Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
The study “Why Do We Find These Effects? An Examination of Mediating Pathways Explaining the Effects of School Turnaround” by Pham has been cited in Sims’ report on school improvement for its examination of the Innovation Zone (iZone) model in Shelby County, which focused on teacher collaboration and learning environment. Peps McCrea also referenced these findings via Sims’ report, highlighting the importance of “recruiting and retaining effective teachers (and replacing ineffective teachers).”While Pham’s study shows significant improvements in student outcomes in iZone schools, these gains are not mirrored in non-iZone schools. This selective impact raises concerns about the broader applicability and equity of the reforms. The recruitment of effective teachers for iZone schools likely led to a depletion of such teachers in non-iZone schools, exacerbating disparities within the district. The study lacks detailed information on where displaced teachers went and how it impacted non-iZone schools, a critical gap in understanding the overall effects.Moreover, there is no comprehensive analysis of overall student outcomes across the entire Shelby County School system, making it difficult to assess the full impact of the iZone reforms. If there was no overall improvement or a decline in student outcomes across the district, this questions the initiative’s success. The focus on specific priority schools limits the generalisability of the findings and fails to consider the broader system-wide impact.A further issue with Pham’s study appears to be its reliance on self-reported survey data for measuring peer collaboration and learning environment, which introduces potential biases. Incorporating more objective measures or additional qualitative insights could have strengthened the validity of these findings.While Pham’s study provides potential insights into the pathways of successful school turnaround efforts, the concerns about selective impact, sustainability, and broader system-wide implications makes it questionable whether the study provides the evidence Sims and McCrea appear to claim it does. Addressing these issues can help design more effective and equitable educational reforms.None of this should discourage anyone from reading McCrea, Sims or Pham. McCrea in particular, who I’ve read more widely, is a highly compelling thinker and writer about education.
To view or add a comment, sign in
More Relevant Posts
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
The INSLM’s proposed reforms to Australia’s secrecy laws are widely supported as necessary and overdue improvements. However, potential weaknesses must be considered to ensure a balanced perspective.Operational Flexibility: Reduced Response AgilityRemoving reliance on internal policy frameworks may hinder rapid adaptation to emerging threats. For example, the Snowden disclosures required quick policy changes in the US. Without such flexibility, Australia’s response to situations like the 2009 Holsworthy Army Barracks plot, which required swift operational changes, could be hampered under a more rigid framework.Comprehensive Coverage: Potential LoopholesNarrowing deemed harm offences could create gaps in protection. The NSA surveillance scandal in Germany showed how specific legal protections can fail, leading to significant security breaches. Locally, Operation Ironside in 2021 successfully used broad secrecy laws to conduct widespread surveillance on organised crime. A more specific approach might miss critical elements of such operations, weakening overall effectiveness.Deterrent Effect: Reduced Threat of ProsecutionIncreasing thresholds for liability, especially for non-officials like journalists, might lessen the deterrent effect of secrecy laws. The Jeffrey Delisle case in Canada, where a naval officer sold classified information to Russia despite stringent laws, illustrates how perceived leniency can encourage unauthorised disclosures. In Australia, cases like Witness K and Bernard Collaery show that broad laws serve as a strong deterrent against leaks. Narrowing these laws could lead to an increase in unauthorised disclosures, undermining national security efforts.The momentum behind these reforms is strong, reflecting a consensus on their necessity. However, it is crucial to monitor potential weak areas to ensure the new framework protects Australia’s national security as effectively, or hopefully better, than the current one. Recognising and addressing these potential weaknesses will help achieve the intended goals without unintended consequences. By being alert to these issues, we can ensure the reforms bolster, rather than compromise, national security.For an excellent discussion between the INSLM report author, Jake Blight, and National Security Podcast host Danielle Piper, here: https://lnkd.in/gZzd6Sn3.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
McClean’s blog post argues that educational debates are often polarised, illustrated through two types of education consultants. While she effectively discusses the need for balance between rigidity and flexibility in educational practices, she uses a polarising dichotomy that oversimplifies the roles of stakeholders in education. This should not overshadow the post’s strengths, particularly its insights on balancing “too tight” and “too loose” approaches, the broader applicability of educational research, and the complex roles of internal actors within schools.The post highlights the challenges school leaders face in balancing prescriptive and flexible approaches to teaching and learning. It empathetically describes the difficulties of leading change and academic improvement, recognising the need to empower teachers while maintaining consistent standards.The irony lies in the potential for the post’s argument to reinforce polarised thinking. Effective education requires balancing firm evidence-based practices with adaptability to specific contexts. The challenge is applying educational research to diverse and complex settings. Educators and policymakers must navigate between being firm on evidence-based practices and being adaptable to specific needs, translating research into practical strategies that work within each school’s unique context.Neither rigid adherence to a single method nor complete flexibility should be universally preferred. The best approach depends on the situation. Recognising the value of both approaches avoids oversimplification and polarisation.Acknowledging the complexities of applying educational research and the situational value of both firmness and flexibility can foster a more inclusive and reflective educational environment, addressing the challenges McClean seeks to critique.
