Now days the deterioration of quality of education is becoming a global concern, mainly in the developing world. Is it due to poor financing, educational management, curriculum content, or a combination of these. Hence, given the limited resource that can be availed, which area should be given top priority: incentivizing teachers, improving education sector infrastructure, improving curriculum.
Interesting, I would suggest a bottom up approach as adopted by the Malaysian government in planning and realigning the nation's education system. Information and views were collected from all stakeholders through what they call "lab sessions", "town hall meetings", interviews etc. before concluding with a blueprint that would guide the nation's education movement. The document is now an important reference for any decisions regarding education. In a sense, the document could be said as reflective to the needs and demands of the society.
If interested, you could download the blueprint here:
https://www.moe.gov.my/images/dasar-kpm/articlefile_file_003108.pdf
i will suggest that a significant amount should be allocated to the educational coffers and these investment should be linked to creating employment for the citizens. In this way it will be justifiable.
With the increasing massification of HE, the question of quantity versus quality as regards funding has never been more topical, many of which we addressed in our recent Special Issue of AISHE-J entitled 'Higher Education, Inclusivity and Organisational Change'
Article Higher Education, Inclusivity and Organisational Change *
I think government education departments would be well advised to study countries where an educational system actually works (i.e. look at their dropout statistics for a start, then their results). The best of these follow proven educational principles and modern research into teaching and learning, to benefit all their young (e.g. Finland). How do they allocate their budgets? The money presently spent annually by neoliberal governments on educationally damaging and narrow-scoped standardised tests (e.g. NAPLAN, costing about $40 Aus per child) is money wasted. The results best suit the future agendas of the privileged/ tax-paying voting public, not every child! Those millions would be far more widely beneficial to the student population if redirected into classroom resources, family education, vast IT improvements and teacher support and training, most especially in disadvantaged schools (less tax-payers and voters in the parent body). Such an investment might create more opportunities for local employment and income generation. Short-termed and short-sighted governments short change us all. We need to elect those who will project their thinking forward to the benefits of a more equitable and beneficial education system. Go to Mitchell Institute reports, and The Centre for Independent Studies for reports on education in Australia, on Google.
Governments when deciding to allocate budgets for their education sector as for example 5% of their GDP are required to seek for the correlations of qualified graduates and their nature of work employment as an aggregate basis.
Hi!
I vote for more access to education - an individuals time and place conditions should not be allowed to limit access to education (especially I am thinking of older and untraditional students, second-chance learners.) We have today ICT as a mean to even out time and place obstacles - but it is not happening everywhere at the same pace. In accessibility we also have to consider individual students level of self-confidence, motivation and social context - we cannot just offer MOOCs either - many will then fail.
We certainly hope that teaching can lead to *behavioral* changes in "learners." For example, teacher educators hope that prospective teachers' practices will be more aligned with evidence-based theories and ideas. In teacher education, we still find that early teachers are highly influenced by their own formative experiences in classrooms as K-12 learners, but some transfer of behaviors studied in their teacher preparation programs can be expected. A couple of things that helps these particular "learners" (prospective teachers) are: teaching for transfer and practice-based assessment.
The question sub themes/questions were: incentivising teachers, improving the education sector infrastructure, and the curriculum
If a governmnet has the financial and social stability (if war, civil or otherwise, is going on education will defintiely take a back seat) than the best thing a government can do is to offer a good, really good, infrastructure.
Once this is in place teachers will become incentivised by feeling appreciated. The curriculum is best left for the teachers to figure out. Autonomy is a major workforce motivator.
- Badges
- Science topic