Administrationand Managementof Education: The Challenges Faced

International Institute for Educational Planning
XXVth Anniversary Workshop

Booklet N o . 2
Administration and management of

education: the challenges faced
Edited by Franoise Caillods
with contributions by
Benno Sander and Peter Murphy
Institut international de planification de l'ducation

Atelier du XXVe anniversaire
Cahier N o . 2
Administration et gestion de l'ducation :

un dfi relever
sous la responsabilit de Franoise Caillods
avec les contributions de
Benno Sander et Peter Murphy
Administration et gestion de l'ducation: un dfi relever

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced
The views and opinions expressed in this booklet are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the views of Unesco/IIEP or of the organizations
with which the authors are associated. T h e designations employed and the
presentation of material throughout this booklet do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Unesco or H E P concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning its
frontiers or boundaries.
The costs of this booklet have been covered through a grant-in-aid offered by
Unesco and voluntary contributions m a d e by several M e m b e r States of Unesco,
the list of which will be found on the inside back cover ot this booklet.
This booklet has been typeset using Unesco's computer facilities and the
Waterloo "Script" documentation-composition program. Copies have been
printed and bound in IIEP:s printshop.
International Institute for Educational Planning,

7 - 9 rue Eugne-Delacroix, 75116 Paris
Unesco 1989
Preface
W h e n the International Institute for Educational Planning was

created as part of Unesco 25 years ago, the world was experiencing
unprecedented economic growth and educational
development.
Numerous nations, m a n y of which had just w o n their independence,
decided to expand their school systems quickly for the purpose of
fostering economic development and equality of opportunity. T o guide
and plan for such expansion, most countries then set up one or several
planning units which were principally assigned the task of making estimates of their economies' skilled manpower requirements and planning
the h u m a n , physical and financial resources needed for education.
S o m e 25 years later, the economic crisis has thoroughly altered the
international and national scene. T h e debt of developing nations has
risen sharply. Each country n o w finds itself with m u c h more limited
resources than previously, and the educational sector more difficult to
manage. Several developing countries are wrestling with the problems
of scarce resources precisely at a time when a runaway increase in
population, inadequate enrolment levels, and persistent disparities
between social groups, regions and the genders keep the needs at an
urgent level. Yet, since the economic crisis has aggravated the problems
of unemployment, the role of education itself as a driving force for
growth and development and a key factor in promoting equal opportunity has been brought into question. After watching so many excessive
hopes get dashed, a number of countries are questioning the extent to
which public funds should be devoted to education. Even the activity
of educational planning, formerly regarded as the main instrument for
managing educational policy, is being challenged. Countries are
doubting the wisdom of planning at a time when there is little or no
expansion to manage. Planning units are having more and more difficulty defining their role with respect to their central government administration the mainstay of routine school management they find it
harder also to influence educational policy. Finally, from the theoretical standpoint, a growing number of people are inclined to find fault
with States that play a dominant role in education, and suggest that
market forces be allowed to regulate flows.
V
O n the occasion of its X X V t h anniversary celebration, the Institute

could not fail to consider the future of educational planning worldwide
and to review the specific opportunities it has for its future programme.
Since its inception, after all, its training and research activities have
been designed to reflect the historical development of ideas, approaches
and methods in the field of educational planning. T o that end, the
Institute has had to monitor events and adapt to changing trends and
new problems in the development of education throughout the world.
In this spirit, it organized an international workshop at the end of 1988,
bringing together some 90 researchers, planners, aid agency representees and other specialists from all ideological, political and social horizons. This workshop tackled a large n u m b e r of topics, including the
impact of economic and social change on education in various parts of
the world, educational planning practices and prospects, and major
problems in education, such as difficulties in financing, the decline in
the quality of education, the administration of education, the relationship between education and employment, and the theoretical debate
concerning the role of education in development and society at large.
The workshop offered the occasion for intense discussion, and
clearly demonstrated that educational problems are encountered in all
countries. M a n y c o m m o n concerns were voiced, including worry about
the decline in educational standards in s o m e countries, the obligation of
devising n e w ways to finance education, the need to grant more
autonomy to individual schools, the necessity of paying more attention
to policy implementation strategies, the requirement of handling the
apparently paradoxical problems of the under-education and overeducation of the labour force, etc. Never have the urgencies and priorities in education been felt so unanimously. Educational planning
should be transformed so as to confront these issues with due rigour
and imagination while continuing to provide a frame of coherence and a
vision of the future of education.
S o m e 40 original papers were presented and discussed during the
proceedings. T h e richness and diversity of these contributions m a d e it
extremely hard to select only a few of them for publication. A
s u m m a r y of the discussions and conclusions of the workshop, together
with a n u m b e r of these contributions, are published in a volume in
English and French entitled " T h e prospects for educational planning".
Other contributions are grouped by subject matter in a special series of
X X V t h Anniversary documents. This series deals with educational
VI
Booklet No.2
administration and management. O n e of the main problems of educational planning is the implementation of plans through the administrative mechanisms. T h e two contributions published here examine the
administrative procedures of some countries on a structural level and
put forward suggestions as to h o w educational management could be
improved.
T h e task of reflecting on the future of educational planning is not
complete. T h e workshop identified a number of avenues for further
research which have given the Institute inspiration in preparing its
programme of activities for its n e w M e d i u m - T e r m Plan.
Finally, w e wish to thank the G e r m a n Foundation for International
Development for the financial support it so kindly provided for this
workshop.
Jacques Hallak
Director
VII
Booklei No.2
Abstracts/Rsums
M a n a g e m e n t and administration of educational

systems: major issues and trends
by Benno Sander
Educational systems and administrative practices vary a m o n g countries. T h e paper analyses the diverse management practices in education as a basis for developing a generalized conceptual framework for
educational administration.
T h e experience of Latin American countries shows that the practice of educational administration closely follows the nature of governmental involvement in education o n the one hand and the pattern of
public administration on the other. T h e changes in the educational
policies have resulted in changes in administrative practices and criteria.
Historically, education followed a centralizing model in Latin
America. O f late decentralization is accepted by different governments.
However, Latin American nations have adopted different forms of
decentralization in education. Given the diverse patterns of decentralization in education, the author feels that a debate on this issue should
draw a distinction between educational policy and administrative practices. Educational policy should be national and hence centralized
whereas educational administration can be decentralized. Moreover,
participatory democracy as a form of administrative mediation is more
important than centralizing or decentralizing the system.
Based on the Latin American experience the author conceptualizes
a "Multi-dimensional paradigm of educational administration" which
takes into account inter-relatedness of administrative functions, multicultural and cross-cultural dimensions of the educational process. T h e
precondition for such an administrative system is collective participation
as a political strategy which will replace the existing institutionalized
authoritarianism of the bureaucratic structure and the dogmatic actions
of the minorities.
IX
Les systmes ducatifs et les pratiques administratives diffrent selon

les pays. Le document analyse les diffrentes pratiques de gestion de
l'ducation servant de base la mise au point d'un cadre conceptuel
gnralis applicable l'administration de l'ducation.
L'exprience des pays d'Amrique latine montre que la pratique de
l'administration de l'ducation suit de prs la nature de la participation
du gouvernement l'ducation, d'une part, et la structure de l'administration publique, de l'autre. Les changements intervenus dans les politiques ducatives ont donn lieu des changements dans les pratiques et
les critres administratifs.
Historiquement, en Amrique latine, l'ducation a suivi un modle
de centralisation. Plus rcemment, la dcentralisation est accepte par
divers gouvernements. Cependant, les nations latino-amricaines ont
adopt des formes diffrentes de dcentralisation de l'ducation. Etant
donn les structures diverses de la dcentralisation de l'ducation, l'auteur considre qu'un dbat sur cette question devrait faire la distinction
entre la politique ducative et les pratiques administratives. La politique
ducative devrait tre caractre national et donc centralise alors que
l'administration de l'ducation devrait tre dcentralise. En outre, la
dmocratie participative, en tant que forme de mdiation administrative,
est plus importante que la centralisation ou la dcentralisation du
systme.
Sur la base de l'exprience latino-amricaine, l'auteur conceptualise
un paradigme multidimensional de l'administration de l'ducation qui
tient compte de Vinterrelation entre les fonctions administratives, et des
dimensions multiculturelles et transculturelles du processus administratif.
La condition pralable de ce systme administratif est constitue par la
participation collective en tant que stratgie participative qui remplacera
l'autoritarisme institutionnalis actuel de la structure bureaucratique et
les actions dogmatiques des minorits.
Booklet No.2
Collaborative school management:

small within big is beautiful
by Peter Murphy
O f recent, emphasis is being shifted from m o r e resources to education to better and effective utilization of resources in education.
Decentralization of the system and greater autonomy and accountability
by the institutions are important for this.
Decentralization of school m a n a g e m e n t is reflected through the
efforts towards collaborative m a n a g e m e n t systems in Canada. In this
system, the parents and society participate in the governance of schools
and it will lead to an improvement in the quality of education imparted.
Implications: structured form of community participation is important. Parent-teacher associations are to be formed in all schools, and
this needs to get institutionalized in the long run.
Rcemment,
l'accent a gliss du concept des ressources accrues
consacres l'ducation vers celui d'une utilisation meilleure et plus efficace des ressources de l'ducation. Une dcentralisation du systme, une
plus grande autonomie et une plus grande responsabilit incombant aux
institutions sont importantes cet effet.
La dcentralisation de la gestion des coles est reflte dans les
efforts effectus au Canada vers des systmes de gestion en collaboration.
Dans ce systme, les parents et la socit participent la gestion des
coles et ceci doit conduire une amlioration de la qualit de l'ducation impartie.
Les consquences pour l'ducation : la forme structure de participation de la collectivit est importante. Les associations parentsenseignants doivent tre formes dans toutes les coles et ceci devra tre
institutionnalis long terme.
xi
Contents
Chapter 1
Management and administration of educational systems:
major issues and trends
by Benno Sander
Chapter 2
Collaborative school management: small within
big is beautiful
by Peter Murphy
39
Xlll
Chapter 1
Management and administration of

educational systems: major issues and
trends
Benno Sander1
Introduction
T h e purpose of this Chapter is to undertake an examination of the
administrative theories and practices adopted in contemporary education. Special reference is m a d e to developing nations within the context
of international relations. A case to be pointed out is that of Latin
America.
Bearing in mind the reconstruction of the historical evolution of
educational administrative thought, s o m e practical issues are examined,
such as: government and educational administration; changes in educational policies and administrative criteria; assumptions behind and
effects of centralization and decentralization; and the training of educational administrators. This Chapter concludes with an introductory
debate concerning prospective conceptual and praxeological trends in
educational administration. In this context, considerable space is
assigned to cross-cultural co-operation and to the arguments of participatory administration in the field of education.
T h e first concern of this Chapter is to establish guiding principles
and criteria for the study of educational administration in different
economic, political and cultural contexts. This concern is linked to a
defined intellectual position, which implies a concrete commitment to
Benno Sander is Resident Representative of the Organisation of American

States in Buenos Aires (Argentina) and President of the Inter-American
Society of Educational Administration.
the promotion of a free and just h u m a n life in school and society at

large. It is on the basis of this commitment to freedom and justice in
education and society that this Chapter adopts the concept of the
quality of collective human UfeflJ1 as the key-criterion to guide the
examination of the theoretical foundations and the praxeological orientations adopted in educational administration.
T h e quality of h u m a n life is a controversial concept in academic
circles throughout the world. T h e controversy leads us to the philosophy of science, the politics of knowledge, the model of society, and the
concept of the h u m a n being. This suggests the existence of different
definitions of the quality of h u m a n life in industrialized nations and
developing countries, as well as in market economy nations, centrally
planned economy countries, and mixed economy states. Nevertheless,
whatever the economic system and political organization of a country, it
is possible to think of at least two general types of quality of h u m a n
life: instrumental quality and substantive quality.
T h e instrumental quality of human life reflects a utilitarian and
extrinsic condition of the h u m a n being in society. It presupposes unharnessed and self-centered competition for the accumulation of material
goods, independently of meaningful ethical values collectively established by and for a given population. Its formal and growth-oriented
approach is characterized by economic and social disparity, atrophy of
popular political power, and lack of cultural identity. T h e adoption of
the concept of the instrumental quality of h u m a n life as a criterion in
guiding the destinies of humanity, leads the world into a situation of
ecological degradation as a consequence of predatory industrialism, the
destruction of endogenous cultural values, the disruption of social bonds
due to the unequal distribution of material and non-material goods, and
the disintegration of the h u m a n being. T h e implications of this
p h e n o m e n o n for education are obvious. In fact, unequal social and
economic situations are accompanied by educational inequality and
inhibit the role of the educational system as a free creator and equitable
distributor of knowledge.
T h e substantive quality of human
life reflects an ethical and
intrinsic condition of the h u m a n being politically engaged in society. It
presupposes the definition and satisfaction of the basic needs of survival
and collective advancement of the entire population in its cultural
The notes are to be found at the end of this Chapter.