2
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
Pezzullo’s article highlights the urgency for Australia to boost its defence against potential Indo-Pacific threats by 2030. This view aligns with voices like Blackburn and Borzycki, though they differ in approach, especially in decision-making and long-term planning.Pezzullo advocates for large-scale defence preparations, increasing spending to 5-6% of GDP, and significant government intervention, including a new ‘war book’. In contrast, Blackburn and Borzycki focus on strategic autonomy, transparency, and public engagement, promoting diversified partnerships and local industry boosts for independent capabilities.Pezzullo’s vision suggests a managed economy with government prioritising defence needs via subsidies, direct investment, and potentially nationalising key sectors. While such an approach may be necessary in wartime, market mechanisms driving innovation and competition are crucial in peacetime for efficient resource use and technological advancements.Expanding defence production requires shifting the workforce to defence sectors, potentially depleting skilled labour in civilian industries. Comprehensive retraining is essential to balance skilled workers between military and civilian needs, ensuring civilian sectors are not undermined.While Pezzullo’s ‘war book’ aligns with the need for clear strategic planning, Blackburn and Borzycki emphasise maintaining strategic autonomy. Partnerships like AUKUS should support but not dictate Australia’s defence strategy. Clear goals prioritising national interests foster an independent, resilient defence posture.Pezzullo’s proposed defence spending increase must balance with long-term economic health by diversifying investments to prevent strain. This means allocating resources not only to defence but also to emerging technologies, infrastructure, education, healthcare, ensuring a resilient economy supporting a strong defence posture without compromising stability.Developing domestic defence technologies and investing in local industries ensures self-reliance and reduces foreign dependence. This approach emphasises innovation and local industry within a balanced economic framework, distinct from Pezzullo’s managed economy.Clear strategic goals that prioritise national interests ensure AUKUS is supportive, not controlling. Expanding defence collaborations to include regional Indo-Pacific partners enhances cooperation. Investing in technologies like unmanned systems, AI, and cyber capabilities addresses emerging threats and fosters innovation. Open debates on major defence initiatives build public trust and support. Developing adaptable, long-term strategies that avoid over-reliance on single programs ensures readiness for diverse future scenarios.Pezzullo’s article underscores the need for heightened defence preparedness, still it is essential to consider broader societal and economic implications if Australia’s defence is to be effective and resilient.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
Horton’s article, “Safeguarding Australia’s Sensitive Academic Research,” argues that the AUKUS partnership enhances Australia’s strategic and technological capabilities but also exposes its academic institutions to greater risks of foreign espionage and intellectual property theft, particularly from China. Horton highlights the vulnerability of Australian universities, known for their open and collaborative research environments, making them targets for foreign actors, most notably the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).Horton cites several incidents within Australia in recent years, illustrating these risks. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has repeatedly warned about the threat of foreign interference in research sectors. He compares this with measures taken by the US and the UK, such as CFIUS and the National Security and Investment Act, to counter similar threats.Horton proposes several defensive measures, which you can read in his article.On the positive side, Horton’s proposals would likely strengthen the security posture of Australian academic institutions, mitigating risks of espionage and intellectual property theft through improved cybersecurity and vetting processes. These measures could also align Australia more closely with its allies, particularly the US and the UK, leading to enhanced cooperation and collective security efforts.However, if implemented, Horton’s proposals are likely to be perceived by Beijing as directly targeting China, leading to significant diplomatic tensions. China might respond with economic measures such as tariffs on exports, import restrictions, or other trade barriers, which could substantially impact sectors like agriculture, mining, and education in Australia. The proposed measures could also reduce research collaborations between Australian and Chinese institutions, diminishing joint projects and scientific advancements. Additionally, there might be a decline in Chinese student enrolment, impacting both the financial health and cultural diversity of Australian universities. Stringent vetting and extensive disclosure requirements could create an environment of suspicion, hindering academic freedom and potentially leading to discrimination against Chinese researchers and students.If Horton’s proposals are to be taken up, there needs to be a clear roadmap to deal with the likelihood of negative blowback from China. Balancing these considerations with the need to safeguard Australia’s research integrity will require a thoughtful and strategic approach.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
