Search results

The purpose of this study was to discuss the history and political development of vocational education in Indonesia began before independence until independence era.

Analysis of related documents and literature was used to explore the policies and politics of vocational education in Indonesia. Some documents traced were in the form of laws and regulations and previous writings related to the politics and policies of vocational education in Indonesia.

The politics of vocational education at this time reinforces identity politics in the form of the language of instruction in the politics of vocational education. In addition, the school curriculum at this time tried to accommodate the interests of the colonizers. Change slowly occurred when Indonesia declared independence, and vocational education slowly underwent changes and development. Apart from still strengthening its identity in the form of language, culture and social structure, Indonesian vocational education has also been oriented toward the development of the country.

Although the author has identified Indonesia's vocational education policies and politics, several things still require further investigation, especially the impact of culture in politics and vocational education policies including the contribution of community conditions.

The findings of this paper can potentially raise interest in the politics of vocational education because of the many interest groups involved.

The findings can contribute in the conversion of interests between interest groups to allocated educational resources, both human resources and budgetary resources.

This paper not only describes aspects of Indonesian history and identity in vocational education and the politics of vocational education which were conducted previous studies but also provides information on strategies for converting interests between groups in the interests of vocational education.

In Australia there is a strong and widely‐accepted belief that education and politics are, or at least should be, separate. Yet education is a thoroughly political enterprise. For the most part, formal education is under direct government control, and it now constitutes an important area of government responsibility. Consequently, the education system can be thought of constituting a separate sub‐system within the political system. But to understand some or the other inter‐relationships between politics and education it is useful to conceptualize the political and educational systems as separate but interacting systems within the Australian social system. As a field of study and research, the politics of education has been neglected by both educators and political scientists, although very recently this situation has begun to change. A number of important areas for research are outlined and discussed.

This article employs a system analytic framework to categorize the available research literature on the politics of education in order to explain the inter‐relationship of private and public interests and of different levels in primary and secondary American schools. The objectives are several: to explain and develop the analytical framework of David Easton; to illustrate its heuristic utility by categorizing empirically‐based research within the components of that framework, and to suggest and encourage future research directions in the subject. Education has escaped application of traditional policy analysis in America because educators have convinced scholars and laymen that they are “non‐political,” a label which even most political scientists have accepted without challenge. However, during the 1960s, a few scholars in education and political science began to apply political analytical methods to public school conflict. This research has begun to change perceptions of education and to provide a beginning set of research projects whose data support tentative generalization about the policy‐making process and the total system of public schools. This orientation is bound to increase because of increasing national government intervention in local schools, both through integration and financial policies. These have provoked growing conflict locally over the proper direction of school policies. In this article, we see how such stress is transmitted in the form of “demands” and “supports” into the “political system”, that persistent social mechanism known in all societies in different forms provides an “authoritative allocation of values and resources”. The political system, in this case public school bodies, “converts” such “inputs” into “outputs” of public policy, which in their administration create outcomes which later cause a “feedback” into the political system as the material for new policy demands. For each component of this Eastonian system, this article examines relevant research, providing an extensive annotated bibliography. From this review, it is possible to suggest lines of needed research.

The centralization of power in the state and federal legislatures and in their associated professional bureaucracies is a notable feature of both educational and general political decision making in Australia. In this paper “governance” refers to the process of exercising authoritative control, “politics” to public policy making and its resolution. Formal public participation in Australian educational decision making is shown to be minimal, being limited to representation by elected members in the state and federal legislatures. There is no local governmental structure or tax for education. The existing structures and their origins are explained. Two hypotheses derived from the work of Iannaccone are tested. The first states that the longer educational issues remain unsolved in the extra‐legal social networks and lower level legal areas the more likely it is that decisions on these questions will be made by central government departments and agencies. The second states that the more that questions of educational policy are resolved by central departments and agencies the more likely it is that educational policies will become undifferentiated from other kinds of politics or from politics as relating to other policy areas of government. An examination of political developments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries supports both hypotheses.

An attempt is made to examine and assess the extent to which general politics influence decisions on major educational issues in a country, comparatively small, whose total population is 2.8 million. Education is centrally financed although locally administered, and professional supervision is largely the responsibility of a central agency. Educational decisions of any importance are made centrally yet the intrusion of party politics into the governance of education is seen to be minimal. A further conclusion is that the various groups involved in public education have through consultation and negotiation achieved a workable balance of power. The “politics of education” in New Zealand is to he found in the relationships of these groups and the pressures they are able to exert. This is an area that offers considerable opportunity for research.