9
Management and administration of educational systems
milieu. It is concerned with the achievement of an equitable distribution

of material and non-material goods produced by a given population. It
is interested in fostering open participation of all individuals and groups
in the decisions that affect their overall well-being. It shows respect for
endogenous values and institutions and is committed to fostering
cultural autonomy. Because of the desolating results created by the
adoption of the instrumental quality of h u m a n life as a guiding principle in contemporary society, there is an increasing awareness that the
adoption of the substantive quality of h u m a n life is a must if one wants
to construct a world based on freedom and equity. T h e substantive
quality of h u m a n life implies a substantive quality of education. Such a
qualitative form of education is concerned with the free construction of
knowledge and its equitable distribution.
This Chapter adopts the concept of the substantive quality of
collective human life, founded on two generally valid ethical principles:
freedom and equity. W h e n drawn into a single and adequately balanced
concept, these two principles should reflect the cultural values and
political aspirations of the participants of a given organization or
society. Freedom and equity are conceived here as inextricably linked
together. Freedom cannot reproduce privileges for the minority. If it
does, it leads toward unethical hegemony and inequality. Equity cannot
reproduce a closed uniform perspective of life and society for the
majority. If it does, it inhibits the possibilities of freedom and of transformative h u m a n action and interaction. Therefore, freedom is a
prerequisite of equity, just as equity is a prerequisite of freedom. T h e
assumption of this argument is that it is only the correct balance
between freedom and equity in a specific national cultural milieu within
the context of international relations that makes it possible to develop a
substantive and qualitative experience of h u m a n life that ensures
adequate space for individual option and collective advancement.
T h e political and administrative strategy towards the construction
of a substantive quality of collective h u m a n life in education and society
is that of participation. This strategy is based on the assumption that
participation enhances the possibility of fairly defining both the individual and local contribution to and the right to benefit from the collective and national experience. T h e strategy is further based on the
conviction that participation lays the grounds for the appropriate adoption of relevant existential options that are pertinent and meaningful for
those individuals and groups of a specific educational system or society
seeking development of a form of substantive quality of collective

h u m a n life.
Bearing in mind these general guiding principles, this Chapter
examines the theoretical perspectives and praxeological orientations of
contemporary educational administration, with special reference to
Latin America. T h e Chapter refers to the historical evolution of educational administrative theory and practice, the conceptualization of traditional and n e w perspectives, cross-cultural co-operation, and collective
participation in educational administration.
A multidimensional paradigm of educational

administration
Historical background
Professional literature on administrative theory in the current
century presents a n u m b e r of classifications of conceptual and analytical
contributions to public administration and educational management.
T h e identification of three major classifications of management theories
is n o w in order.
T h e traditional historical classification tries to put all conceptual
and analytical contributions to administrative theory into three general
management schools of thought: the classical school conceived at the
beginning of this century at the time of the consolidation of the
Industrial Revolution; the psychosocial school developed from the time
of the Great Depression in the late 1920s; and the contemporary school,
developed after World W a r II, with a n u m b e r of different lines of
thought. In systems terms, the evolution of twentieth century administrative theory is analyzed in terms of closed systems (1900-1960) and
open systems (1960-19S0), each with rational models and natural
models.[2] In philosophical terms, administrative theory follows three
contending scholarly traditions which reflect three corresponding epistemologies: positivism, hermenctaics, and critical theory.[3]
O n the basis of the assessment of the preceding classificatory
schemes of contributions to administrative theory, it is possible to
conceive a n e w classification in terms of four criterion-based models:
efficiency-based administration, effectiveness-based administration,

responsiveness-based administration, and relevance-based administration.
These four models are defined using the four criteria that have historically been adopted to evaluate and guide administrative performance:
efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and relevance. This criterionbased classification is a synthetic effort which implies both a historical
perspective and an epistemological orientation. T o define the theoretical
essence of each model, one should examine its historical origin and
consider the nature of the different criteria of administrative performance. In itself, this is potentially confusing, particularly as one must
cross cultural and language boundaries. In fact, specialized literature on
the matter is marked by generalized terminological and semantic confusion. E v e n the protagonists of the classical, behavioural and contemporary theories of administration themselves are not in complete harmony
concerning this matter.
Conceptual uncertainties nevertheless d e m a n d an effort to attain
m o r e specific definitions of the administrative criteria adopted in educational administration in order to enhance their utilization in both
empirical and analytical settings. Definitions are particularly necessary
to characterize the nature of the activities of educational administrators
in daily practice. Definitions are n o w in order.
1. Efficiency-based administration. A s a management model,
efficiency-based administration is conceptually derived from the classical
school of administration and is analytically induced from the practice of
school executives w h o behave according to the tenets of general, scientific and bureaucratic management. T h e classical thesis was expounded
at the beginning of this century at the time of the consolidation of the
Industrial Revolution. Three major movements were largely responsible
for classical theory: scientific management,/*// general management,[5]
and bureaucratic management.// T h e protagonists of the classical
school conceived of the organization as a closed, mechanical and
rational system, in which management was founded upon the criterion
of economic efficiency.
Efficiency (from the Latin efficientia: action, strength, virtue of
producing) is the administrative criterion that reveals the capacity to
produce m a x i m u m outcomes with m i n i m u m resources, energy, and
time. T h e concept of efficiency is related to seeking the means and
procedures that are most suitable for attaining production goals, independent of their h u m a n and political content and their ethical nature.
T h e characteristics inherent in the concept of efficiency in administrative thought are quite useful in that they supply elements used in
defining efficiency as a criterion of economic performance in educational administration. Therefore, the efficiency of educational administration can be defined as the result of extrinsic instrumental
performance of an economic nature as measured in terms of the m a n a gerial capacity to attain a high degree of productivity. T h e economic
growth-oriented nature of the concept of administrative efficiency is
associated to the instrumental quality of h u m a n life in education and
society in general.
2. Effectiveness-based administration. A s a management model,
effectiveness-based administration is conceptually derived from the
psychosocial school of administration and is analytically induced from
the evaluation of the practical experience of school executives w h o
adopt the principles of the behavioural approach to administration. In
the history of administrative thought, the psychosocial antithesis to the
classical school was developed from the time of the Great Depression
towards the end of the 1920s. T h e movements responsible for this
development were those of the emphasis on h u m a n relations/77 and the
focus o n administrative behaviour.[8] T h e protagonists of the psychosocial school conceive of the organization as a partially-open, organic and
natural system, in which management is concerned with the functional
integration of its component elements in light of institutional effectiveness. After World W a r II, effectiveness also became a fundamental
criterion of the neoclassicists, w h o conceived management by objectives. [9]
Effectiveness or efficacy (from the Latin efficax: having the power
to produce a desired effect) is the administrative criterion that reveals
the capacity or potential to attain proposed results or goals. In the case
of education, administrative effectiveness is essentially concerned with
the attainment of educational objectives, and is closely related to the
pedagogical aspects of the educational system.
T h e effectiveness of educational administration is conceived as a
criterion of intrinsic and instrumental performance of a pedagogical
nature as measured in terms of the managerial capacity to attain
proposed educational objectives. Based on the supposition that within
the educational system the attainment of educational objectives takes
precedence over the utilitarian aspects of an economic nature, there
exists a priority ordering of effectiveness over efficiency.
3. Responsiveness-based administration. A s a management model,

responsiveness-based administration is conceptually derived from an
array of contemporary management theories and is analytically induced
from a variety of different practical experiences in public and educational administration during the last three decades. Its major theoretical
contributions c o m e from development administration,[10] organizational development,//1] administrative ecology,[12] institutional development, [13] and contingency theory.//4] T h e protagonists of these
contending contemporary movements conceive of the organization as an
open and adaptive system, in which administrative mediation e m p h a sizes the situational variables of the external environment in light of
political responsiveness.
Responsiveness (from the Latin verb responder: to promise in
return, to answer), which corresponds to efectividad in Spanish (from
the Latin verb efficere: to fulfill, to carry out, to solidify), is the administrative criterion that reflects the capacity of meeting the politically
expressed demands of a given community. In the case of education,
responsiveness is the criterion of performance that measures the administrative capacity to produce the response or to carry out the solution
desired by the participants of the larger community.
T h e concept of responsiveness presupposes a concrete obligation
on the part of the administration to the quality of life of the community
through a participatory methodology. T h e greater the degree of participation of community citizens in the organization and administration of
the educational system, the greater the capacity of the administration to
respond concretely and immediately to social needs and political aspirations. T h e fundamental and substantive importance of these social
necessities and political demands gives, responsiveness a position of
conceptual priority in relation to effectiveness and efficiency.
4. Relevance-based administration. A s a management model,
relevance-based administration is conceptually derived from recent and
current interactionist formulations founded upon phenomenology, existentialism, the dialectical method, critical theory and the h u m a n action
approach.[15] T h e adherents of these conceptual and analytical formulations conceive the organization as a holistic and interactional system, in
which management emphasizes the principles of consciousness, critical
h u m a n action, contradiction and totality in light of cultural relevance.
Relevance (from the Latin verb relevare: to raise, to emphasize, to
give value to) is a cultural criterion that measures administrative
performance in terms of significance and value. In the case of education, relevance and value are the bonding agents between the functions
of educational administration and the quality of h u m a n life defined in
its specific cultural milieu.
A relevant educational administration is appraised in terms of the
meanings and consequences of its actions for the improvement of the
substantive quality of collective h u m a n life in the school and the larger
society. T h e perception and interpretation of these meanings and consequences are only possible through an organization and administrative
theory conceived on the basis of real experience. O n the other hand,
such a theoretical formulation is only possible if founded upon a participative posture of scholars and practitioners of educational administration. T h e more participatory the administrative process, the greater its
chances of being relevant to individuals and groups, and the greater its
possibilities of explaining and furthering the substantive quality of
collective h u m a n life in the school and society in general.
Towards a general paradigm

Although the four specific models of educational administration, as
set forth earlier, correspond to four historically distinct periods, they
often converge in a practical sense. In Latin America, for example,
specialized literature describes the current existence of educational
systems and institutions of a business nature in which administration is
governed by economic efficiency as a predominant criterion with other
criteria complementing the primary one. There are other educational
systems and institutions in which administration is guided principally by
pedagogical effectiveness in the attainment of instructional objectives.
Other educational systems and institutions are more concerned with
their political role in the larger community and, for this reason, their
administration is primarily based upon the criterion of political responsiveness. Yet other educational systems and institutions are concerned
fundamentally with the h u m a n being as an individual and social actor.
For this reason, these latter systems and institutions adopt cultural relevance as the predominant criterion of their administration.
T h e diversity of these analytical principles and management practices suggests a complex educational reality within a social environment
that is in a state of permanent change and that demands a constant

renewal of administrative solutions and alternatives. However, the definition of appropriate systems of studying and implementing educational
administration within the context of the educational needs and aspirations of society is an intellectual task of immense proportions. In methodological terms, it is possible to visualize at least two different
potential alternatives in this aspect. T h e first alternative consists of
conceiving the various models of educational administration as parallel
paths to be utilized by educational scholars and practitioners. Opting
for one of the various paths is m a d e o n the basis of the nature of the
institution and as a result of the perceptions and interpretations of the
educational realities and administrative p h e n o m e n a on the part of those
responsible for the educational system. This approach is possible in
societies in which theoretical pluralism encourages scientific progress
through the development of convergent or contrary models that tend to
supersede one another.
However, models of educational administration, like the four
models described earlier, are heuristic elaborations and, as such, do not
exist in pure form in real life. In this perspective, there arises a second
alternative that concerns itself with the conceptualization of a n e w
general paradigm through a theoretical synthesis of practice in educational administration. In fact, this superseding synthesis would constitute a global paradigm, based o n the analysis of the similarities and
contradictions a m o n g the four models presented earlier. In line with
this approach, instead of defining administrative p h e n o m e n a in terms of
four specific models, they would be conceived as interrelated aspects or
parts of one holistic or multidimensional paradigm.
It is in this way that the four specific models can be synthesized
into a global paradigm, which is here defined as the multidimensional
paradigm of educational administration.fl 6] Such a global paradigm
would be composed of four interacting dimensions: the economic, pedagogical, political, and cultural. T o each of these dimensions corresponds
a respective predominant criterion of administrative performance: efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and relevance.
T h e conceptualization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration is, further, based on three fundamental assumptions. T h e first is that educational p h e n o m e n a and administrative facts
are interrelated aspects of a global reality. T h e second assumption is
that in the educational system there are intrinsic dimensions of a
cultural and pedagogical nature that exist alongside extrinsic dimensions

of a political and economic nature. T h e third assumption is that the
h u m a n being as an individual and social actor involved politically in
society constitutes the raison d'etre of the educational system. It is this
anthrosociopolitical concept of the h u m a n being that defines the nature
and utilization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational admin
istration as heuristic. These concepts, as shown in Figure 1, are reflected
in a multicentric system in which two substantive dimensions and two
instrumental dimensions interact with two intrinsic dimensions and two
extrinsic dimensions.
Instrumental
Dimension
Substantive
Dimension
Intrinsic
Dimension
Cultural
(Relevance)
'
t
Extrinsic
Dimension
Pedagogical
(Effectiveness)
(^ f~tnnal \
\Administration/
Political ^ ^ ^ \ y
(Responsiveness) ]
'
Economic
(Efficiency)
I
Figure 1.
A Multidimensional Paradigm of Educational

