|
|
|
|
Chapman, David
- Wallace Professor of Teaching and Learning
- University of Minnesota
- Department of Educational Policy and Administration
- United States
|
|
| David W. Chapman is a Wallace Professor of Teaching and Learning in the Department of Educational Policy and Administration at the University of Minnesota (USA) where he teaches in the graduate program in Comparative and International Development Education. He previously served as department chair and as coordinator of the educational administration program. His specialization is in international development assistance. His research has examined, among other things, the impact of national policy on school practice, the impact of teacher training on teachers’ classroom behavior, and the role of higher education in national development. He has worked on development assistance activities in over 45 countries and has authored or edited seven books and over 100 journal articles, many of them on issues related to the development of education systems in international settings. In 2001 he received the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development Distinguished Teaching Award.
Select Publications
- Chapman. D.W. and Mahlck L.O. (Editors). (May 2004). Adapting technology for school improvement: A global perspective. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
- Chapman, D.W. and Austin, A.E. (Editors) (April 2002). Higher Education in the Developing World, Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishers.
- Mulkeen, A., Chapman D.W., and DeJaegher, J. G (2005). Recruiting, Retraining and Retaining Secondary School Teachers and Principals in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development and The World Bank.
- Chapman, D.W. (2004). The Management of Higher Education in Oman, 2006-2020, Report prepared for the Council on Higher Education, Sultanate of Oman.
- Chapman, D.W., Weidman, J., Cohen, M. and Mercer, M. (2005).The search for quality: A five country study of national strategies to improve educational quality in Central Asia,International Journal of Educational Development, 25, 5, 514-530.
|
|
Expanding Postsecondary Education in Oman
Over the last 30 years, Oman has been one of the fastest growing higher education systems in the world, a growth financed mainly by national oil revenues. While oil revenues currently account for about 90% of the national budget, recent projections estimate that these oil reserves will be largely depleted within the next 15 years. In response, the Government of Oman has launched an aggressive campaign to further enlarge its education system in the belief that developing an alternative economy will depend heavily on a highly trained citizenry. With oil reserves already on the decline, there is serious concern about how to pay for this expansion. Moreover, even at the present rate of secondary-to-post secondary transition, secondary graduates are poorly prepared for the academic demands of higher education. The discrepancy between the graduation requirements of secondary schools, and the admissions requirements of Sultan Qaboos University ((SQU) the major public university in the country), are so substantial that over one-third of the undergraduate intake each year are required to undergo a one-year remediation program. This program is aimed at preparing them to start as university students the following year. This transition year represents an enormous public expense which is fully paid by the government. If this remediation were not needed, an additional 600-700 students could be admitted to SQU each year without additional cost (Chapman 2004).
My proposed NCS study will assess the political feasibility and technical merit of alternative strategies for reducing the discrepancy between secondary-exit and university-entrance requirements. Grounded in Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams model, my study will investigate three areas of focus: One, to what extent is the information about the nature and magnitude of the discrepancy between secondary-exit and university-entrance requirements available to instructional staff and administrators at each level (e.g., is the transition year viewed as a problem)? Two, to what extent do secondary and postsecondary instructional staff and administrators see the discrepancy as theirs to solve? Three, what strategies for narrowing this gap show promise of capturing widespread support of both secondary and post-secondary educators? In conducting this study, I will be jointly hosted by the Ministry of Higher Education and the College of Education at SQU, a reflection of the importance they assign to this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|