A conflict of interests between two groups of educationists over proposed legislation for a school structural change is examined. Compromise is not achieved and evidence shows that the party which possessed more political power eliminated the threat of the other party. The process of conflict resolution is shown to reflect both a continuous utilization by the parties of legitimate influence and a gradually increasing use of illegitimate influence. Evidence also suggests that both parties adhered to the principle of minimization of waste of influence resources. A brief discussion of governmental organization for education in Israel precedes this case in educational politics. Hypotheses based on the work of Iannacconne and related to administrative and political influences of the parties to the conflict arc stated. A cross cultural dimension is added along certain theoretical constructs by comparing state politics of education in Israel and in one American State.

The chapter addresses the questions surrounding the politics of the academe as a reflective process. The three authors’ experiences are very different – spanning from tenured professor to sessional instructor to professor in an African university. The narratives from the authors inform the readers of their goals to join the academy as faculty; their job search; being members of the staff and then; their experiences as members of the teaching force at various universities. The chapter is based on their experiences of navigating the politics of the academe. This chapter provides their narratives of what it means to be a professor, mentor, colleague, and researcher. Each story is told from their particular standpoint: two females and one male teaching in North American universities and Africa, respectively, two Black and one racialized female who can pass, but cannot because of her name. The analysis will address numerous complications involved in addressing expectations, establishing common grounds as educators from an international perspective, and providing narratives of how we have managed to maintain our goals and aspirations as members of the academe. The tensions involved will be problematized and explored from within the context of the academy and the associated constraints therein (Tatum, 1999). The objective of this chapter is to theorize the significance of navigating the politics of the academe to deflate arising tensions that may delay your passion for teaching. The chapter is informed by an anticolonial theoretical framework in light of converges and divergences of varying colonial contexts embedded in colonial Canadian society. The anticolonial framework draws on the specific settler-colonial Canadian context (Tuck & Yang, 2012). The chapter is divided into six parts: (1) introduction that provides a general overview of what it means to be faculty at a university, (2) situating ourselves, (3) theoretical framework, (4) Universities in general and more specifically, Canadian system and Kenyan, (5) discussion that provides an analysis or synthesis of our experiences, and (6) conclusion.

The paper aims to examine the potential feminist politics of teaching: is there a clear connection between feminism and teaching, and is there a particular feminist way of teaching? Through notions of engaged political pedagogy (as developed by bell hooks Jacques Rancière), it proposes an intersectional and dissensual approach to teaching, as a primary way of practising feminist politics within academia.

The paper sets out to explore the possibility of a feminist pedagogy of teaching. Drawing on works by social and feminists theorists as well as by radical pedagogues, it negotiates these various standpoints, finding similarities and differences, in order to formulate ways in which we can more fruitfully conceive of teaching as politics.

The paper proposes that the classroom proves one of the most radical spaces for possibility within academia. Through an engaged, dissensual pedagogy, in which both students and teachers work together in mutual recognition of each other's knowledge, the feminist teacher can enthuse political change both within and outside of the classroom.

Teaching is often viewed as a less important part of academic work. This paper, in contrast, proposes the classroom as one of the spaces where we as feminist academics can have the most impact. Providing a theoretical methodology of a potential feminist teaching pedagogy, this paper adds a well‐needed exploration of the relation between teaching and feminism, and a defence of teaching as politics.

Within current educational management literature, it could be argued that the cultural perspective that is generally articulated is one in which the social context of education policy, school culture and educational management is almost entirely overlooked (Angus, 1996). The emphasis is typically on individual school ‘leaders’ and an internally constructed organizational culture in which principals are expected to become manipulators of culture and belief. School principals, in this literature, and in current government policy in many countries, are expected to construct or impose corporate control within their institutions in the increasingly decentralized organizational form that is considered necessary for organizational efficiency and, most importantly, market success and legitimacy in the increasingly complex post-industrial society (Parker, 1992). My general argument is that this perspective misconceives culture as an internal aspect of organizations that may be manipulated by management in order to enhance organizational commitment and efficiency (Caldwell & Spinks, 1993, 1998; Deal & Peterson, 1999).

Stakeholders and their organizations are increasingly involved in governance of higher education, not only within institutions or at system level, but also in various supra-national and intergovernmental processes. For these, as well as pragmatic reasons (ease of access and relatively simple methods for analysis), this chapter advocates for a more systematic approach to studying stakeholder organizations, their participation in and impact on governance of higher education. Specifically, the chapter: (1) provides a three-fold nested conceptualization of policy positions of stakeholder organizations, comprising issues, preferences concerning these issues, and the normative basis utilized to legitimize said preferences; (2) presents advantages and disadvantages of different methodological approaches to analyzing policy positions of stakeholder organizations, including qualitative and quantitative content analysis, employing either human coding or computer-assisted coding of policy documents; and (3) highlights different insights one can gain from analyzing policy positions of stakeholder organizations. It combines (thus far limited) insights from higher education studies with the more generic literature on interest groups, and uses examples from European level stakeholder organizations to illustrate its points.