Administration
T h e economic dimension of the educational system involves finan

cial and material resources, structures, bureaucratic norms, and mecha
nisms of coordination and communication. In this dimension,
educational administration is concerned with the distribution and
10
control of resources, the organization of the institution in structural

terms, the definition of roles and responsibilities, the distribution of
work, the determination of h o w the work is to be carried out and by
what type of incumbents, and the establishment of norms of action. T h e
defining criterion of the economic dimension is efficiency in the utilization of the financial and material resources, and the technological
instruments under the rule of economic logic. In other words, in the
economic dimension of the multidimensional paradigm the concept of
efficiency governs all activities of educational administration. T h e study
of the economic dimension of the educational system is founded on
economics, business management, accounting, organization and
methods, and technology. All of these areas are primarily concerned
with the efficiency of the system and, consequently, suffer the influence
of the rational and utilitarian logic of the world of business.// 7]
T h e pedagogical dimension of educational administration refers to
the educational principles, scenarios, and techniques that are intrinsically committed to the effective attainment of the objectives of the
educational system. In recent decades, the pedagogical dimension of
educational administration has been subjected to a process of atrophy as
a consequence of the generalized emphasis on considering the educational system in terms of economic and technological development. A s a
reaction to this situation, in some academic environments there has
been increased concern with administration as a pedagogical act./7<S/
T h e concern of the defenders of the pedagogical dimension is that of
attributing to administration the responsibility for conceiving of spaces,
methods, and techniques that are capable of preserving the intrinsic
educational objectives of the school system in its efforts to adequately
fulfill its economic, cultural, and political role in society. T h e major
criterion of the pedagogical dimension is the effectiveness in the attainm e n t of educational results. T h e study of the pedagogical dimension of
educational administration is based upon a wide array of disciplinary
contributions ranging from philosophy to cybernetics, with special
emphasis on pedagogy itself and its associations to psychology, anthropology and information science.
T h e political dimension involves the strategies of concrete action of
the participants in the educational system and its community. T h e
importance of the political dimension is rooted in the specific responsibilities of the educational system with respect to society. Its importance
also resides in the fact that the educational system evolves in the context
11
of varied conditioning circumstances of the environment and is influenced by powerful external variables. If educational administrators are
not capable of adequately balancing the powerful relationship of the
cultural and pedagogical elements with the external environment they
run the risk of closing the educational system in upon itself, with loss of
political power in the community. Within this dimension, those in
educational administration seek responsiveness, a criterion that is essentially political, and according to which the educational system is called
upon to meet the social needs and d e m a n d s of the larger society.[19] T o
study and understand the political dimension of educational administration, fundamental principles can be sought from political science and
political sociology as well as from the contributions of administrative
law, public administration, and political and cultural anthropology.
T h e cultural dimension covers the philosophical, anthropological,
biological, psychological, and sociological values and characteristics of
the participants in the educational system and society in general.
Although the cultural dimension includes m a n y aspects and levels, its
basic characteristic is its global perspective that makes it possible for
culture to take into account the physical, psychological, anthropological,
social, and philosophical aspects of h u m a n life. In this dimension,
educational administration is closely related to the beliefs and values,
the biological and psychological attributes, the philosophical persuasions, and the social characteristics of the participants of the educational
system and its larger community. T h e role of the educational administrator is one of coordinating the action and interaction of the persons
and groups w h o participate directly or indirectly in the educational
process of the community. In the cultural dimension, relevance is the
basic criterion that guides administrative action. Efforts are directed to
motivate adequately the activities of all of the participants of the educational system and its environment with the objective of furthering a
meaningful form of h u m a n life in society. Therefore, administration will
be relevant to the extent that it fosters the conditions that m a k e it
possible to further the quality of collective h u m a n life in the educational system and society in general.[20] T h e basic condition to further
a meaningful and qualitative form of h u m a n life in education and
society is that of participation. Therefore, relevance and participation in
educational administration are closely linked together. Aside from
general anthropology itself, the study and understanding of the cultural
dimension of educational administration is based o n philosophy and
12
philosophical anthropology, psychology and physical anthropology, and

sociology and social anthropology.
T h e conceptualization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration is based on a philosophical definition in which the
instrumental dimension is regulated by the substantive dimension. A t
the intrinsic level, the latter is directly related to the fundamental values
and aspirations of h u m a n beings as historical actors within a specific
cultural environment. A t the extrinsic level, the substantive dimension is
directly related to the attainment of the political objectives of society.
This philosophical orientation does not combine with systems of
social and political organization devoid of regulation that proclaim individualistic independence without social commitment. In the perspective
of this paradigm, freedom of choice on the part of the h u m a n being
implies social adhesion and responsibility. However, just as a behavioural system of educational administration that encourages a type of
functional competition devoid of substantive intersubjective relations is
rejected, the multidimensional paradigm also rejects administrative solutions based on closed and authoritarian systems of social and political
organization that inhibit freedom of action and interaction. T h e multidimensional paradigm is based on the identification of those diversified
dimensions or spaces that m a k e fulfillment of the h u m a n being possible,
both as an individual and social actor. In the terms of the multidimensional paradigm, educational administrators are guided by substantive
and ethical concepts of general validity such as freedom and equity that,
in turn, create the organizational framework for collective participation
in the furthering of a qualitative form of collective h u m a n life in the
school and society in general.
Management
issues and policy implications
T h e examination of the historical evolution of administrative theories adopted in education and the conceptualization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration raises important issues
and reveals a n u m b e r of implications for educational policy and practice. This is particularly evident in developing countries. Taking the
experience of Latin America as a case in point, it is possible to account
for s o m e important aspects, such as: government and educational
13
administration; changes in educational policies and administrative

criteria; centralization versus decentralization; and the training of educational administrators.
1. Government and educational administration. Educational administration in Latin America is inserted in the context of public administration and regional scientific development. This assumption is a natural
corollary of the p h e n o m e n o n of interdependence between education
and society. In this way, m a n y aspects of educational practice and
school management can only be understood w h e n examined in the
evolutionary context of the government sector and society at large.[21]
This is particularly valid in societies where the State plays a central role
in the field of education, as is the case in Latin America. This means
that it is possible to establish a close parallel between the development
of public administration and educational administration in Latin
America, as well as in other developing areas and in industrialized
nations. In the case of the industrialized countries, whatever the educational role played by the State, w h e n they turn to export their models of
educational organization and administration to the developing world
through technical assistance they use the mediation of the central
governments. In Latin America, for example, the general theoretical
perspectives of public administration, imported from overseas without
sufficient relation to the historical process of local development, have a
significant impact in educational administration. In the 1960s, this fact
was particularly evident in the specific field of educational planning,
which was strongly influenced by the theoretical perspectives adopted in
government planning and by the overall orientation of economic develo p m e n t planning.
T h e fact is that economic efficiency and the bureaucratic rationalism of the classical school of administration were widely taught and
adopted as universal dogmas and recipes in Latin American public and
educational administration. T h e same is valid for the behavioural orientation of the h u m a n relations m o v e m e n t and the neoclassical trend of
management by objectives. Finally, the developmental orientation
adopted in comparative public administration towards the end of the
1950s and through the 1960s in the broader context of political theory
invaded the Schools of Administration and of Education in Latin
America. Welfare economics and government planning were accompanied by the economics of education and educational planning concerned
with the preparation of h u m a n resources for economic development. In
14
this context, the State played a central role during the postwar developmental period, as the major investor in education in an attempt to
respond to social needs and political aspirations of Latin American
nations.
2. Changes in educational policies and in administrative criteria. T h e
historical account of organizational and administrative theories adopted
in Latin American education reveals constant changes in educational
policies and administrative criteria. Latin America initially subscribed to
the juridical approach that was essentially normative in nature and
closely tied to the tradition of R o m a n administrative law that characterized public and educational administration during the colonial era.[22]
Following that era, the four historical models of educational administration adopted during the course of this century are defined by its dominant management criteria, as set forth earlier in this Chapter. In turn,
the changes in management criteria respond to corresponding social and
educational changes.
T h e cult of efficiency, linked to the economic rationalism
prevailing at the beginning of this century, was accompanied by educational policies that emphasized the technocratic and organizational
aspects of educational systems with little attention to their h u m a n and
political aspects. In other words, economic rationalism was accompanied
by pedagogical pragmatism and administrative efficiency. In the specific
field of educational planning, the cult of efficiency underlies the traditional techno-rational model conceived in the 1960s, in which planning
took the form of a normative or rational process and a technocratic
exercise. As a reaction to economic efficiency, pedagogical effectiveness,
associated to the behavioural theories developed at the time of the
Great Depression, c a m e forward as a criterion of administrative
performance in education. In agreement with the behavioural orientation, educational policies emphasized the h u m a n side of the educational
system. In an attempt to overcome the limitations of economic efficiency and pedagogical effectiveness in education, political responsiveness was developed in light of the international reconstructive effort
after World W a r II. In this context, educational policy was primarily
concerned with the attainment of social demands and political aspirations. T h e result was an unprecedented expansion of educational
systems in Latin America and in other parts of the world. The postwar
educational expansion was aborted by the economic crisis that affected
the world at the end of the 1970s and was aggravated in the 1980s.
15
Educational policy and administration were submitted to a critical

examination all over the world. Social scientists became more and more
concerned with the design of significant and qualitative forms of h u m a n
life in education and society. Cultural relevance becomes then the dominant criterion of educational policy-making and administrative performance. In a similar w a y , educational planners try to overcome the
traditional technocratic model and to conceive a m o r e strategic paradigm of educational planning/23/ in light of political responsiveness and
cultural relevance.
3. Centralization versus decentralization. T h e political history of
Latin America shows a constant tension between centralization and
decentralization in the management of education and society in general.
T h e fact is that there have been continual attempts and a number of
forms of administrative decentralization (dconcentration, debureaucratization, regionalization, municipalization, delegation, nuclearization,
privatization) as alternatives to the political and administrative
centralism that characterized society and education in Latin America
during its five centuries of existence. Nevertheless, centralization,
which dates back to the establishment of the independent States of
Latin America and the construction of their national identity, remains a
c o m m o n political feature in the whole Hemisphere. Education, which
was used by the State as a powerful instrument to reach independence
and to promote national development, as well as to deprive the Church
of its historical influence in public affairs, followed the same centralizing model. [24]
For practical purposes, this Chapter examines whether a centralized or a decentralized educational system is more efficient, effective,
responsive, and relevant to promote equity and freedom of access to
economic and educational opportunities, in light of the concept of the
quality of collective h u m a n life. Studies carried out by universities and
by intergovernmental agencies - such as the World Bank, the
Organization of American States, U N E S C O and its International
Institute for Educational Planning - reveal that most Governments of
Latin American nations have adopted different forms of decentralization in education.[25] Examples of experiences include: (1) Argentina as
a case of multiple administration of its educational system; (2) Brazil as
a tentative of administrative decentralization by school levels, with a
progressive assignment of intermediate education to the provinces and
basic education to the municipalities: (3) Chile as a case of educational
16
regionalization combined with central planning and control; (4)

Colombia as an example of functional and geographic decentralization
of educational administration; (5) Costa Rica as an example of regionalization and dconcentration of the educational system based on regional
educational departments; (6) Mexico as a case of administrative reform
and 'agilizacin'; (7) P a n a m a as an example of decentralization through
the strengthening of educational administration in the provinces; (8)
Peru as a case of nuclearization and progressive geographic decentralization of the Ministry of Education; (9) Venezuela as a case of educational regionalization as a basis for administrative decentralization.
O n e could inquire about the reasons behind these and other recent
attempts of educational decentralization in Latin America. Those w h o
favour decentralization argue that it facilitates the interaction between
education and society, upgrading significantly the degree of responsiveness and relevance of the educational system for its participants and the
community at large. Decentralization would also m o v e the participants
of local communities to search for educational solutions to their problems within their limits, instead of adopting universal solutions
(un)applicable to all situations of a country. T h e defenders of decentralization also argue that a decentralized educational system would be
economically m o r e efficient and pedagogically m o r e effective than a
centralized system.
These arguments though are under severe questioning in view of
the critical assessment of Latin American concrete reality and its historical conditioning forces. There is little evidence that government policies o n educational decentralization work effectively. S o m e critical
writers argue that in m a n y cases there is evidence to the contrary.
Critical analysts argue that, in economic terms, systematic studies
are still needed to establish whether or not there is an empirical correlation between efficiency and decentralization. In pedagogical terms, there
is a need to show h o w a decentralized educational system is more effective in countries where the political culture values administrative
centralism. Considering that the concept of effectiveness is rooted in
neoclassical economic thought, a decentralized educational system could
tend to favour private education. Critical analysts argue that this orientation is in conflict with the imperative of providing equal opportunities
of free public education to the poor. In political terms, it is necessary to
show h o w educational decentralization can be m o r e responsive to social
demands and political aspirations in countries with an economic struc-
17
ture and a political organization that does not give adequate fiscal
autonomy to provinces and municipalities. In this way, the adoption of
a decentralized educational system in countries marked by a centralized
economic structure and political organization could run the risk of
creating abandoned school systems in the marginal urban communities
and poor rural municipalities. In cultural terms, there are doubts
whether a decentralized educational system can be m o r e relevant to its
participants and the larger community than a centralized system if
adequate economic and political conditions do not exist.
In fact, Latin American countries face a significant deterioration of
their economic situation accompanied by constant tensions with the
industrialized nations. In addition, the external economic strangling and
the impoverishment of national economies in Latin America generate
increasing internal conflicts which are mediated by central governments.
This means that internal centralization is reinforced by powerful
external forces. This centralizing trend has obvious implications for
educational policy-making and planning. In addition, educational policies and plans are often prepared by professionals associated to the
central power structure and usually committed to urban values. O n the
other hand, bearing in mind the difficult economic situation throughout
Latin America, decentralization can seriously jeopardize equity and
increase regional inequalities because of the unequal access to financial
resources and educational services.
T h e debate over centralization versus decentralization in educational administration reveals that there are no pat formulas and easy
solutions.[26] Nevertheless, two suggestions seem to be forthcoming.
First, it is necessary to separate educational policy and administrative practice. In order to preserve national identity, it would seem that
general educational policy should be national in nature. In this way, a
national unitary curriculum should be designed in order to preserve
national cultural identity, to strengthen its capacity to pursue scientific
advancement, and to provide equal opportunities concerning access to
scientific and technological development. T o such national curriculum
design, local contents should be added in order to preserve the cultural
heterogeneity of the country and to attain concrete social needs and
political demands. A s for educational planning, this orientation lays the
grounds for the development of micro-planning within the context of
national educational development planning. Again, it is suggested that
general national policy guidelines should not be decentralized, in order
18
to avoid the risk of contributing to the weakening of our sense of

