Search results1 – 5 of 5
An increasingly popular argument proposes that the problems inpublic schooling may be solved through stronger, more morallyimaginative leadership. School administrators…
An increasingly popular argument proposes that the problems in public schooling may be solved through stronger, more morally imaginative leadership. School administrators ought to set forth a vision growing out of this moral responsibility, and may be trained to utilise moral imagination in directing teachers and students towards certain moral visions. A critique of the argument is presented and alternative (and conflicting) meanings of “moral imagination” surveyed. Four models of moral imagination are located: as discovery; as moral authority; as faculty of mind, and as super science. It is argued that each of these conceptions has inherent difficulties. The logical relationship of these views is explored. The notion of “school leadership” is traced in the literature as it has been attached to “moral imagination”. The work of W. Greenfield is examined and a philosophy of school administration, with certain assumptions, regarding values and authority, that reveal key difficulties for the unfettered use of “moral imagination” in school administration, is found. It is concluded that “moral imagination” ought to be replaced with “critical imagination”, coupled with “democratic value deliberation” and by so doing a richer leadership will result, leading to the empowerment of teachers and a fuller serving of the public good.
Examines the coherentist project for educational administration of professors Colin Evers and Gabriele Lakomski from a critical and pragmatic perspective. It is argued…
Examines the coherentist project for educational administration of professors Colin Evers and Gabriele Lakomski from a critical and pragmatic perspective. It is argued that Evers and Lakomski really have three projects going: the first project seeks to ground coherence as a solution to the problems of educational administration research upon the history of educational administration inquiry philosophies since the Second World War. The second project attempts to justify the worth of coherency as a research philosophy upon purely logical grounds. A third, and most recent, (practical) project draws upon evidence from leadership practice to prove coherentism’s usefulness for school administration. Concludes that, rather than supporting their post‐positivist philosophic underpinnings, Evers and Lakomski’s third project finds them moving toward a raw pragmatism. Also concludes that coherentism is best redescribed from a pragmatic aesthetic perspective, a point of view that provides a potentially more meaningful way of understanding the relationship of coherentist theorizing and leadership action in contemporary schooling.
The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical reflection on ideas that have been published in the Journal of Educational Administration over the last 50 years that…
The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical reflection on ideas that have been published in the Journal of Educational Administration over the last 50 years that present perspectives on the nature of educational administration and its various aspects, that are alternatives to the mainstream systems‐scientific view of educational administration.
The paper employs a standard analytic philosophy methodology with a focus on argument structures found in epistemology. The approach is to argue that the content and structure of administrative theories is shaped significantly by background epistemologies that determine the nature and justification of administrative knowledge
Epistemologies for both the traditional systems‐science approach to educational administration and a range of alternatives are identified and specified, and the most characteristic features of these approaches that follow from their epistemologies are described. The paper permits inferences about theory choice, and what approach is best, based on a discussion of the merits of the different epistemologies.
The principal value of the paper is to classify and demonstrate the most general features of the arguments that have been behind the large‐scale theoretical differences in the field of educational administration.