<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Jonesieblog - Latest Comments in When were schools ever ideal?</title><link>http://jonesieboy.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://jonesieboy.disqus.com/when_were_schools_ever_ideal/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:16:10 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: When were schools ever ideal?</title><link>http://www.jonesieboy.co.uk/blog/2008/11/26/when-were-schools-ever-ideal/#comment-4030761</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Do we have evidence that setting increases social inequality?  My gut feeling is that it can't help, but I haven't seen any research on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have you read "Disrupting Class"?  I think I'll read "The Innovator's Dilemma" now, since I found Christensen's analysis of the challenges facing innovators (which echo closely what you are saying, and which he expounds in "The Innovator's Dilemma") much more interesting than the specific remedies which he suggests in "Disrupting Class".&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonesieboy</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:16:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: When were schools ever ideal?</title><link>http://www.jonesieboy.co.uk/blog/2008/11/26/when-were-schools-ever-ideal/#comment-4030501</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The difference now, perhaps, is that we actually know what needs to change, and why. We know that setting is a contributory factor, for example. We know that preoccupation with exam results is a factor, for example because it can lead to us putting our best teachers in front of the most able students.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The dynamics of the system are such, though, that these choices are locally rational for the decision-makers involved, despite being irrational in terms of the whole system.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The more I learn about this stuff, though, the more I can see how the antibodies move in to attack any new ideas that might pose a threat to the status quo; many people are happy with things just the way they are.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most important thing about Curriculum for Excellence is that offers an opportunity to make improvements. Which brings us neatly back to the antibodies...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">David Gilmour</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:54:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: When were schools ever ideal?</title><link>http://www.jonesieboy.co.uk/blog/2008/11/26/when-were-schools-ever-ideal/#comment-4030043</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's a relief.  I wasn't sure how this post would go down.  Most of the conversation about this post has happened on Twitter, btw&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonesieboy</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:23:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: When were schools ever ideal?</title><link>http://www.jonesieboy.co.uk/blog/2008/11/26/when-were-schools-ever-ideal/#comment-4029657</link><description>&lt;p&gt;A nail hit firmly upon its head, Robert!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">JConnell</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:55:53 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>