national destiny and of the presence of modern science in all parts of
the country. For the implementation of national educational policies,
administrative practice could be m o r e or less decentralized. That is to
say that, in each case, one should adopt the most efficient, effective,
responsive and relevant administrative strategy to attain the ends and
objectives established in the national educational policy, and, at the
s a m e time, to preserve the cultural heterogeneity of the country and to
fulfill concrete local needs.
Second, it is important to clarify concepts and practices so that
centralization is not necessarily associated with authoritarianism, and
decentralization is not necessarily confused with democracy and participation. In effect, in the same way that authoritarianism can coexist with
decentralization, democracy and participation can exist in a centralized
system. T h e difference lies in the forms of participation and the practice of democracy. T o s u m u p , it is necessary to look, above all else, to
the reason for being and the national policy of education. T h e n it is
necessary to examine participatory democracy as a form of administrative mediation to attain educational advancement, in the conviction that
a participatory form of educational administration is more important
than centralizing or decentralizing the system, because a decentralized
system need not always necessarily ensure participation, and a centralized system need not always necessarily deny it.
4. The training of educational administrators. In colonial Latin
America, there has been little concern over educational administration
and the preparation of educational administrators. In fact, theorybuilding and knowledge development in Latin American educational
administration only began in this century, mainly after 1930. Most
publications of the colonial period were general descriptive studies and
reports with a normative and juridical approach to educational administration. Usually educational administrators were teachers that were
temporarily released from their teaching responsibilities. This fact
explains w h y the definition of the profile of the educational administrator always included teacher training and experience as the fundamental requirement.
Changes in the traditional profile of the educational administrator
were introduced as a result of the expansion and increasing complexity
of educational systems in Latin America. T h e redefinition of the profile
of the educational administrator w a s accompanied by the introduction
19
of systematic training policies and practices. T h e preparation of educational administrators in Latin America has been a government concern
for the last five decades. U p to World W a r II, the preparation of educational administrators was part of the general teacher training
programmes in Normal Schools and University Faculties of Humanities
and Sciences. Educational administration was just one subject of a
comprehensive programme of study. The content of educational administration was influenced by the juridical and normative tradition that
characterized organizational studies and government administration.
Following World W a r II, particularly since 1960, Schools of
Education were established in Latin American universities, and professional training programmes of educational administrators were introduced at the undergraduate level. These training programmes
emphasized the study of educational administration within the classical
and behavioural management traditions. During this period, a number
of non-degree tailor-made seminars and courses in educational administration - and, after 1958, in educational planning - were carried out by
national governments and universities in co-operation with international
agencies, particularly U N E S C O and the Organization of American
States. These were the first training experiences in educational administration and planning at the graduate level in Latin America. It is at this
time that the International Institute for Educational Planning (HEP)
was established in Paris, becoming, since 1963, a research and training
center of excellence for educational leaders of the developing world.
H E P international training activities in educational planning and administration include the Annual Training Programme, since 1965; the
Visiting Specialists Programme since 1966; the Specialized Short
Training Courses at regional and national. levels, . the Specialized
Workshops and Seminars, and a number of Individualized Programmes
for educational planners, scholars and administrators.
Systematic graduate education, which started around 1970, represents a new change in Latin American university education and educational administration. At that time, the Regional Educational
Development Program of the Organization of American States, established in 1968, had a decisive influence in the development of systematic graduate programmes in educational planning, supervision and
administration at leading universities in Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
P a n a m a and Peru. Since the beginning of the 1970s, graduate education
has been playing a decisive role in changing the traditional normative
20
character of Latin American university teaching to a more analytical

approach based o n increasing research activities. Given their newness,
graduate programmes in educational administration in Latin America
have not yet been consolidated in m a n y countries. T h e prospects,
though, are promising in a good n u m b e r of nations. There is increasing
entry of professionals from other fields of study, particularly from the
social sciences, into graduate programmes of educational administration.
This interdisciplinary encounter enhances an unprecedented theoretical
and methodological development in training programmes and research
projects.
Like in the previous issues, policy and practice in the training of
educational administrators in Latin America follow the general historical development of the social sciences. F r o m the initial normative
orientation, training programmes m o v e to a behavioural content, until
reaching a m o r e sociological approach to educational administration.
This means that in the current training programmes of educational
administrators there are initial indications tending to give precedence to
the concepts of cultural relevance and political responsiveness over
those of economic efficiency and behavioural effectiveness.
Educational administration in a cross-cultural perspective

T h e search for n e w superseding perspectives in educational administration is evident in vanguard intellectual circles of both industrialized
societies and developing nations. In this context, there have been recent
promising national and international efforts that face the challenge of
cross-cultural co-operation in education and educational administration.
A number of these efforts, developed by individual scholars and universities, are expressed at intergovernmental agencies, such as U N E S C O
and its International Institute for Educational Planning, the Regional
Educational Development Program of the Organization of American
States, and the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences ( F L A C S O ) .
Cross-cultural co-operation is also fostered by national and international scientific and professional societies, such as: the International
Intervisitation P r o g r a m m e in Educational Administration (IIP), which
gathers every four years since 1966; the University Council for
Educational Administration ( U C E A ) of the United States of America:
the Brazilian National Association of Professionals in Educational
21
Administration ( A N P A E ) , founded in 1961; the C o m m o n w e a l t h

Council for Educational Administration ( C C E A ) ; the European F o r u m
for Educational Administration, created in 1977; the Caribbean Society
for the Study of Educational Administration ( C A R S E A ) ; and the
Inter-American Society for Educational Administration (ISEA), established in 1979. Their international conferences, research projects and
publications have been growing as forums of a constructive debate in
the field of educational administration across cultures.[27]
The cross-cultural perspective of education and educational administration, especially the study of the transferability of educational
models and administrative paradigms across cultures, has particular
appeal in the nations of the developing world. In the last decades there
has been a strong m o v e m e n t in the developing nations towards the
conceptualization of education and educational administration from the
angle of the developing world. This creative sociological perspective is
originally rooted in the 'theory of dependence'/2S/ and its superseding
reinterpretations, which are primarily concerned with the structural
relations that explain the inequalities a m o n g and within nations. A good
example of this is found in Latin America, where committed scholars
are involved in the construction of n e w conceptual and analytical
perspectives of education and educational administration that are politically responsive and culturally relevant. A number of recent publications on education and educational administration in Latin America
within the n e w vanguard pedagogical tradition brought an intense
debate to the field.[29] In the specific field of educational administration, the n e w publications in the conflict tradition address criticaldialectical approaches, [30] structural analysis,/37/ self-management
paradigms/32/ and phenomenological perspectives.[33] Although the
individual contributions of the protagonists of the new orientation are
different, all of them share a critique of the dominant consensus tradition of educational administration. Another c o m m o n characteristic of
the n e w Latin American theoretical efforts in educational administration
is their explicit epistemological orientation. However, going beyond the
evaluation of the limits of the foundations of past and current dominant
administrative theories, the most creative aspect of the studies is the
constructive search for superseding conceptual and analytical perspectives to guide inquiry and practice in educational administration. Their
c o m m o n concern is the conceptualization of educational organization
and administrative perspectives that are culturally relevant and politically responsive to the demands and needs of Latin American society.
22
T h e upcoming cross-cultural perspective in education and educational administration is also reflected in meetings and studies carried
out in industrialized nations that address the p h e n o m e n o n of international interdependence in sociology and education. A good example is
the Fifth World Congress on Comparative Education held in Paris in
1984, where Debeauvais emphasized educational interdependence and
linked its relevance "to the fact that international exchanges in the field
of education have never been so intense and diverse".[34] In the specific
field of educational administration in the United States of America, the
p h e n o m e n o n is highlighted by Lynch in his State of the Art Address on
'Dependency Theory and Educational Administration', [35] delivered in
N e w York at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. Promising research and training developments
within the conflict tradition are also taking place in Australia, the
United Kingdom, and Canada. T h e Australian experience in the conflict
tradition follows the initiative of Bates' pioneering work on "Towards a
critical practice of educational administration". [36] In the United
K i n g d o m the new critical-emancipatory research and training efforts in
educational administration keep affinity with the work of the n e w sociologists and critical thinkers of education.[37] T h e Canadian upsurge
results partly from the pioneering critical work of Greenfield/35/ and as
a superseding challenge faced by Canadian scholars involved in developing countries. [39]
Recent studies on comparative administration carried out in the
industrialized world stem from general development theories coupled
with comparative anthropological investigations and organizational
studies across cultures. Goulet/40/ in the United States and Deblois/4//
in Canada conceive similar 'liberation' approaches to development.
Their writings override the dominant perspective of the traditional sociology of development and stand out as important sources for specific
studies on organizational life and administrative practice. In a similar
way as the dependency scholars in Latin America did, the liberation
scholars do suggest that- organization and administrative theories
conceived by and for industrialized countries are not transferable and
applicable to developing areas, because of the intrinsic economic and
cultural differences.
These and other similar contributions have important implications
for research, training, and cross-cultural technical co-operation in
educational administration. In a cross-cultural perspective, research and
23
training contents and methodologies in educational administration call

for constant rvaluations and reconstructions. T h e question of the
transferability of dominant educational administrative models and practices demands meaningful answers. A s culture provides the context in
which education is practiced, cultural relevance is the major guiding
criterion to assess the applicability of organization and administrative
theories, as well as planning practices, in the field of education. Such a
cultural orientation implies a reconceptualization of national and international technical co-operation in the field. Wiggins' call for a 'transactional' approach to technical co-operation, as opposed to the
traditional 'assistance-intervention' framework,[42] demonstrates an
accepted concern in a n u m b e r of vanguard intellectual circles
throughout the world.
T o s u m u p , the search for n e w superseding educational administrative theories is a challenge to be faced by intellectuals in both developing nations and the industrialized societies of East and West. In this
worldwide intellectual challenge there is a place for both national
constructive efforts and international cross-cultural co-operation. In
both cases, cultural relevance and political responsiveness to social and
educational needs and d e m a n d s are basic criteria to guide inquiry and
practice in educational administration. T h e underlying assumption of
this orientation is that it can effectively contribute to the furthering of a
substantive quality of collective h u m a n life in education and society in
both particular national settings and in the international context. This
brings us to the concept of collective participation as the political
strategy to accomplish a substantive quality of collective h u m a n life in
society, and to further scientific and technological development in
education and educational administration. This issue will n o w be
addressed with m y personal views.
T o w a r d s collective participation in educational

administration
T h e basic assumption in this last section is that participation is a
right and duty of every m e m b e r of a democratic society. This suggests
that participation and democracy are two concepts closely linked
together. It is in the context of this association that it is possible to
examine the historical role of education and scientific knowledge in
24
general, it is widely accepted that the function of education is the

construction and distribution of knowledge. T h e construction of knowledge implies freedom, consciousness, and collective participation. T h e
distribution of knowledge implies an ethical commitment with equity
and social justice so that the knowledge thus constructed can be of
concrete benefit to the participants of the educational system and
society in general. It is bearing this in mind that educational institutions
are social instances in which it is possible to construct democracy as a
political form to foster a substantive quality of collective h u m a n life. It
is also in this way that the adoption of a participatory form of educational administration is a concrete way of contributing to the construction of democracy in education and society. However, democracy is not
the goal of educational practice and of social practice in general;
democracy is the type of political mediation used to attain a substantive
quality of collective h u m a n life as the ethical goal of both education and
society. Therefore, participation in education, particularly in educational
administration, is, above all else, a political process, as it is in the
governing of society.
There are m a n y specific forms of participation in educational
administration, just as there exist m a n y forms of participation in the
governing of society.[43] This Chapter argues for collective participation
in educational administration. Such a perspective is forwarded in the
conviction that collective participation can constitute a powerful antidote to the institutionalized authoritarianism of the formal bureaucracy
and to the dogmatic action of minority groups.
T h e conceptualization of educational administration as a process of
collective participation^ 4] makes selective use of and keeps affinity with
the contributions of contemporary critical action theorists in sociology
and the philosophy of science,[45] organizational theory,[46] and education. [47] In the specific field of educational administration, Rodrigues'
concept of 'collegiate action' [48] Davies' gender-inclusive model of
'holistic m a n a g e m e n t ' [49] and our 'multidimensional paradigm of
educational administration'[50] are examples of n e w participatory
m a n a g e m e n t perspectives and deserve an additional reference.
Rodrigues has recently proposed a n e w form of articulation
between pedagogical practice and educational administration based o n
his concept of 'collegiate action' Trying to override the traditional
centralized and bureaucratic m a n a g e m e n t practices, he proposes a form
of educational administration in which the 'collegiate' is the driving
25
force of cooperative collective action in the school. H e considers the

