Current affairs & culture from Australia and beyond
Find it at other libraries via WorldCat Limited preview. Contributor Visscher, Adrie J. Bibliography Includes bibliographical references p. Contents Part 1 School management and school effectiveness - a perspective: introduction to organizational and management aspects of schools-- concepts and theories of school effectiveness.
Part 2 Aspects of school organization and management: the primary process from an organizational point of view-- co-ordination and control in education-- teacher motivation and commitment-- leadership in schools-- aligning the organization with its environment-- human resource development in a corporate setting from an organizational point of view. Part 3 Towards integration: linking school management theory to school effectiveness research.
Each chapter presents a comprehensive overview of the knowledge base on the central theme and addresses the question of what is known about the subject as a school effectiveness-enhancing condition. The conclusion discusses insight into the school organizational factors influencing the effectiveness of schools, and presents a proposal for the further integration and cross-fertilization of both approaches, which is being formulated with the aim of improving understanding of how schools function and which factors make them effective. Subject School improvement programs. School management and organization.
By challenging these orthodoxies, it provides a framework that sets a new agenda and repositions the field to meet the emerging challenges of the twenty-first century. It argues that traditional measures of school effectiveness are challenged as systems have attempted to adapt to a complex range of emerging agendas.
New theoretical perspectives are required which consider 'education' and a 'broader set of outcomes'. This shift requires a rethink of how effectiveness and improvement have been understood by the field, and a reconstruction by policy makers and practitioners. Attention must be given to promoting equity as well as effectiveness so that one school or student's gain no longer means another's loss.
The field must develop new methodologies if inequities are to be challenged and a broader set of outcome measures are to be developed. The two questions guiding this book are: How can educational effectiveness and improvement research and practice support the development of a more equitable education service? What are the key indicators of educational effectiveness and improvement and what are the new methodologies required to facilitate a shift from 'school' effectiveness and improvement to 'educational' effectiveness and improvement?
This book uses lenses of research, policy and practice to explore these key questions and articulate what such a repositioning may look like and how it may be achieved.
Orthodoxy and heresy in school reform | Inside Story
It will prove invaluable for teachers, school leaders and anyone involved in policy and educational research. In my own case, some types of writing and argument appeal to me, whereas others do not. Yet there are no easily available entirely rational explanations for some of these affinities. Why do I warm to the writings of Smith, Wolcott, Sparkes and others?
National Institute for Digital Learning
Why am I in partial awe of the calibre of thinking and writing by Stronach, yet unable to be finally convinced by all his arguments? Why to I respect the writings of Hammersley, yet almost always react to them by reaffirming my partial but strong disagreement? Why do I react so negatively towards much of what I have termed the new orthodoxy, despite being the beneficiary of TLRP research funding? With the benefit of hindsight, I can construct a version of my past from the standpoint of the present, to unpick elements of my personal intellectual career in this regard.
I was originally a geographer, studying in the late s when the discipline was in turmoil, and the traditional forms of ideographic description were being attacked and superceded by the 'new geography', which was a nomothetic science of quantification. Possibly partly because I found the numbers soulless and difficult, I avoided much contact with the new geography, specialising in the historical geography of the industrial revolution: an early indication that I preferred complex, messy, party unique detail to abstracted generalisable patterns.
In the mids, whilst a schoolteacher, I had a year's secondment to study for an advanced diploma at the Cambridge Institute. On this course, I was introduced to the sociology of education, and attended an inspirational lecture course in the nearby university given by the then young Anthony Giddens. I read his 'new rules in sociological method' Giddens, and also Berger and Luckmann Both appealed strongly to me, as did the more interpretative branches of sociology.
This was also the period when the aims and objectives movement was in full swing in UK education. We were taught that good teaching set objectives and worked towards them. I remember reacting strongly against this movement, and drawing on Young and Stenhouse to counter these approaches.
A Professor Speaks Out: How ‘New Left’ Orthodoxy Is Failing a New Generation of History Students
Both reinforced a form of relativism in me, and a rejection of purely objective, measured truths. In the late s, I achieved a temporary lectureship in education at Exeter University. There I worked closely with a now retired sociologist, John Ackland. As I stared studying for an MPhil, he was my tutor. We also co-taught a course in evaluation, to undergraduates. I picked up much of my early research understanding informally from John. He also recommended a couple of key texts. To my surprise, one was my old friend from Cambridge days: Stenhouse The other was Carr and Kemis Thus, from two very different standpoints, my nascent attraction to relativism and antipathy to positivism was reinforced.
At a later stage, it was Andrew who introduced me to the work of John Smith, and then to the man himself.
I well remember reading John's books Smith, avidly and far too fast, when working on the method chapter for my PhD. I was already convinced that the traditional criteria for judging research would not be appropriate for my interpretative study. I was looking for John to provide me with the definitive alternative set, so I could tie down my thesis with confidence. Instead, I read his detailed and painstaking accounts of the evolution of intellectual dissatisfaction with empiricism, and of the impossibility of determining any universal criteria for research.
