Search results

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.

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.

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).

Finland's performance in PISA has created considerable interest in the country's education system, to ascertain what has made Finland so successful in the survey. In reference to the phenomenon, this chapter discusses cross-national attraction, policy borrowing, the effect of Finland in PISA, and its influence on education policy. This chapter explores at length the theoretical background of cross-national attraction and policy borrowing, also investigating cases that have already occurred. It discusses Finland's role as the new object of cross-national attraction and eventual policy borrowing. The chapter incorporates research into the reasons for Finland's success in PISA, the possibilities of policy transfer from Finland, and delves into the likelihood of policy implications as a result of Finland in PISA. This cross-national attraction denotes the first stage in policy borrowing; however, comparative educationalists, for years, have warned about the uncritical transfer of education policy. Research in Finland has revealed many reasons for the country's PISA success stem from contextual factors: those related to historical, cultural, societal, and political features of Finland. Therefore, policy borrowing from Finland needs to heed warnings of past comparativists. The new phenomenon of Finland in PISA has generated much curiosity from those in education, educational policy, and politics. Policymakers are keen to incorporate Finland's educational features into their education systems. PISA and Finland's performance in the survey influence educational policy. This illustrates the importance the warnings of past and present comparative educationalists in order to prevent uncritical policy borrowing.

This paper aims to discuss how public school administrators with a social justice perspective have an obligation to permeate society beyond their schools and how they might address the perilous politics associated with advocating social change. Using George Counts' landmark 1932 speech, Dare the School Build a New Social Order? as the conceptual lenses, it examines the relevancy of Counts' words for contemporary school leaders and professors of educational administration.

While this article is historical in tone, the paper proposes pursuing a critical hermeneutic rather than a strictly historical approach.

The paper finds that there are similarities between the present‐day call for social justice and the earlier Social Reconstructionist movement that Counts' manifesto sparked. Both movements have invited educators, and particularly the professoriate, to think more expansively when it comes to US public education, society at large, and the influence of educators in shaping a more democratic and just country. But Counts goes much further than most adherents of the current‐day social justice movement. He stressed that educators must see themselves as political actors, who can shape their political environments through their teaching, as well as by participating in other venues.

For contemporary educational leaders, they may be working in far less hospitable settings than their twentieth‐century predecessors. Administrators are under fierce accountability and fiscal pressures, while coping with a larger political environment that is polarized and fearful. And the internal environment of school administration favors a “managerial” approach. Consequently, embracing a social justice ethic invites a degree of risk‐taking.

This paper examines the relevancy of Counts' words for contemporary school leaders and professors of educational administration and highlights implications for school leaders.

The purpose of this article is to explore some of the current tensions within educational administration in the USA and conclude with a few cautions for educators who engage in social justice projects.

Using a selective case, this historical essay examines the issues of social justice and equity as they have related to educational administration in the USA.

The article finds that while educational administrative practice has been characterized as maintaining the social and political status quo, there are historic examples of leaders promoting social justice. One exemplar is J. Rupert Picott, who provides an example of how one educational leader navigated through a hostile environment to achieve equity.

In a society where accountability is narrowly defined and economic concerns continue to perpetuate a managerial model for educational administrators, those who embrace a social justice perspective will do so at their own peril. However, those who wish to act for the educational welfare and life outcomes of all children will likely adopt and adapt a social justice perspective suited to their own priorities and needs. In so doing they may incur professional and personal tolls.

This article provides an example of a leader for social justice who worked and lived under the racial apartheid of the Jim Crow US South.

This chapter examines the inauguration of the university study of Education in Scotland and its relation to teacher education in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The chapter outlines moves to establish Education as a disciplinary field in higher education and the junctures at which this movement aligns with and is in tension with concurrent moves to advance teaching as a profession. Academisation and professionalisation are the twin poles of this debate. This is not a parochial or obsolete debate. The place of teacher preparation in higher education has been the focus of sustained discussion across Anglophone nations. Three examples – the inauguration of chairs and lectureships, the governance of teacher education and deliberation on the content and purpose of a degree in Education – are used to help explain the apparent paradox between the historic place of education in Scottish culture and identity and the relatively recent full involvement of Scotland's universities in the professional preparation of teachers. Investigating the activities of the first academic community of educationists in Scotland may help to understand continuing struggles over jurisdiction and authority in this contested and yet neglected field.

This article examines the loosely coupled nature of the US educational system and explores recent systemic reform initiatives designed to improve education through more tightly coupled education policy and practice. The utility and limitations of loose coupling as an organizational construct are examined and critiqued. A number of significant forces are exerting ever‐greater pressure on policymakers to more tightly couple US education, including environmental pressures, the emergence of powerful new institutional actors, an emergent institutional capacity, and institutional isomorphism. After reviewing the effectiveness of systemic reform initiatives in several states, the article concludes that education in the USA is moving toward a system of fragmented centralization in which policymakers have greater opportunity to craft more coherent, systemic education policy amidst competing demands for limited resources.