Structure and Process

• Central Authority, Provincial Authority and Statutory Bodies (13^th Amendment to the Constitution)
• Formal and Non formal Education, Types of institutions
• State, Private and International Schools. Structure andClassification.
  Admission and Attendance, Class structure, school hours and terms
• Compulsory Education
• Curriculum (development, implementation and monitoring)
• Co-curricular Activities and Ancillary Services
• Discipline
• Levels of Education
• Pre Schools
• Guidance and Counseling

3. Education Management, Leadership and Supervision
and Evaluation

• Acquisition and Vesting of Property
• Provision of Facilities to Schools and School Premises
• Offenses and Penalties
• Community Participation – School Boards and SBM
• Education Publication and Textbooks
• Professional Councils
• Preparation and Implementation of Plans

4. Education Standard and Quality Assurance

• Quality Assurance System – Internal and External
• Examination and SBA
• Quality Assessment of Institutions Educational Office and Personnel.
• Performance Appraisal

5. Teachers and Other Education Personnel

• Organization to set standards
• Recruitment/ Deployment/ Professional Development/ Code of Ethics
• Supervision, Remuneration, Welfare

6. Financing Education and Provision of Resources

• Providers and Partners
• Mobilization of Resources – Disbursement and Allocations
• Aid – Foreign and Local
• Loans and Grants
• System of Auditing

7. Provision as to Orders and Schemes – Regulations

• Power of Minister
• Advisory Boards (National and Provincial)

The Committee may invite the individuals or organizations who have made their submissions in writing on the aforementioned areas, if deemed necessary.

The written submissions can be mailed, e-mailed or sent by fax before 20 February 2008 to the following addresses. Please write ‘Proposals for a new Education Act’ on the top left hand corner of the envelope of the mailed document.

Email : senec@slt.lk
Fax : 2816178
Web site : http//www.nec.gov.lk

O. W. Ranjith Premasiri
Secretary
National Committee for drafter the New Education Act,
126, Nawala Road,

Nugegoda.

In South Asia, Sri Lanka join the ranks of Bangladesh and Burma as countries whose school leaver exams are not recognized by  NUS. American high school diplomas are not recognized by NUS either but the high school diploma in America is not meant to be a  universal university entrance qualification.

In Sri Lanka students are coached from primary school to take on increasingly academic examinations the culmination of which is the GCE (A/L). If an Asian institution such as NUS can not recognize that exam, it is a sign that the Sri Lanka GCE (A/L) has some serious problems.

The Education Forum would like to do a comparative assessment using the recognition of the Sri Lanka GCE (A/L) by other international ranked universities. If any of you who applied for a foreign university had the experience of having to do additional examinations (other than for English) please let this forum know so that we get a better idea of the problem before we go full steam.

Not so with the National schools or private schools.

There are about 210,000 kids attending schools in Colombo. Of these roughly two thirds or 140,000 attend National schools or Private schools (See lists below).

According one estimate about 28,000 kids are shipped into Colombo from the Kaduwela area alone. It is very likely that most of the 140,000 or so kids attending private or national schools are shipped from suburbs of Colombo or places from along the roads to Colombo from Kandy, Negombo, Panadura or Athurugiriya. A modest estimate is at least 100,000.

Why do we who live in Colombo have to put up with the pollution and congestion caused by kids from outside of Colombo? Who allowed this crazy situation happen? Was not there a process to approve these schools? Should not new schools have been required to locate outside of Colombo, if they could not demonstrate that their intake is mostly from Colombo?

MAHANAMA COLLEGE. 3940
THURSTAN COLLEGE. 2530
HINDU COLLEGE. 4215
MUSLIM LADIES COLLEGE. 3372
RAMANATHAN HINDU LADIES C. 1830
ST.PAUL’S GIRLS SCHOOL. 3164
ISIPATHANA V. 4556
VISAKHA V. 4255
D.S.SENANAYAKE COLLEGE. 5619
SIRIMAVO BANDARANAYAKE B.V. 3220
DEVI BALIKA VIDYALAYA. 2320
ROYAL COLLEGE. 8149
ANANDA B.M.V. 2052
ANANDA COLLEGE. 5648
GOTHAMI B.M.V. 2862
NALANDA COLLEGE. 4444
HAMEED-AL-HUSSENIE M.V. 3010
KOTAHENA C.C. 749
VIVEKANANDA M.V. 2848
68783

Alethea International School
Amal International School
Asian International School
Belvoir College International
Buddhist Ladies College International
College Of World Education
Colombo International School
Colombo South International School
Elizabeth Moir School
Gateway College
Highlands College
Ikra International School
Ilma International School
J.M.C. International School
Leighton Park International School
Lyceum International School
Overseas School of Colombo
Oxford College International
Rotary International School
Royal Institute
St. Nicholas’ International College
Stafford International School
The British School In Colombo
Willesden College International
Wycherley International School
Bishops College
St.Peters College
Chithra Lane School for the Special
Saiva Mangaiyar Vidyalayam
St.Lawrence School
Buddhist Ladies College
Ladies College
Musaeus College
St.Bridgets Convent
Carey College
St.Aloysius Seminary School
Wesley College
St.Josephs College
Zahira College
Good Shephered Convent
St.Benedicts College