Given my own intellectual history, it is unsurprising that I warmed to his work, and my thinking advanced enormously through contact with it. But this is my contingent history. It did not have to be like that. What would have happened, if I had done a different course when seconded, or begun my research career working with Hammersley say, or Stronach, or David Reynolds?
Would I then have evolved into a realist or postmodernist, instead of a hermeneutical interpretivist? I cannot say this would not have happened, but it is far from certain. I have come across several research students who found that they could not relate to their supervisors at all, and others who have rebelled against the sorts of standard advice on methods that they were given.
Gallagher has written persuasively about the ways in which she reacted against standard text book advice on qualitative research. Whilst at Cambridge, I had reacted strongly against the advocacy of the aims and objectives movement by a tutor. Helen Hooper's story is more dramatic. She was studying for a qualitative PhD in sports psychology. Her supervisor was an expert in experiment, and Helen felt that her approach was being undermined, paralleling Gorrard's reaction to the review of his work but, for Helen, the perceived attacks were from her supervisor.
She found it extremely difficult to reconcile her own beliefs and values, which had been refined and reinforced by much reading, with the advice and instructions given by him Hooper, I am suggesting here that it is time to acknowledge the emotional and personal investment we make in our research approaches and ideas, and work to understand better the consequences of that investment. Consider the following, written by a chemist:. But of course scientists are human, no matter how much they might pretend in their articles that they are not. Their inner illogical forces push out.
If you do not let them into the light of day, on the printed page, then they will creep out and explode in the night, where things are hidden I refer, of course, to the anonymous refereeing process, and the incredible irrational responses unleashed in it Hoffmann argues that this supression is a delusion. In education, I suggest, our most carefully constructed academic language bears the imprint of Hager's embodied judgement making. The rational and emotional are part of each other, and never completely separable. Both are located in our sometimes deeply held and often largely tacit beliefs about the world, education, research and writing.
If we combine the concepts of communities of practice, effective history and individual researcher dispositions and identity, a partial explanation of the current state of affairs is possible. Because researchers develop different identities, with differing interests and value positions, they sometimes see academic and research issues differently.
These differences cannot always be resolved by rational argument or evidence alone, for an element of interpretation is involved. Hoffmann is interesting here.
- SearchWorks Catalog;
- Atlas of Orthopaedic Surgical Exposures.
- A Little Norsk; Or, Ol Paps Flaxen;
In ways outlined by Smith , he claims that the irrationality of individual scientists can be overcome by the rationality of the overall science project. However, he does not take the same position with relation to more humanistic aspects of scientists' work. For example, he asks which is the better account of the discovery of the structure of DNA: the original joint authored paper or Watson's later book? In such areas, he suggests, multiple understandings are an inescapable reality: 'there isn't only one way of "understanding" or dealing with the death of a parent, or a political election, or a woodcut by Ernst Ludwig' p, original emphasis.
He could have added, 'or teaching science'. Consequently, as we research away, we are constantly making embodied judgements about what to read or research or write; what to make of what we read; who to work with and who to avoid; who to attack and who to defend ourselves against. This often means joining different communities of practice, with different versions of authentic behaviour.
Often, but not always, such communities develop group identities: adult educators; science educators; post compulsory education researchers; psychologists; interpretivist researchers; feminist researchers and so on. Such communities often have their own main journals, as well as writing for more generalist educational or social science publications. Thus, what the new orthodoxy is trying to change is not one unified community of practice but, rather, a field of plural communities of practice, with overlaps and sometimes contradictions between them.
Furthermore, many of those communities also relate to communities of academics outside the educational field. If this was the end of the story, it would be possible to see that the intentions of the new orthodoxy were doomed to failure, for all they could do would influence those communities of practice within the educational field that are already sympathetic to their stance. Meanwhile, the rest of us get on with our own academic lives, within our own reference communities.
This is where the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu come into their own. Within fields, he argues, players strive for distinction. Their ability to succeed is partly determined by their position in relation to the field, and the capital cultural, social and economic that they can bring to bear on that field Bourdieu, Both position and the ownership of capital are unequal, but they are symbiotically related. To oversimplify, a powerful position in the field generates capital, and a significant amount of capital makes it easier to achieve a powerful position.
There are numerous ways in which this can happen. Obviously, winning research money and writing respected papers for high status journals or books that are highly regarded, add enormously to cultural capital in the educational research field. But more subtle factors, such as which university you work at, which influential bodies you serve on, who you know well and work closely with, whether you are trusted by key influential groups; whether you are an academic or research officer, professor or student, all these and other things, including gender and ethnicity if not social class, can influence position and capital in the field.
Furthermore, as capital accumulates, players can improve their position by moving into more powerful groups - by changing place of work, or joining prestigious committees or editorial boards.
The field can be likened to a game Bourdieu and Wacquant, , and in the game there are rules. But most of the rules are unwritten, and membership of one or more of the contributing communities of practice is a key way to develop enough cultural and social capital to understand the rule and play the game. Those with most access to power can exert maximum influence on the rules of the game, which evolve.
Often, existing members of such groups have a major say over who else is invited or admitted.