'collegiate', in which all the participants of the school are represented,
as the instrument of a democratic form of decision-making. In his view,
though, the 'collegiate' is not only an administrative instrument, but a
central pedagogical and political instance in the school. T h e social
organization of the educational work based on the concept of 'collegiate
action' rejects individualism and unharnessed and self-centered competition, favouring co-operative collective action towards the furthering of a
substantive quality of h u m a n life in the school and society in general.
Davies' conceptualization of 'holistic m a n a g e m e n t ' gives special
attention to an educational administrative model that is gender-inclusive
and culturally relevant. H e r critique of traditional educational administrative theory and practice keeps affinity with the critical thinkers of
education and educational administration. In the construction of her
superseding 'holistic m a n a g e m e n t ' model she includes both the 'whole
staff and the 'whole person'. A s far as the preparation of educational
administrators is concerned, her contention is that management training
should be opened to all teachers. This orientation would facilitate
collective participation in educational administration. It would also facilitate the democratic alternance and rotation of educational administrators.
Critical h u m a n action, political participation and cultural relevance
are key concepts of the multidimensional paradigm of educational
administration examined earlier. Participation, as a form of collective
critical h u m a n action, is the political strategy for the attainment of a
culturally relevant m an ag em en t practice as conceived in the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration. In adopting cultural
relevance as the fundamental criterion, educational administration is
appraised in terms of the meanings and consequences of activities for
the improvement of the substantive quality of collective h u m a n life in
the educational system and the larger society. T h e perception and interpretation of these meanings and consequences are only possible through
an administrative theory conceived o n the basis of real experience. This
theoretical conceptualization is directly founded upon the participative
posture of those responsible for the m a na ge me nt of the educational
system. T h e m o r e participatory the administrative process, the greater
its chances of being relevant to individuals and groups and the greater
its possibilities of explaining and furthering the substantive quality of
collective h u m a n life. It is in the context of this participatory perspec-
26
tive, grounded in collective critical h u m a n action, that educational

administration can perform a role of democratic mediation that seeks to
reach a solid alliance of individual freedom and social equity in the
educational system, aiming to develop a form of h u m a n experience with
cultural and political content.
T h e cultural and political content occupies a prominent position in
the debate over one of the most important and controversial issues in
educational administration - that of the preparation and selection of
educational administrators for the various educational levels. T h e fact is
that participation in the preparation and selection of educational administrators takes place in m a n y different forms. W h a t is certain is that, in
this regard, there are no pat formulas or universally applicable systems
of participation in educational administration, just as is the case in the
forms of government adopted in different societies. A n d there is n o
reason w h y there should be. M u c h to the contrary, it is our contention
that participation in educational administration is a culturally-specific
strategy. Therefore, each educational system should determine and
adopt its o w n specific paradigm of participation in order to be culturally relevant for its participants and, at the same time, politically
responsive to the aspirations and needs of the population as a whole.
Again, participation in the preparation and selection of educational
administrators is a crucial issue that has yet to be methodologically
defined. T h e correct definition of this issue brings us to the concept of
education as a particular practice of politics, the latter defined as the
global practice of collective h u m a n life. A s a corollary of the relationship between education and politics, educational administration is, at
the same time, a pedagogical act and a political act. If education is
conceived as a particular practice of politics, then there exists, in educational administration, a superordination of the political over the pedagogical. In other words, the educational administrator at the different
levels and modalities of education is, above all, a politician and, as such,
should perform his/her functions with legitimacy and social responsibility. H o w e v e r , the educational administrator should be technically
prepared if he/she is to perform his/her professional role with political
responsiveness and cultural relevance. T h e lack of technical competence
of the educational administrator can seriously jeopardize his/her political and cultural role, while compromising the interests and aspirations
of educators, students, administrative support personnel, and c o m m u nity citizens. This is so because, in reality, all technical activity that
27
affects the interests of the participants in the educational system implies

political and cultural responsibilities. Therefore, the technical preparation of educational administrators is important, since it is expected to
provide them with efficient and effective instruments for the performance of their professional role with political responsiveness and cultural
relevance.
Bearing in mind the association of the pedagogical and political
aspects of educational administration in its cultural milieu, it is imperative to conceive of a formula capable of combining the technical preparation of educational administrators with the process of their selection
by the participants of the educational institution and community representatives. In this respect, the conceptualization of educational administration as a process of collective participation represents an initial
attempt to combine free election as a political and cultural strategy, and
formal training as a technical requirement. T h e recommendation that
educational management training should be extended to all faculty
m e m b e r s and all prospective teachers is particularly important. T h e
importance of opening management training to all staff m e m b e r s is
based on the assumption that such an orientation would enhance collective critical participation in the management of education, whatever the
methodology eventually adopted in the selection of educational administrators.
Closing remarks
T h e perspective of educational administration as a process of
collective participation, as outlined in this conclusion, is not a point of
arrival, but rather a point of departure a m o n g m a n y others on a long
journey. It is not the end of the task, but rather a start a m o n g m a n y
others in the immense task of scientific construction in the field of
education.
This final remark suggests that this Chapter is a particular act of
participation in a m o r e ample process of collective construction of
knowledge in education and educational administration. T h e Chapter is
developed on the basis of an intellectual commitment to the participants
of educational systems, together with community citizens engaged in the
construction of strategic forms of educational planning and administration that respond to the cultural aspirations and political demands of
28
society. Therefore, this Chapter is part of a process of collective participation to fulfill a concrete intellectual commitment. Democratic mediation is adopted as the political strategy, in the conviction that democracy
can provide the basic ingredients for an adequate conjugation of the
principles of freedom and equity in educational administration, with the
ultimate aim of constructing an educational system and a society
founded upon the concept of the substantive quality of collective human
life.
29
Notes and references

[1] For an earlier discussion and application of the concept of the
quality of h u m a n life, see Benno Sander, Consenso e Confino:
Perspectivas Analticas na Pedagoga e na Administraao da Educaao,
Sao Paulo/Niteri, Editora Pioneira/Universidade Federal Fluminense,
1984. See also Pedro D e m o , Avaliaao Qualiativa, Sao Paulo, Editora
Cortez, 1987; Juan Carlos Tedesco, El Desafio Educativo: Calidad y
Democracia, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1987.
[2] See W . R . Scott, "Developments in Organization Theory,
1960-1980",American Behavioral Scientists, 24, 1981, pp. 407-422; W . R .
Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1981.
[3] Jack A . Culbertson, "Three Epistemologies and the Study of
Educational Administration", UCEA Review, Vol. XXII, no. 1, Winter
1981, pp. 1-6.
[4] Frederick W . Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, N e w York,
Harper and R o w , 1911.
[5] Henry Fayol, Administration Industrielle et Generale, Paris, Dunod,
1916.
6] M a x Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, N e w
York, The Free Press, 1964.
[7] Elton M a y o , The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, N e w
York, Macmillan, 1933; F.J. Roethlisberger and W . J . Dickson,
Management and the Worker, Cambridge, Harvard University Press,
1939.
[8] Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1938; and Herbert A . Simon, Administrative
Behavior, N e w York, Macmillan, 1945.
[9] Peter F . Drucker, Practice of Management, N e w York, Harper and
R o w , 1954; G . S . Odiorne, Management by Objectives, N e w York,
30
Pitman, 1965; and J . W . Humble, Management by Objectives, London,

Industrial Education and Research Foundation, 1967.
[10] Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective,
N e w York, Marcel Dekker, 1979; John D . Montgomery and William J.
Siffin, eds., Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration and
Change, N e w York, McGraw-Hill Book C o m p a n y , 1966; Fred W . Riggs,
ed., Frontiers of Development Administration, D u r h a m , D u k e University
Press, 1970.
[11] Warren G . Bennis, Changing Organizations, N e w York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966; Chris Argyris, Management and
Organizational Development, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1971.
[12] Fred W . Riggs, Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory
of Prismatic Society, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964.
[13] M . J . E s m a n , and H . C . Blaise, Institution Building Research: The
Guiding Concepts, Pittsburgh, The University of Pittsburgh Graduate
School of Public and International Affairs, 1966.
[14] P . R . Lawrence and J . W . Lorsch, Organizations and Environment,
Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, 1967.
[15] Statements on these efforts can be found in the following publications: T . B . Greenfield, "Theory about Organizations", in Administering
Education: International Challenge, M . Hughes, ed., London, T h e
Athlone Press, 1975; G . Burrell and G . Morgan, Sociological Paradigms
and Organizational Analysis, London, Heineman, 1980; R.J. Bates,
"Towards a Critical Practice of Educational Administration", in Studies
in Educational Administration, C C E A , no. 27, September 1982, pp.
1-15; A . G . R a m o s , A Nova Ciencia das Organizaoes, RJ, Fundaao
Getlio Vargas, 1981; J.. Benson, "Organizations: A Dialectical View",
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, no. 1, March 1977, pp. 1-21.
M . Crozier and E . Friedberg, L'Acteur et le Systme: les Constraintes de
l'Action Collective, Paris, E d . du Seuil, 1977; A . Touraine, Sociologie
de l'Action, Paris, E d . du Seuil, 1965; J. Culbertson, "Three
Epistemoogies and the Study of Educational Administration", UCEA
Review 22, 1, 1981, 1-6.
31
[16] For the original conceptualization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration, see Benno Sander, Adminisiraao
da Educaao no Brasil: Evoluao do Conhecimento, Fortaleza, Edioes
Universidade Federal do Cear, 1982; Benno Sander, "Administraao da
Educaao no Brasil: E Hora da Relevancia", in Educaao Brasileira,
Brasilia, Year IV, no. 9, 2nd semester, 1982, pp. 8-27; Benno Sander,
"Administracin de la Educacin en Amrica Latina: El Concepto de
Relevancia Cultural", La Educacin, Washington, D . C . , Organization of
American States, no. 94, 1984, pp. 49-69. For a revised English version
of the original publications, see Benno Sander and Thomas Wiggins,
"Cultural Context of Administrative Theory: In Consideration of a
Multidimensional Paradigm", Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 21, no. 1, Winter 1985, pp. 95-117. For an empirical testing of the
multidimensional paradigm, see A n a Elizabeth L . A . dos Santos, " O
Processo Decisorio no M E C : Urn Jogo de Foras na Administraao da
Educaao", Brasilia, D F , M A thesis for the University of Brasilia, 1984.
The summary of the earlier publications on the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration acknowledged herewith is presented
in the first part of this Chapter in order to facilitate its utilization as an
analytical instrument to examine major issues and trends in the management of educational systems in Latin America.
[17] This dimension is emphasized, for example, by J . H . M . Brito,
"Administraao Universitaria: Alternativa Empresarial ou Acadmica",
Informativo ANPAE, N o . 3, 1980, pp. 5-8.
[18] The pedagogical dimension is emphasized in the phenomenological
work of A . M . Rezende, J . Santos Filho, and L . R . Carvalho,
"Administraao Universitaria c o m o Ato Pedaggico", Educaao e
Sociedade N o . 1, Vol. 2, 1979, pp. 25-35.
[19] The political dimension is particularly important for Miguel
Gonzlez Arroyo, "Administraao da Educaao, Poder e Participaao",
Educaao e Sociedade, N o . 2, Jan., 1979, pp. 34-36; and Lauro Carlos
Wittmann, "Administraao da Educaao Hoje: Ambiguidades de sua
Produao Histrica", in Em Aberto, Brasilia, D F , Brazil, Ministerio da
Educaao, Year 6, no. 36, Oct-Dec, 1987, pp. 1-7.
32
[20] See Benno Sander and T h o m a s Wiggins, "Cultural Context of

Administrative Theory: In Consideration of a Multidimensional
Paradigm", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 21, no. 1, Winter
1985, pp. 95-117.
[21] Benno Sander, Administraao da Educaao no Brasil Evoluao do
Conhecimcnto, Fortaleza, Edioes Universidade Federal do Cear, 1982.
[22] Benno Sander, Administraao da Educaao no Brasil: Evoluao do
Conliecimenio, Fortaleza, Edioes Universidade Federal do Cear, 1982,
pp. 11-14.
[23] Noel M c G i n n and Luis Porter Galater, " A n Introduction to
Strategic Planning in Education", Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University, Graduate School of Education, 1983, M i m e o ; Noel M c G i n n
and Luis Porter Galater, "Modelos de Planificacin Educativa para las
Comunidades
Marginales", La Educacin,
Washington, D . C . ,
Organization of American States, no. 94-95, 1984, pp. 34-72.
[24] For an analysis of the origin and nature of political and educational
centralization in Latin America, see Carlos E . Olivera, The
Administration of Educational Development in Latin America, Paris,
International Institute for Educational Planning, U N E S C O , 1979, pp.
22-31.
[25] For conceptual formulations and case studies, see Carlos Malpica
and Shapour Rassekh, ed., Educational Administration and Multilevel
Plan Implementation: Experiences from Developing. Countries, Paris,
International Institute for Educational Planning, Selected H E P Seminar
Papers, 1983; Carlos E . Olivera, The Administration of Educational
Development in Latin America, Paris, International Institute for
Educational Planning, Research Report, 1979; Octavio Arizmendi
Posada, Francisco Cspedes y Vicente Umbelino de Souza, " L a
Administracin de la Educacin en Amrica Latina: Estudio sobre
Agilizacin y Decentralizacin Administrativa", in Seminario sobre
Administracin de la Educacin en Amrica Latina, Washington, D . C . ,
Organizacin de los Estados Americanos, 1973, pp. 143-259;
Organization of American States, Seminario-Taller Latinoamericano de
Regio nalizacin Educativa, Concepcin, Chile, Universidad de
33
Concepcin, Centro de Administracin Educacional, 1983; Norberto

