1. In an ideal world, how do you think education should be organised?
In an ideal world communities would organise their own education. The central government might fund, or perhaps local councils, but central government would define the nature of the qualifications that students could attain based on principles student relevance, not some archaic idea of cultural need.
Communities could decide curricula, teaching principles (as opposed to evaluation criteria) and priorities for funding. Teachers, parents and students would all be part of the decisions.
2. What priorities do you think it should reflect? and who should be responsible for ensuring that it is of a good quality?
A priority should be made for students to be democratised to be the citizens of tomorrow and not just the consumers of today. They would need to be educated with the skills and knowledge needed to lead a more open, convivial and collaborative society. (It is an ideal world after all).
3. Is there anything from the padlet wall that has informed your position?
The post about the problems between unions and the Government of Mexico resonated with me. Firstly because it paralleled arguments about teacher evaluation in Stephen Balls’ article Secondly because it relates to our Registered Teachers’ Criteria used here in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The ideas propounded by Balls in the reading were very interesting and reminded me of Ivan Illich in “De-schooling Society” and, to some extent, “Tools for Conviviality”. I liked the idea of a collaborative service to communities and it as from there I got the idea of teacher principles not criteria as referred to above.
I am keen to read more in this area.