Bruns’ article critiques the Australian News Media Bargaining Code, suggesting it is flawed and likely to have negative outcomes, as seen in Canada when Meta banned news links. He proposes taxing digital platforms as a more stable and fair way to support journalism.Bruns argues that the News Media Bargaining Code is ineffective, pointing to Canada’s experience where Meta’s news ban significantly reduced traffic and revenue for news sites. He believes taxing digital platforms and using the revenue to support journalism would be better.A tax on digital platforms could provide stable funding for journalism and address revenue imbalances. However, implementing such a tax is complex. Determining the right tax rate and ensuring effective collection and enforcement require robust infrastructure, increasing administrative costs. Tech companies are likely to resist this just as much via legal challenges, lobbying, and ultimately passing the costs onto consumers. It may also reduce incentives for innovation and impact global competitiveness.Managing the tax revenue effectively is another challenge. Establishing clear criteria for public-interest journalism can lead to disagreements and perceptions of bias. Efficient fund management to avoid bureaucracy is crucial.International coordination will be a challenge. Digital platforms operate globally, and without consistent standards and enforcement across borders, companies might shift revenues to lower-tax jurisdictions. Achieving international consensus on taxation and regulation is difficult due to varying national interests. Countries with favourable tax environments may resist changes that could reduce their competitive edge. Effective coordination would require extensive diplomacy and cooperation, along with robust enforcement mechanisms.One startling statistic from this year’s Digital News Report Australia, quoted by Bruns, reveals that 68% of Australians actively avoid the news. Addressing this issue seems crucial for improving revenue streams for news organisations. It’s not just about making news more attractive but also about growing an audience interested in news. Engaging this disengaged majority will help create a more informed public and a sustainable business model for news organisations. However, if many people avoid news, getting public support for a tax on digital platforms will again be difficult.Bruns’ tax proposal offers a potential alternative to the News Media Bargaining Code but faces significant challenges. The complexity of enforcement, resistance from digital platforms, and potential impacts on innovation make it hard to implement effectively. Additionally, addressing news avoidance is crucial for creating a sustainable model for journalism. Encouraging innovation, supporting new business models, and balancing immediate financial support with long-term sustainability are essential for navigating this complex issue.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
Luke Gosling’s “Deterring at a Distance” (June 2024) justifies AUKUS by emphasising alliances with the U.S. and U.K., focusing on acquiring nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) to enhance defense against regional threats like China, and highlighting economic benefits such as job creation and technological advancements.Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO (Retd) and Group Captain Anne Borzycki (Retd) have criticised the lack of transparency leading up to the AUKUS agreement and the delay in providing a clear rationale. They argue that the absence of early, open discussion has undermined public trust and hindered informed debate on this significant strategic shift.In “Australia, a Complacent Nation Adrift in the South Pacific?” (June 2024), Blackburn and Borzycki argue for a more balanced approach that values alliances while boosting self-reliance and innovation. Based on their critique, the policy could be improved as follows:Suggested Improvements1. Enhanced Sovereign Capabilities: Prioritise developing Australian defense technologies. Increase investment in local industries to reduce reliance on foreign tech.2. Strategic Autonomy: Set clear strategic goals prioritising national interests. Ensure partnerships like AUKUS support, but don’t dictate, Australia’s defense strategy.3. Diversified Partnerships: Expand defense partnerships beyond the U.S. and U.K. Engage more with regional Indo-Pacific partners for broader cooperation.4. Innovative Defense Solutions: Invest in advanced technologies like unmanned systems, wAI, and cyber capabilities. Promote innovation to address emerging threats.5. Transparent Decision-Making: Ensure open, inclusive debate on major defense initiatives. Engage public and stakeholders to build broad support.6. Sustainable Long-Term Planning: Develop adaptable, long-term defense strategies. Avoid over-reliance on single programs or partnerships.These improvements, reflecting Blackburn and Borzycki’s critique, balance strong alliances with greater self-reliance and innovation in Australia’s defense strategy.Link to the Blackburn & Borzycki paper: https://lnkd.in/gCGb3pPJ.