Fernndez Lamarra, Regionalizacin, Decentralizacin y Nuclearizacin
de la Educacin, Buenos Aires, Consejo Federal de Inversiones, 1987;
Noel M c G i n n , " U n Proyecto de Investigacin y Accin para la
Decentralizacin
de Sistemas Educacionales", La
Educacin,
Washington, D . C . , Organization of American States. Year X X X I , no.
101, 1987, pp. 165-180; Silvia N . de Senn Gonzlez, "Reflexiones sobre
las Posibilidades y Perspectivas de la Regionalizacin Educativa", La
Educacin Washington, D . C . , Organization of American States, Year
X X X I , no. 101, pp. 135-154. For a discussion and case studies on
educational regionalization in Latin America see La Educacin,
Washington, D . C . , Organization of American States, Year X X V I ,
Numbers 87 and 88, 1982.
[26] A recent interesting debate over centralization and decentralization
in educational administration was carried out at a specialized meeting
sponsored by the Organization of American States in Washington, D . C .
in 1987, and published in La Educacin, Washington, D . C , Year X X X I ,
no. 101, 1987.
[27] See Carlos Malpica, "Programas Internacionales de Formacin para
la Administracin de la Educacin ", Studia Paedagogica, Salamanca,
Universidad de Salamanca, no. 15-16, enero-diciembre de 1985, pp.
75-81; Meredidd Hughes, ed., Administering Education: International
Challenge, London, Athlone, 1975; Robin H . Farquhar and Ian E .
Housego, Canadian and Comparative Educational Administration,
Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 1980. For a renewed effort
in educational administration in the Americas, under the joint sponsorship of ISEA, A N P A E and U C E A , see " T h e First Inter-American
Congress on Educational Administration", UCEA Review, Vol. X X I ,
N o . 2, Spring 1980, with articles authored by Jack Culbertson, Benno
Sander, Patrick Lynch, Thomas Wiggins, Ivan Barrientos M o n z n and
Lorenzo G u a d a m u z Sandoval. For a recent effort in the Caribbean,
under the auspices of C A R S E A and C C E A , see David Marshall and
Earle Newton, eds., "The Professional Preparation and Development of
Educational Administrators in Developing Areas: The Caribbean",
North Bay, Ontario, Nipissing University College, 1986.
34
[28] For an overview of the concept of dependence and its utilization as

an analytical category in education, see the issue on "Dependence and
Interdependence in Education", published by U N E S C O in Prospects,
Vol. X V , no. 2, 1985, pp. 190-271, with articles authored by M .
Debeauvais, B . Sander, J. Velloso, M . A . Eckstein and H.J. Noah, C E .
Oliveira, E . A . Yoloye, R . Hayhoe, and P . Bradfoot.
[29] See, for example, Paulo Freir, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, N e w
York, Seabury Press, 1974; Juan Carlos Tedesco, El Desafio Educativo:
Calidad y Democracia, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano,
1987; Guiomar a m o de Mello, Magisterio de lo. Grau: da Competencia
Tcnica ao Compromisso Poltico, Sao Paulo, Editora Cortez, 1982;
German W . R a m a , "Educacin, Imgenes y Estilos de Desarrollo", in
Desarrollo y Educacin en Amrica
Latina y el Caribe,
U N E S C O / A L / P N U D , Buenos Aires, 1977; Cecilia Braslavsky, " U n
Desafo Fundamental de la Educacin Latinoamericana Durante los
Prximos 25 Aos: Construir su Destino", La Educacin, Washington,
D . C . Organizacin de los Estados Americanos, A n o X X X I , no. 101, pp.
67-82; Gregorio Weinberg, "Modelos Educativos en el Desarrollo
Histrico de Amrica Latina", in Desarrollo y Educacin en Amrica
Latina y el Caribe, U N E S C O / A L / P N U D , Buenos Aires, 1977;
Pedro D e m o , Avaliaao Qiialitativa, Sao Paulo, Editora Cortez, 1987;
Moacir Gadotti, Educaao e Poder: Introduao Pedagoga do Conflito,
Sao Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1981; Dermeval Saviani, Educaao: Do
Senso Comum
Conscincia Filosfica, Sao Paulo, Editora Cortez, 1982.
[30] Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury, "Educaao e C o n Elementos
Metodolgicos para urna Teoria Crtica do Fenmeno Educativo", Sao
Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1985; Maria de Ftima Costa Flix,
Administraao Escolar: Um Problema Educativo ou Empresarial, Sao
Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1984; Accia Zeneida Kuenzer Zung, " A Teoria
da Administra ao Educacional: Ciencia e Ideologa", Cadernos de
Pesquisa, Sao Paulo, Fundaao Carlos Chagas, no. 48, February, 1984,
pp. 39-46; Lauro Carlos Wittmann, "Administraao e Planejamento da
Educao: Ato Poltico-Pedaggico", Revista Brasileira de Administraao
da Educaao, Porto Alegre, Vol. 1, no. 2, 1983, pp. 10-22; Vitor
Henrique Paro, Administraao Escolar: Introduao Crtica, Sao Paulo,
Editora Cortez, 1986; Benno Sander, Consenso e Confuto: Perspectivas
Analticas na Pedagoga e na Administraao da Educaao, Sao
Paulo/Niteri, Editora Pioneira/Universidade Federal Fluminense, 1984.
35
[31] Mauricio Tragtenberg, Burocracia e Ideologa, Sao Paulo, Atica,

1974; Mauricio Tragtenberg, Administraao, Poder e Ideologa, Sao
Paulo, Editora Moraes, 1980; Miguel Gonzlez Arroyo, " A
Administraao da Educaao u m Problema Poltico", Revista Brasleira
de Administraao da Educaao, Porto Alegre, A N P A E , Vol. 1, no. 1,
1983,
pp. 122-29; Miguel Gonzlez Arroyo, "Administraao da
Educaao, Poder e Participaao", Educaao e Sociedade, Sao Paulo,
Cortez Editora, no. 2, 1979, pp. 36-46.
[32] Fernando Prestes Motta, Burocracia e Auiogestao, Sao Paulo,
Editora Brasiliense, 1981.
[33] Antonio Muniz Rezende et al., "Administraao da Educaao c o m o
Ato Pedaggico", Educaao Brasileira, I, no. 12, 1978, pp. 15-58.
[34]
Michel Debeauvais, "Dependence and Interdependence
in
Education: Introductory Note to the Congress T h e m e " , Fifth World
Congress on Comparative Education, Paris, July 1984.
[35]
Patrick D . Lynch, "Dependency Theory and Educational
Administration", N e w York,
American
Educational Research
Association, State of the Art Address, Division A , 1982.
[36] Richard J. Bates, "Towards a Critical Practice of Educational
Administration", in Studies in Educational Administration, C C E A , no.
27, September, 1982, pp. 1-15.
[37] Lynn Davies, "Towards a Gender-Inclusive Theory of Educational
Administration", Birmingham, University of Birmingham, 1985, M i m e o .
[38] Thomas B . Greenfield, "Theory About Organizations: A N e w
Perspective and its Implications for Schools", in Meredidd Hughes, ed.,
Administering Education: International Challenge, London, Athlone,
1975, pp. 71-99; T h o m a s B . Greenfield, "Organization Theory as
Ideology", Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. IX, no. 2, 1979, pp. 97-102; Thomas
B . Greenfield, "Research in Educational Administration in the United
States and Canada: A n Overview and Critique", Educational
Administration, Vol. VIII, no. 1, 1980, pp. 207-245.
36
[39] David G . Marshall, "Educational Administration in Developing

Areas: A Role for Canadian Scholar", Comparative and International
Education Review, Vol. 13, no. 1, 1984, pp. 19-37; David G . Marshall
and
Earle Newton,
The Professional Preparation of School
Administrators in Developing Countries: Some Critical Issues for
Decision-Making, Edmonton, Alberta, T h e University of Alberta,
Faculty of Education, C I E D , Occasional Paper no. 3, 1983; David G .
Marshall and Earle Newton, The Professional Preparation and
Development of Educational Administrators in Developing Areas: The
Caribbean, North Bay, Ontario, Nipissing University College, 1986.
[40]
Denis
Goulet,
"Three
Rationalities
in
Decision-Making", World Development, February, 1986.
Development
[41] Claude Deblois, " A n Emergent Model of Organization",

Edmonton, University of Alberta, Doctoral Dissertation, 1976. See also
Claude Deblois, "Challenge to Administrative Theory", in Canadian
Administrator, Vol. 18, no. 8, 1978.
[42] T h o m a s Wiggins, "Emergent Shifts in Administrative Training
Models in the Americas", Keynote address delivered at the First
Inter-American Congress on Educational Administration, Brasilia,
Inter-American Society for Educational Administration, December,
1979.
[43] T h e extensive literature on participation in the social sciences
shows that the concept is used in a number of areas, such as research,
planning, evaluation and administration. See, for example, Carlos
Rodrigues Brandao, ed., Pesquisa Participante, Sao Paulo, Editora
Brasiliense, 1981; Pedro D e m o , Investigacin Participante: Mito y
Realidad, Buenos Aires, Kapelusz, 1985; Pedro D e m o , "Planejamento
Participativo", in Forum Educacional, Rio de Janeiro, F G V , 1985; Roy
Carr-Hill, Participatory Planning in Education: Testing Some Concepts,
Paris, U N E S C O , Division of Educational Policy and Planning, 1980; J.
Wertheim and M . Argumedo, eds., Educaao e Participaao, Rio de
Janeiro, Philobiblion/IICA/SEPS/MEC, 1985^
[44] For an earlier debate, see Benno Sander, Consenso e Confuto:
Perspectivas Analticas na Pedagoga e na Administraao da Educaao,
37
Sao Paulo/Niteri, Editora Pioneira/Universidade Federal Fluminense,

1984, pp. 139-152^
[45] Jrgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. I:
Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, Beacon, 1981. See
specially pp. 81 onwards for his conceptualization of the critical
construct of "purposive rational action." See also Denis Goulet, "Three
Rationalities in Development Decision-Making", World Development,
February 1986.
[46J Alain Tourraine, Sociologie de l'Action, Paris VI, Editions du Seuil,
1965; David Silverman, The Theory of Organizations: A Sociological
Framework, N e w York, Basic Books, 1970; Alberto Guerreiro R a m o s , A
Nova Ciencia das Organizaoes: Urna Reconceituaao da Riqueza das
Naoes, Rio de Janeiro, Fundaao Getlio Vargas, 1981; Michel Crozier
and Erhard Friedberg, Le Systme et VActeur: Les Contraintes de
l Action Collective, Paris, VI, Editions du Seuil, 1977.
[47] Paulo Freir, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, N e w York, Seabury Press,
1974; Henry A . Giroux, "Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in
The N e w Sociology of Education", Harvard Educational Review, Vol.
53, no. 3, 1983, pp. 257-293.
[48] Neidson Rodrigues, Por urna Nova Escola: O Transitorio e o
Permanente na Educaqao, Sao Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1985.
[49] Lynn Davies, "Towards a Gender-Inclusive Theory of Educational
Administration", Birmingham, University of Birmingham, 1985, M i m e o .
[50] Benno Sander, "Administraao da Educaao no Brasil: E Hora da
Relevancia", in Educaao Brasileira, Brasilia, Year IV, no. 9, 2nd
Semester, 1982, pp. 8-27; Benno Sander and T h o m a s Wiggins, "Cultural
Context
of Administrative Theory: In
Consideration of a
Multidimensional Paradigm", Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 21, no. 1, Winter 1985, pp. 95-117.
38
Chapter 2
Collaborative school
management: small within big is
beautiful
Peter James Murphy 1
Introduction
O u r contemporary society differs significantly from previous eras.
Advances in communication technology, as an illustration of this difference, are bringing into reality, the concept of the world being a global
village. Important political, economic, cultural and natural events are
k n o w n to people throughout the world within hours of them
happening. T h e information received m a y often be superficial and
biased as a consequence of the m o d e of communication. Even if due
consideration is given to these deficiencies, adults today are more aware
of the world in which they live than either their parents or grandparents.
T h e application of n e w technologies in business, industry, m a n u facturing and commerce has drastically altered the nature of work, the
structure of occupations, and demand for h u m a n , natural and physical
capital. A s m a n y nations have become modernized, social values,
h u m a n relationships and behaviour patterns have drastically changed as
traditional ways of life have been replaced by more modern styles of
living. Kratzmann, Byrne and Worth (1980) note
Peter Murphy is Associate Professor at the University of Victoria. British

Colombia, Canada.
39
" m e n and w o m e n everywhere express their concern

with the uncertainty and insecurity of modern life ...
Mankind (these individuals perceive) ... has lost its
connection with the past; modern m a n lacks direction;
and even contemporary leaders cannot fully comprehend the meaning of recent developments in science
and social affairs" (p. 7).
This situation, as one might expect, often places severe strain on the
political, social and cultural infrastructures of a nation.
A s the information explosion intensifies and n e w technologies are
introduced into m a n y facets of peoples lives, national governments are
finding, frequently to their distress, that demand for m a n y export goods
has declined, that the comparative advantage which they m a y have
enjoyed in specific markets has altered, and that the price of m a n y
import goods has increased substantially. D u e to these conditions, some
national governments are viewing the economic future of their countries
with anxiety and pessimism.
A high level of dependence n o w exists a m o n g nations which means
m a n y economic, political, social and technological forces have global
consequences. If a European country, as a simple illustration of this
p h e n o m e n o n , devalues its currency a financial tremor passes through
the economies of both developed and developing countries. Often
governments have difficulty coping effectively with global forces
because they are not always able to resolve quickly m a n y of the problems which emerge. Religious beliefs, cultural norms, political pressure
groups, governing elites, bureaucratic organizations and mass media
usually influence significantly the economic growth and social development of a nation and temper any action taken by the government in
power.
Both the quality and quantity of education available in a country
are perceived by m a n y governments to be important factors for
achieving social and economic policies. Without appropriate h u m a n
resources, these governments recognize that their countries will be
unable to take full advantage of recent advances in technology whether
they be simple or sophisticated in nature. Traditionally, education
systems have tended to be extremely conservative social institutions that
respond very slowly to educational reforms, social changes and advances
in technology of any kind.
40
Small within big is beautiful
At the IVth World Congress of Comparative Education Societies,

