-
13. Three Possibilities for Progress in Educational Administration: Reform, Techno-Science Rationality, Research
- Hong Kong University Press, HKU
- Chapter
- Additional Information
13 Three Possibilities for Progress in Educational Administration: Reform, Techno-Science Rationality, Research Brian O. Cusack Introduction During the 1980s major changes occurred in the field of educational administration and management. A multiplicity of factors constituted the contexts for change, not the least of which were interests exterior to practice. Political and economic concerns in particular hosted sweeping changes in the management of states across the world. With surprising similarity, state and national governments chose to intervene in public sector administration to reform the structure of organizations and, subsequently, to limit government interest in the provision of services. Therefore, governments chose to reposition the interest in education from that of a provider-ofservices to that of a purchaser-of-services. Educational administration subsequently became politically engaged and, as noted by Beare (1989:2), 'structural change has been a common feature in schools and school systems around the world in the 1980s, especially in Western countries'. Structural change is one of the three cases in the 1980s to be reviewed. Needlessly, concurrent with the restructuring of states, technological change advanced at an ever-increasing rate during the 1980s. By the close of the decade, high-powered desk-top computers with appropriate management programmes were affordable and generally available for educational administrators. Consequently, the speed, the status and the nature of management tasks had potential for change. Instant communications coupled with rapid information processing enlarged the domain of practice beyond institutional and geographical boundaries, and into the global village (Harman, 1980). A third impetus for change in educational administration came from theory. The 1980s opened with reaction to the alleged 'turmoil' in the field 188 Brian O. Cusack of organization theory (Griffiths, 1979; Willower, 1980, 1981; Greenfield, 1980), and developed into an open concern about the 'scientific' foundations on which administrators were educated (Griffiths, Stout and Forsyth, 1988). Epistemological matters were consequently brought to the fore. New pathways for knowledge were allegedly found in the coherence between the 'partitioned' fields of knowledge in theory and practice (Evers, 1988; Macpherson, 1990, 1991a, 1992). Three particular cases for change will now be reviewed to identify some essential features of change in the 1980s. An analysis of cases follows and an elaboration of implications for progress in the 1990s concludes the paper. Case 1: Re-forming Education Administration The reform of New Zealand education administration was in keeping with similar moves by governments around the world to change structures in the management of state (Beare, 1989; Macpherson, 1991b; Thody, 1991). The major differences were to be the speed of change and the depth to which the reforms would reach. The restructuring was to affect all schools, support services, regional and national administrative structures. Educational practices and organizations of over 100 years standing were to be radically changed and new patterns implemented within 18 months. The reform therefore became known as the 'earthquake model'. Not surprisingly the implementation process was characterized by chaotic disintegration of previously regulated contexts and unheard-of upheaval in management practices. However, two and three years on from the 1989 change-over, researchers have reported longer-term benefits for educational administrators (Cusack, 1991b; Mitchell, 1991; Ramsay, 1992; Wylie, 1992). The devolution of powers was achieved by the retention of policy controls at the centre by agencies and by devolving responsibility for an institution's well-being as close as possible to the communities and members of the institution. Charters and contracts formalized the links between those responsible for making policy and those responsible for implementing education policy. An Education Review Agency ensured public accountability through three-yearly reviews of all institutions. Consequently, after 1 October 1989 the administrative structures in New Zealand education were designed to give maximum choice at institution level for resource management, objectivity and simplicity for policy analysis at systems level, and trustworthy advice to the Minister of Education at the centre (Cusack, 1991b). The essential features of the new administrative system were (Picot [52.23.231.207] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 12:24 GMT) Three Possibilities for Progress in Educational Administration 189 Report, 1988, 41): simplicity; decision-making at appropriate levels; national objectives; coordinated decision-making; clear responsibilities and goals; control over resources; accountability; and, openness and responsiveness. The results of reform in progression were: an initial acceptance of the need for change; chaos, confusion and criticism of the processes of reform; over-work and a harking back to former practices; good reports; and, measurable outcomes. Case 2: Re-valuing Educational Administration The second case concerns the...