Search results

The recent outbreak of Coronavirus disease has caused significant disruptions around the world. The global pandemic severely affects the education sector. However, amid the crisis, educators are resilient and resourceful and develop innovative ideas and learning designs to engage the students as much as possible. Educators in the special and inclusive education sector face more challenges due to the nature of students. The effective use of technology and mindset are the keys to success in this endeavour. This chapter discusses the institutional policies, good practices and practical ideas to overcome the difficulties in inclusive and special education students.

This chapter identifies that distributed leadership is about sharing power for political pluralism. Distributed leadership has a comprehensive commitment to bringing different groups with different interests, different languages and dialects, different knowledge bases, different metaphysical knowledge and different religions, or no religion, together through provisional agreement on key principals of political pluralism. Marginalised groups may not feel like they belong and may be vulnerable to ideologies that give them a sense of being disconnected from community. Such a position stands as a barrier to political pluralism and shared world views. The situation might be ignored in schools because developing political liberalism through participatory, evidence-informed leadership that is logical, moral and ethical requires time, and agents need to be prepared for such identity work. However, the problem cannot be ignored if community members seek to belong with risky gangs, and are vulnerable to radicalisation, which is very dangerous for them and for their communities. Empowering others may be achieved by developing their capability to ask good questions, and apply collaborative critical thinking for solving social and personal problems. Such empowerment requires shifts from hierarchical teaching of standardised knowledge that is right or wrong to doing the right thing as mature citizens in becoming. The chapter also identifies that it cannot be assumed that leaders are willing or able to distribute leadership, or that doing so would be a panacea for navigating the turbulence faced by their schools to empower societal innovators for equity and renewal. Rather, we concur with Leithwood et al. (2008) who advocate for a thoughtful and purposeful approach to developing leadership for school improvement.

Parts of a recent (1989) Educational Testing Service publication are reprinted here: a report of a comparative survey (by tests) of mathematics and science education among 13‐year‐olds in Canada, Ireland, Korea, Spain, the UK and the USA.

This essay makes the point that the corona crisis should motivate business schools and scholars to reflect on their interpretation of responsible management education (RME). It suggests both a conceptual and a practice renewal of RME, by respectively highlighting the relevance of the constructs organizational climate (OC) and professorial roles (PR) and calling for an enactment of business schools’ employer responsibility. It also argues that beyond mere techno-pedagogical and strategic developments, business schools’ post-pandemic challenges should encompass a narrative change.

Review of recent studies on the neo-liberalization of business schools and the implications of the latter on management educators and management education.

The corona crisis carries the risk of putting center stage and amplifying the entrepreneurial narrative in business schools. Such a narrative is deeply rooted in neoliberal assumptions. However, the corona crisis is also an opportunity to renew RME and to favour critical studies, encourage moral imagination and embark collectively on systemic activism.

Like other recent work, this paper reflects on what RME should mean and how business schools should set and fulfill their RME agenda in the aftermath of the corona crisis. To complement those former work, this paper proposes that the constructs of OC and PR be invited into the conceptualization of RME and insists that business schools acknowledge their employer responsibility.

The professional challenge the chapter addresses is Black, Asian Minority Ethnic Chief Executive Officers (BAME CEOs) who lead Multi-academy Trusts (MATs) in England need to navigate turbulence to assure all schools within their MATs are high performing. In the investigation of this issue, the structures of MATs themselves emerge as causing turbulence. Evidence revealed the BAME CEOs with track records of improving failing schools to outstanding schools interviewed in this research are working in partnership with their communities. These BAME CEOs sustain their high achieving MATs and/or take on more schools that need improving and lead their change to outstanding schools with BAME communities, non-BAME communities and diverse communities. However, they were not given the opportunities to build capacity for high-performing schools by the current MAT structures. Rapid change to the organisation of Public Education Governance Systems has shifted power from local authority governance to public corporation governance without addressing any of the old problems in the change (Brighouse, 2017). The rapid change has led to a clash of cultures between those with the values of generic Public Governance Systems who have not been democratically elected by the public and do not require professional educational credentials, a track record of being ethical teachers, and a track record of leading ethical teachers in ethical communities in school improvement from ‘Needs Improvement’ to ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. The rapid change has been hallmarked by a lack of full and free interactions and cooperation of the public in how the change in public education is being implemented. There has been no referendum on whether parents want their schools organised by their representatives they have elected in local councils or organised by public corporations financed by Private Finance Incentive (PFI) and Private Finance 2 (PF2) and operated by public corporations like Carillion.

This paper aims to examine the variety of approaches to curriculum development for enterprise education developed for schools, further, and higher education under an Entrepreneurship Action Plan in Wales and to consider the sustainability issues for delivery in these sectors.

This investigation adopted a case study approach that obtained post‐development information obtained from stakeholders in curriculum development in the three sectors based on semi‐structured interviews. The paper presents an analysis of the curriculum development initiatives in schools, further and higher education based on a three‐stage categorisation model: inspiration, information and implementation and activities involving cross‐sector approaches.

Stakeholders generally provided positive feedback toward the curriculum development material from each sector. Curriculum development applied to fostering enterprising qualities and practical support produced a broad span of diverse actions across Wales covering inspiring, information and implementation. There are consistent threads in enterprise content of attitude, creativity, relationships and organisation. Curriculum content needs to be maintained and updated in a sustainable way and a sustainability framework is proposed together with a set of recommendations for each sector.

Suggestions on how to further strengthen and develop the sustainability of enterprise education programmes are provided for the three sectors: schools, further, and higher education, for example, through centralised curriculum support, the extension of credit‐based courses and structured staff development for stakeholders.

Enterprise education is acknowledged to have an influence on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of students and can contribute to entrepreneurship. Curriculum development in enterprise education enables educational institutions to stimulate interest of students and to foster entrepreneurial qualities among potential entrepreneurs in society. Approaches to curriculum development for three educational sectors are examined, categorised and recommendations advanced for sustaining such enterprise education programmes over an extended period of time.