Debeauvais (1980) stated that "today people focus on the negative
impact of education upon economic and social development. Doubt is
cast u p o n the impact of the expansion of schooling on economic
growth" (p. 19). Public confidence in education appears to be declining
in m a n y countries. This p h e n o m e n o n is due to a multitude of complex
interrelated factors. O n e of the most important factors is undoubtedly
that educational systems have not achieved m a n y of the goals which
they promised to attain. A s funds for educational activities have begun
to contract in most countries, educational institutions have been
required to account in m o r e detail h o w they utilize the resources they
receive. Responses to these demands for greater accountability have
been frequently less than satisfactory.
Another factor which has contributed significantly to the decline in
public confidence in education has been the inability of m a n y educational systems to satisfy the diverse needs of pluralistic constituencies
(Kratzmann, Byrne and W o r t h , 1980). Whatever action educational
systems undertake in response to social changes, educational reforms or
advances in technology, generates concern for one or m o r e interest
groups. These small clusters of people usually are willing to exercise
political force to change decisions so they can better satisfy their o w n
interests.
Contemporary educational systems by virtue of their size,
complexity, power structure and social networks are finding it difficult
to respond effectively to a turbulent and ever-changing social system. A
m o r e decentralized governance structure is needed so that schools, as
unique educational entities, can offer their local communities the
services programmes and activities which they desire. Schools must
develop a greater community focus so that adults, whether they have
children attending school or not, acquire a greater personal attachment
to them. If adults are going to develop this ownership and commitment
to their local schools, the governance of education must be decentralized so they can participate in decision-making activities, at the local
school level, which directly influence the quality and quantity of education offered to children. T h e school committees, school councils or
parent-teacher groups established to facilitate participatory decisionmaking must be based o n a collaborative m a n a g e m e n t philosophy of
governance.
41
This decentralization of school governance does not m e a n that

government agencies, previously responsible for the activities of schools,
will no longer have any responsibility for the quality and quantity of
education provided school-age children. These agencies will serve a
number of very important functions including: (1) maintaining standards of academic excellence throughout a region; (2) serving as an
arbitrator in serious disputes; (3) ensuring standard budgetary procedures are applied; and (4) providing professional consultation upon
request. W e must realize and accept, as Toff 1er (1980) emphasizes in
his book, The third wave, that "neither big nor small is beautiful, but
that appropriate scale, and the intelligent meshing of both big and
small, is most beautiful of all (p. 261)."
M a n y governments throughout the world are presently formulating
legislation or implementing polices designed to encourage and facilitate
greater parental involvement in decision-making at the local school
level. For decades parent groups have been involved to s o m e extent in
school affairs whether through formal parent-teacher activities and
school councils, or through small informal parent groups established for
special events such as sports activities, graduation ceremonies, drama
productions or cultural festivals. All parent activities have tended to be
extra-curricular or appendages to the primary missions of schools.
These forms of parental involvement in schooling, according to
Arnstein's (1969) typology of citizen participation has been non participation or mere tokenism.
If the educational reforms being proposed by m a n y governments to
decentralize school governance are going to have any significant impact,
new boundary spanning organizations must be established, whether they
be school management committees, school councils or school advisory
committees, which enable professionals, parents and community
members to work together as partners serving the needs of their local
schools.
Parental involvement in school affairs

Opportunities for parents to become involved in school affairs,
according to m a n y politicians, scholars and practitioners, have existed
for decades. These individuals will emphasize that getting parents to
42
Small within big b beautiful
participate is the problem not the lack of opportunity. T o substantiate this perception, these people note the poor attendance of parents
at school meetings, the difficulties school leaders have in persuading
parents to assist supervise social events, the reluctance of m a n y parents
to become involved in fund raising activities and the unwillingness of
parents to accompany students on field trips. Parents in m a n y c o m m u nities, though exceptions to the norm exist, appear to have limited
interest, especially at the secondary level, in becoming actively involved
in their children's schooling.
A multitude of factors undoubtedly contribute to whether or not
parents become formally or informally involved in the schooling of
their children. O f these factors, one of the most important is whether
parents are encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities available.
M a n y teachers fear the involvement of parents in schooling and consequently do not encourage them to offer assistance in the classroom or
other learning situations. Similarly, school managers, w h o are aware of
the problems parent participation in schooling can generate, according
to Parker (1979), "are hesitant and skeptical, and teachers aren't so sure
about it either" (p. 20). T o o often as Bennett (1988) notes "parents
have, been m a d e to feel unwelcome in schools where their children
attend" (p. 6).
W h y are not parents encouraged m o r e to become actively involved
in their children's education? According to Fullan (1985), barriers to
involvement are created by educators and parents having minimal
knowledge of each other's worlds. Knowledge deficiency m a y exist in
m a n y school settings. This raises a question as to w h y these individuals
k n o w so little of each other's social milieu. Inadequate communication
networks, differences in social backgrounds, varied educational experiences, conflicting values, underdeveloped interpersonal relation skills,
and differing competencies in verbal expression have all prevented
parents and educators extending their awareness of one another's life
styles.
T o discuss a child's education and social development requires
parents and teachers involved in the dialogue to respect each other's
judgements, personal values and cultural differences, if the child
concerned is going to be provided with the assistance he or she needs to
develop his or her full potential. Parents upon entering a school can
easily become anxious w h e n confronted by an individual possessing high
levels of educational and professional experience. A servant-master
43
relationship can quickly evolve in this situation which places severe

limitations on a honest and frank discussion.
Another important factor determining the extent to which parents
become involved in the education of their children, is the nature and
scope of the activities in which they are offered participation.
According to Pellegrino (1973):
"Parents should not be restricted merely to a 'token'
committee or to those tasks no one else wants to do:
they should be involved at all levels of the school
system according to their interests and capabilities ...
they should also be involved in the educational
decision-making process as well. For m e , parent participation means an active, sustained, intelligent, continuous and responsible presence of parents throughout a
school system. If w e believe that the school exists to
serve the community, then w h o knows the community
better than the parents w h o live therein? (pp. 5-6)."
There is no reason w h y parents cannot be involved in all aspects of
a school. T h e scope and degree of this involvement issue needs to be
defined. T o o often parents have been assigned tasks which educators
consider menial; raising funds for special items and acting as security
guards or teachers' aides. These types of involvement are not attractive
to m a n y parents since they perceive themselves as being 'used' by the
education system. Most parents endeavour to utilize their spare time in
a manner which will maximize benefits for them. If parents can
become involved in school affairs as partners, and be accessed to import
decision-making activities, they will be m o r e inclined to volunteer time,
energy and expertise to school activities. For this partnership to be
effective, Hilsen and Ritchie (1987) maintain that "the most important
ingredient is a serious commitment of teachers, schools and community
to parent participation programs" (p. 64).
Yet, another factor preventing parents becoming more involved in
schooling is that m a n y of them lack experience in formal decisionmaking situations. T o serve as chairperson for a parent-teacher group
can be a traumatic responsibility for anyone w h o has never directed a
group of people with different values and interests. Discussing an issue
of importance to a school m a y be difficult to some parents because they
44
are conscious of their limited education and fear making a fool of themselves w h e n they speak. A n investigation undertaken by de Groot
(1979) revealed that ineffective advisory school councils were besieged
by problems of lack of direction, lack of resources, lack of clear-cut
authority, and isolation from the communities they represent.
Recent literature o n effective schooling has identified parental
involvement and support to be of great importance. A s Bennett (1988)
so astutely notes:
"Parents need to be involved if schools are going to
have effective programs that will reflect the value
systems of its clients and intense interaction can only
take place in meaningful parent-teacher groups" (p. 55).
This observation has been supported by Fullan (1985) w h o reports that
m a n y investigations have concluded that parental involvement and
achievement are positively correlated. C o m m e n t i n g on the role of the
principal in nurturing effective schooling, Leithwood and Montgomery
(1986) maintain that he or she must "define priorities focussed on the
central mission of the school and gain support for these priorities from
all stakeholders" (p. 227). According to Riedl (1988), "by and large,
those administrators and teachers w h o have m a d e the effort to bring
parents back into the school and classrooms, have not only done the
pupils a service, but themselves as well" (p. 26).
M a n y factors determine the effectiveness of parental involvement
in schools, but as Hilsen and Ritchie (1987) emphasize, a "critical one is
the attitude of the school principal toward the concept of parent participation" (p. 63). If a principal perceives the involvement of parents in
decision-making activities at his or her school will be a waste of time,
any parental involvement at his institution will be tokenism.
Alternatively, principals w h o strongly support a greater involvement of
parents in school affairs need the support of their teaching staff for any
involvement to have meaning. A s Johnston and Slotnik (1985) note, "a
successful program of parent participation requires the teachers to carefully nurture and actively encourage the parents" (p. 432). " W h e n
decision-making at a school is a partnership between parents and educators, there is m o r e co-operation in implementing choices a m o n g alternatives and... better quality decisions (evolve)" (Cloffi, 1982, p . 18).
45
H o w parents become involved in school affairs varies from one

educational jurisdiction to another. T h e most c o m m o n structure in the
United States and Canada is the parent-teacher association. These
simple boundary spanning organizations have traditionally "been
support groups involved in such activities as raising m o n e y for the
school and organizing school-community social events" (de Groot, 1979,
p. 12). If a parent-teacher association does not satisfy the specific needs
of a small parent 'splinter' group, the parents concerned m a y form a
politically active unit for lobbying the school, the board of trustees or
even government agencies in an effort to further their interests.
During the late sixties, parent advisors' councils emerged in the
United States, Canada and Australia to facilitate greater involvement of
parents in decision-making at the local school level. This type of
boundary spanning organization, as Pellegrino (1973) notes, was primarily a consultative committee. T h o u g h school leaders and teachers were
expected to confer with council representatives, such consultation often
became mere tokenism.
Recently, m a n y advisory committees have evolved into school
councils consisting of school leaders, teachers, parents, students and
community members. This organizational structure, according to
Hilsen and Ritchie (1987), "provides for m a x i m u m involvement by
parents in educational decision-making" (p. 53). Usually, the authority,
responsibility and influence of these school councils are fairly extensive
and put into practice the concept of decentralized school governance.
A structure for establishing an effective partnership between
professionals and non-professionals n o w exists but to ensure those individuals w h o participate are representative of a community is an issue
which has yet to be addressed. Incentives for encouraging the participation of parents from all strata of society have to be identified and put
into practice. After completing an exploratory enquiry o n incentives
for parental involvement in schools, Bennett (1988) proposed the
following recommendations:
(1) Principals and teachers need to find ways to involve parents m o r e
directly with their children's education.
(2) All personnel in the wider school community need to help identify
experts w h o can extend the present educational offerings.
46
(3) Principals and teachers need to encourage parents to teach in the

classroom.
(4)
Principals... (must) train their staffs in the arts of parent involvement in schools (pp. 39-40).
If equality of educational opportunity is going to exist in school systems,

principals, head teachers and school directors must seek and apply strategies which will encourage parents, irrespective of their race, religion,
social status and wealth, to b e c o m e m o r e involved in school management.
Collaborative school management cycle

A n abundance of literature on parental involvement in schooling is
emerging as governments, through n e w legislation, facilitate and
encourage parents to participate in decision-making at a school level.
A s often happens in education, theoretical discussions out-number practical applications in scholarly work. Putting theory into practice is a
difficult task in the present socially complex, politically active, educational community where vested interest groups, personal biases, traditional practices and diverse philosophies of education can jeopardize the
success of an instructional innovation or educational reform. W h a t is
needed in contemporary education, according to Hilsen and Ritchie
(1987), is "a (conceptual) framework that will create meaningful
involvement of the public in school operations" (p. 46).
Recently, Caldwell and Spinks (1986) developed and successfully
applied a conceptual model, k n o w n as the Collaborative School
M a n a g e m e n t Cycle, in several hundred schools throughout the country.
This Australian approach to school-based management, according to
Riedl (1988) is very appealing because:
"This form of m a n a g e m e n t has the advantage of being
highly flexible and can easily be phased in over a period
of time. It involves a m i n i m u m of paperwork.
Properly implemented, it can secure the appropriate
involvement of school staffs, community and students in
47
school management
them" (p. 50).
and share responsiblity
among
Furthermore, as this practitioner informs us: "Communication is

intended to be multi-directional and open, and being a cyclical process,
planning and policy making are ongoing and amenable to change" (p.
51). T h e potential of this conceptual framework for facilitating actual
parental involvement in schooling is great and consequently should be
given due consideration by governments formulating n e w legislation
designed to further decentralize school governance.
T h e Collaborative School Management Cycle is presented in Figure
1 and can be seen to consist of six distinct phases, namely:
(1) Goal setting and need identification
(2) Policy-making
(3) Planning
(4) Budgeting
(5) Implementing
(6) Evaluating
(Caldwell and Spinks, 1986, p. 21).
T o facilitate the effective completion of the cycle, two school-based
management units are formed. O n e unit k n o w n as the 'policy group',
consisting of professionals and non-professionals is responsible for goal
setting, need identification, policy-making, approving the budget and
evaluation. T h e second unit, k n o w n as 'programme teams' consisting of
professionals only, prepares plans, identifies resources, implements
activities and initiates evaluations within the policies and priorities
established by the former unit. Caldwell and Spinks note that:
"While responsibilities are clearly designated, there is
overlap in activity to the extent that s o m e people m a y
be members of the policy group as well as of one or
48
Preparation
Approval
V^/
Source:
Caldwell, B.J. and Spinks, J.M. (1986).
Policy-making and planning for school effectiveness.

