"A Reply to Nagel and Ladwig:" Education as a Domain of Information Cost

Autor/inn/en	Loomis, Steven; Rodriguez, Jacob; Tillman, Rachel; Gunderson, John
Titel	"A Reply to Nagel and Ladwig:" Education as a Domain of Information Cost
Quelle	In: Teaching Education, 19 (2008) 1, S.17-20 (4 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1047-6210
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Global Approach; Teacher Education Programs; Schools of Education; Educational Environment; Educational Trends; Educational Philosophy; Educational Principles; Economic Factors; Educational Policy; Influence of Technology; Institutional Environment; Organizational Culture; Educational Theories; Access to Information; Government Role; Government School Relationship; Knowledge Base for Teaching; Accreditation (Institutions); Curriculum Development; Teacher Education Curriculum; Role of Education; Information Networks + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Globales Denken; Erziehungswissenschaftliche Fakultät; Lernumgebung; Pädagogische Umwelt; Schulumwelt; Bildungsentwicklung; Bildungsphilosophie; Erziehungsphilosophie; Bildungsprinzip; Ökonomischer Faktor; Politics of education; Bildungspolitik; Unternehmenskultur; Educational theory; Theory of education; Bildungstheorie; Teaching theory; Theory of teaching; Unterrichtstheorie; Accreditation; Institution; Institutions; Akkreditierung; Staatliche Anerkennung; Institut; Curriculum; Development; Curriculumentwicklung; Lehrplan; Entwicklung; Bildungsauftrag; Informationsnetz
Abstract	In this article, the authors reply to the arguments of Professors Nagel and Ladwig on the article "The logic of convergence and uniformity in teacher production". Professor Ladwig's review of their article is particularly valuable in two respects. First, it highlights the need for an institutional level of analysis to explain fully and inform education policy. And second, it allows them to comment about some important changes that have taken place in the flow of institutional thought over the past few decades. However, as the authors turn to Professor Ladwig's response, they must point out two weaknesses in his method of argument. Ladwig appears to initiate a straw man when he links the clause "economic hook, line and sinker" to the motive to attract adherents to their institutional argument. It is true that the authors seek to advance a fresh lens of analysis, which is the purpose of their writing, yet he does not work very hard to narrow the meaning of the term "economic", merely assigning to them a much narrower view than they actually hold. On the other hand, Professor Nagel's critique makes three points: (1) a program-accrediting agency compatibility argument; (2) an advocacy of "backward planning"; and (3) a comment on programmatic "renting". The authors deal with each in staccato fashion. (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10