Representing rather rigid systems, schools can be considered the epitome of a standardized approach since the traditional school setting offers little opportunities for non-incremental innovation in teaching or technological frameworks. However, providing children who experience difficulties learning with additional opportunities for academic success is a vital step that can be made by incorporating a refreshingly new approach to learning. In their articles, Muhammad (2006) and Protheroe (2005) create a rather accurate portrayal of the school culture in an attempt at improving the academic environment and providing students with better learning opportunities. Despite the lack of direct examples of how the specified improvement can be made to a school setting by offering evidence of the proposed practice, both authors manage to offer a compelling argument about the current state of schools and the opportunities for improvement that they leave to educators.
The connection of the data culture promoted at schools to their performance and the efficacy of the teaching process is one of the doubtless benefits of both articles. Both Muhammad (2006) and Protheroe (2005) scrutinize the effects of data culture and, particularly, the introduction of IT governance and innovative control tools into the school setting, from a nuanced perspective. Namely, the authors dissect the unique characteristics of students’ learning process and explain how data culture can help to boost their ability to build relevant academic skills.
Furthermore, one should give the authors credit for embracing the varied nature of the problem at hand and considering the changes needed in the leadership framework as well. Specifically, Protheroe (2005) correctly points out that the insertion of IT tools and the related changes into the academic context without the due foundation is likely to face resistance among teachers and students alike. In turn, once a strategy for accepting the change is in place, the target population is likely to embrace the opportunities that the change in question offers and start applying them accordingly. Indeed, the changes in the leadership framework, to which schools can adjust by adopting digital tools for controlling the change and alleviating the outcomes, are crucial to the effective performance.
Arguably, the range of evidence that the authors of both articles and especially Muhammad (2006) use is slightly scarce. Indeed, referring to singular experiences, the authors do not provide a clear pattern of observations that have led to the conclusion of changing the governance framework toward an IT-driven one. Nevertheless, the arguments that the authors make represent a logically coordinated line of reasoning, which proves the necessity to incorporate IT tools into the governance of schools to inform better education management strategies and, thus, enhance the educational and administrative functions of schools.
Although there is the lack of evidence from academic practice introduced by the authors to support the ideas of IT governance as the means of improving the academic performance of learners, the general statement and the opinion expressed by the author remain compelling due to the multifaceted approach toward criticizing the situation. Specifically, with a nuanced assessment of why present-day schools experience difficulties in advancing the performance of their learners, the authors explain that deploying the principles of IT governance will also suggest altering the current leadership strategy and emphasizing the importance of progress. As a result, students are likely to recognize the role that incremental learning and innovation lay in building a coherent knowledge system and a varied skillset. Thus, both authors conclude that IT governance and the introduction of IT-based policies into the management of learners’ needs I central to effective performance of schools.
Muhammad, A. (2006). Do we believe that they can learn? National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 24(1), 14–20.
Protheroe, N. (2005). Leadership for school improvement. Principal, 84(4), 54-56.