1
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
“AI is the part of the meganet that looks most like a brain. But by themselves, deep-learning networks are brains without vision processing, speech centers, or an ability to grow or act.” – David AuerbachIt’s been a month since I ordered my hard copy of Auerbach’s book, so I went looking for an entrée. Auerbach stands out for his unique perspective on the intersection of technology, language, and societal impact, here offering a critical lens on how AI shapes our digital realities. In this excerpt from his book Meganets: How Digital Forces Beyond Our Control Commandeer Our Daily Lives and Inner Realities, Auerbach highlights AI’s struggles with the complexity and variability of human language, raising important questions for policymakers:1. If AI systems inherently bias towards simplicity, then how can we implement regulations to ensure transparency and accountability?2. If public understanding of AI’s limitations with language is crucial, then what initiatives can promote effective AI literacy?3. If AI systems’ biases are pervasive and unfixable, then what ethical guidelines and oversight mechanisms can mitigate these biases?4. If improving AI’s language understanding is essential, then what investments and research priorities should we focus on?5. If AI’s bias threatens linguistic heritage and diversity, then what measures can protect these cultural aspects?The suggested AI bias towards simplicity should alert us to its role in contributing to misinformation and miscommunication, as AI struggles with complex language contexts. It should alert us to how ethical and social biases are reinforced, perpetuating stereotypes and excluding nuanced perspectives. Additionally, AI-generated content may standardise communication, stifling creativity and expression. Arguably, this is where the leading-edge of communications policy-making lies when it come mitigating the risks of AI in the context of taking advantage of its benefits and developing its potential.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
A long paper but an essential read. It raises concerns about Australia’s current strategic complacency and reliance on powerful allies, particularly the United States. Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO (Retd) and Group Captain Anne Borzycki (Retd) argue for the necessity of developing independent strategic capabilities and enhancing defense preparedness. They also discuss the importance of understanding the rationale behind AUKUS, building resilience, investing in local defense industries, and strengthening regional engagement. These points are crucial for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to secure Australia’s national interests in an evolving geopolitical landscape.To adapt a quote from Machiavelli, ‘The wise nation does at once what the foolish one does finally’.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
-
Daniel Madden
Education & Policy Innovator | Evidence-Based Learning, Program Management, and Strategic Policy Development
- Report this post
Dibb and Brabbin-Smith effectively highlights Australia’s need for enhanced surveillance and military readiness. However, it would be strengthened by incorporating a broader perspective on hybrid threats and proactive measures.For example, including insights such as Dupont’s in “Ramp Up Defences Against Beijing’s Takeover by Stealth” (June 2023) is crucial. Dupont emphasised that China employs economic, financial and diplomatic coercion as part of its hybrid warfare strategy. These non-military threats should be integral to a comprehensive defense strategy.In “US-China Wage Cable War Deep Beneath Waves” (March 2023), Dupont further highlighted the importance of countering hybrid warfare. The subsea cable conflict, for instance, underscores the need to protect critical infrastructure from espionage and sabotage. Dupont states that the U.S. has thwarted Chinese projects abroad and choked Big Tech’s cable routes to Hong Kong due to espionage concerns. Addressing these dimensions would provide a more complete view of national security challenges.While the Dibb and Brabbin acknowledge alliances, how these partnerships can counter hybrid threats effectively needs an important place on the agenda. Dupont’s emphasis on proactive measures, such as imposing economic and diplomatic costs on aggressors and enhancing technological resilience, complements the Dibb and Brabbin’s focus on surveillance and military readiness. Dupont argues for comprehensive non-military responses to pressure adversaries into peaceful compliance.Being proactive, like Dupont suggests, may be the best early warning system because it ensures constant vigilance and readiness, allowing for immediate response to emerging threats.
Like CommentTo view or add a comment, sign in
12 followers
- 26 Posts
View Profile
FollowExplore topics
- Sales
- Marketing
- Business Administration
- HR Management
- Content Management
- Engineering
- Soft Skills
- See All