Hobart:
Figure .
Tasmania Department of Education, p. 21.
T h e collaborative school management cycle
49
more program teams frequently provide information for

the policy group, for example, in preparing policy
options and a program budget" (p. 21).
Since educational communities differ from one location to another,
the nature and scope of parental involvement in school affairs m a y
differ accordingly. T o accommodate this variance, Caldwell and Spinks
suggest that collaborative school management m a y range from a low
degree of collaboration (Level 1), where the school leader is the only
individual involved in the decision-making process, to a high degree of
collaboration (Level 8) where representatives of all interest groups in
the educational community are actively involved in decision-making
through a boundary spanning organization such as a school council.
T h e various degrees of collaborative patterns using this conceptual
model are clearly illustrated in Figure 2 .
T h e Collaborative School Management Cycle offers school systems
a conceptual framework which allows them to increase parental involvement on a gradual basis. A n incremental approach to planned change
can be very effective in schools where substantial resistance from educators m a y exist regarding a greater involvement of parents in school
affairs. B y collaborating with parents o n a variety of administrative,
managerial and curricula issues, teachers will become m o r e willing to
form partnerships with them.
Whether collaborative school management becomes a reality will
be determined to a significant extent by principals, headteachers and
school directors. This educational reform will have significant implications for these individuals as school leaders. T h e 'political' aspects of
their work will be undoubtedly of greater importance than ever in the
past. Similarly, interpersonal relations skills will have to be developed
to a level of sophistication which will enable school leaders to cope
effectively with school councils consisting of m e m b e r s with different
perspectives on education or clusters of m e m b e r s with specific political
beliefs.
50
LEVELS
1. Principal alone
decides policy
without seeking
information
2. Principal seeks
information from
others then decides
3. Principal seeks
policy options from
others then decides
4. Principal and senior
staff decide after
seeking information
and/or options from
staff
5. Principal and senior
staff decide after
seeking information
and/or options from
staff and the
community
6. Principal and staff
decide after seeking
information and/or
options from the
community without
formal structures
7. Principal and staff
decide after seeking
information and/or
options from the
community through
a formal advisory
structure such as a
school council
8. Principal, staff and
the community
decide through a
formal structure such

as a school council
Source:
Caldwell, B.J. and Spinks, J.M.
(1986).
Policy-making and planning for school effectiveness.

Hobart:
Figure 2:
Tasmania Department of Education, p. 39.
Patterns in school management
School leadership in the future

Everyone associated with contemporary education is aware that
school leadership is undergoing a substantial transformation. W h a t will
be the final outcome of this evolution is u n k n o w n . However, one thing
is certain, educational administration and school management in the
future will differ from what w e are familiar with at present. A greater
involvement of parents in the management of schools, which m a n y
governments are encouraging, will be an educational reform of significant consequence to school leaders. Traditionally, m a n y principals,
headteachers and school directors were 'semi-gods' in the schools which
they administered and managed. T h e power, influence and authority of
the British headteacher, as an illustration of this phenomenon, has been
k n o w n for decades around the world.
A s teachers have become better qualified, school leaders have
found that m a n y of them want to be involved in the administration and
management of schools. Furthermore, some of these individuals often
volunteer to be m e m b e r s of government curriculum committees, professional association special interest groups, teams for negotiating collective agreements and local groups for planning professional development
activities. Quality of worklife and professional autonomy are important
to these n e w professionals. After decades of autocratic rule, school
leaders n o w find themselves forming partnerships with their teaching
staff.
Since the early eighties, principals, headteachers and school directors have been encouraged, as well as often pressured, to adopt a more
participatory style of leadership. Consequently, co-operation, collaboration and communication have become fundamental elements in n e w
partnerships established between school leaders and their instructional
staff. M a n y school leaders, as a consequence of this professional collaboration, perceive themselves to be curriculum leaders rather than the
managers or administrators of an educational enterprise. These individuals perceive their primary function to be developing, with the assistance of their staff, an environment conducive to facilitating learning.
Proposed educational reforms, progressive legislation and technological
innovations are going to change the administration and management of
schools in numerous ways.
D e m a n d s for accountability, restrictive government fiscal policies,
increasing expenditures, greater competition for government funds
52
a m o n g social service agencies, and an increasing emphasis o n educational productivity, require school leaders to be m o r e conscious of h o w
resources are utilized. Initially, detailed accounting statements were
sufficient to justify expenditures. A s financial pressures have intensified, m a n y school leaders have found themselves being required to link
expenditures to specific educational activities. Cost-effectiveness is
undoubtedly becoming a m o r e c o m m o n feature of school systems. In
fact, some school leaders fear that a n e w era of 'payment by results' is
evolving which could have extensive social, academic and professional
implications.
T h e social milieu evolving in m a n y countries is culturally diverse,
economically fragile, politically active, socially complex, multi-racial and
continuously changing. U n d e r these conditions, national, provincial,
state or regional school systems cannot satisfy adequately the educational needs of all the children under their jurisdiction. Equality of
educational opportunity is a philosophical ideal rather than a practical
reality in s o m e nations.
A n awareness of this social condition has prompted m a n y parents
to become politically active in an effort to improve the quality of education received by their children. Whatever policies government agencies
initiate to improve educational services, s o m e people are dissatisfied
because they perceive the proposed changes m a n y adversely effect their
vested interests. T h e decentralization of school governance, through
greater parental involvement in schooling, is being encouraged by m a n y
governments in an effort to reduce the political action and social
conflict generated by existing conditions.
School leaders will have to become extremely sophisticated politically if they are to satisfactorily ' m a n a g e ' school councils consisting of
parents, teachers and m e m b e r s of the public with varying political,
educational, social and cultural values. T h e stress associated with
managing and administering a school system in the future could be
substantial if agreement was difficult to obtain a m o n g council m e m b e r s
or a school council was politically polarized.
Investments in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education
have often yielded disappointing returns in m a n y countries. A number
of complex, inter-related factors undoubtedly account for this circumstance. O n e of the most significant of these issues has been that politicians, government officials, parents and the general public have often
held unrealistic expectations of their national, provincial, state or
53
regional education systems. A willingness of teachers and school leaders

to accept responsibility for providing children with numerous learning
experiences has fostered a perception that schools can satisfy everyone's
needs. Such a perception is too idealistic and consequently cannot be
attained in practice. D e m a n d s for accountability have brought this fact
to the attention of everyone associated with school systems.
In the near future, through collaborative action, school leaders will
be required to identify the primary missions of their institutions and to
establish priorities for the effective allocation of limited resources.
Whether schools succeed or fail will be perceived as the responsibility
of school leaders and their teaching staff.
M a n y governments are proposing n e w fiscal arrangements for
financing educational activities. Most of these n e w fiscal plans are in a
preliminary phase and cannot be commented upon adequately. Present
funding programmes, as well as n e w fiscal arrangements, provide sufficient resources for 'core' subjects and a small n u m b e r of subsidiary
areas. If a governing council perceived its school should offer special
learning experiences or a higher quality of services, the necessary additional funding would have to be obtained directly from the local
community. T h e implications of the n e w funding plans are going to be
substantial and far reaching. For school leaders and teachers fund
raising could become an important and very time consuming activity.
Presently, m a n y school executives spend most of their working day
within the confines of the schools which they administer and manage.
Brief visits to other schools or central administrative offices offer
opportunities for
consultation
and advice
from
colleagues.
Occasionally, these professionals meet with parents, usually within
schools, to discuss the academic achievements of behaviour of their children. Traditionally, school leaders have controlled the discussions
which occur in these social encounters.
School leaders' authority, power and influence are derived partially
from their positions within the school system, their political astuteness
and their professional networks. A s parents b e c o m e m o r e involved in
school governance, school leaders' designated authority, power base and
sphere of influence will all change substantially. A t present, the nature
and scope of the modifications which will occur are u n k n o w n . School
leaders will undoubtedly have to establish social networks with a greater
n u m b e r of non-professionals, to "develop n e w professional relationships
with influential leaders in the local community, and to perform a wider
54
range of professional duties. M o r e frequently than in the past, educational executives will find themselves consulting and collaborating with
individuals possessing quite different values. T h e school leaders of the
future, if they are to survive in a volatile educational arena, must be
people of the highest professional integrity. Furthermore, as Fast
(1977) emphasizes, these educational executives, if they are to provide
schools with appropriate direction, must be individuals " w h o are not
afraid to take positions, to take risks, to develop n e w policies and to
meet needs" (p. 37).
Present personnel management practices concerned with selecting
school leaders in most countries are less than satisfactory. W e are n o w
aware that school leaders of tomorrow must be people with visions
(Owens, 1987), people w h o are able to conceptualize problems (Bone,
1980), people w h o are reflective thinkers (Murphy, 1987), people w h o
can build strong organizational structures in schools (Owens, 1987) and
people w h o can apply appropriate leadership behaviour to a specific,
situation (Hersey and Blanchard, 1977). These factors rather than
seniority, visibility, patronage and social activity should form the criteria
for choosing individuals for leadership positions in schools. Under
collaborative school management, this circumstance will change and
school leaders will be selected increasingly on the basis of merit.
Neither parents nor teachers will support an incompetent leader since
they will consider the performance of a school to be of greater importance than one individual's professional career.
Most contemporary school leaders have received limited training
for the important positions which they occupy. Generally, 'on-the-job'
training has been the primary method by which they were prepared for
their professional duties/ Often the training available has been shortterm learning experiences focussing o n 'here and n o w ' issues, government legislation, and low level managerial tasks. Professional
development programmes for school leaders, as Johnson and Snyder
(1985) report, have tended to "address school maintenance functions
rather than m o r e dynamic m a n a g e m e n t concepts and skills" (p. 1). A t
the university level, few preparation programmes appear to be
adequately satisfying the evolving professional development needs of
school leaders. After completing a comprehensive survey of professional preparation programmes in Canada, Miklos and Nixon (1979)
stated that "the changing educational scene would seem to d e m a n d
adjustments in both the content of and the approaches to the study of
educational administration" (p 27).
55
A s parents and teachers become m o r e involved in the management

of the educational enterprise, m a n y school leaders are going to be
distressed by their o w n inadequacies to cope with situations. This
anxiety will be further increased by the knowledge that their administrative contracts will not be renewed if they are unable to provide the
schools which they serve appropriate direction. If local educational
jurisdictions, government agencies and universities d o not offer them
appropriate pre-service and in-service, these professionals will acquire
the necessary services from other sources through their professional
associations. T h e scope and nature of these professional learning
experiences will be decided collaboratively by school leaders and
consultants. Chetcuti (1980) reminds us that "time does not wait and
unreleased pressures seek solutions elsewhere" (p. 82).
Approaches to training and research in educational administration,
according to Caldwell, Smilanich and Spinks (1988), "should be shaped
by this n e w context and this n e w frame of reference" (p. 6). School
leaders in the future must possess a sound knowledge, understanding
and expertise in areas of curriculum and learning such as:
(1) Knowledge abut a wide range of approaches to learning and
teaching... that accommodate students' various learning styles and
preferences.
(2) T h e capacity to work within national and state frameworks and
priorities; and with teachers, students and m e m b e r s of the c o m m u nity, in designing and delivering programmes that meet the needs
of every student.
(3) T h e capacity to m a k e an ongoing and systematic approach to
p r o g r a m m e evaluation a feature of the administrative process.
(4) T h e ability to address, in practical terms... commitment to a
shared vision of quality or effectiveness or excellence.
(5) T h e ability to design and implement on ongoing, collgial, cyclical
approach to goal setting, policy-making, planning, budgeting,
implementing and evaluating. (Caldwell, Smilanich and Spinks,
p. 7).
56
These professionals must be sensitive, as well as adequately aware of the

value, moral, economic, cultural, social and political aspects of these
areas of enquiry if they are to survive in a collaborative management
school system. T h e inadequacy of existing professional programmes for
school leaders becomes very evident w h e n leadership development is
analyzed from a contemporary practitioner's perspective.
Are school leaders going to be managers or administrators in the
future? This issue is presently being debated by m a n y scholars and
practitioners. According to Gray (1987) "there is a lot of confusion
about what schools are and the tasks of people in t h e m " (p. 40). T h e
issue as to whether school leaders are managers (implementers) or
administrators (deciders) will be resolved as collaborative school
management gains m o m e n t u m . T o be a successful political mediator,
which will be an essential attribute under collaborative school management, school leaders must be administrators w h o are sensitive to the
emotional, value and political dimensions of issues requiring resolution
and the support which various decisions will receive from influential
leaders and specific interest groups.
T h e quality of education offered by schools of tomorrow, irrespective of their national setting, will be influenced to a significant extent by
the professional competence of principals, headteachers and school
directors. These important executives must be able to function as effective leaders for fragile but dynamic parent-teacher partnerships. T o
accomplish this mission does not m e a n these professionals need to be
super-human, but rather dedicated, well-educated, professionals.
57
Administration and management
of education: the challenges faced
References
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation.
Institute of Planners, 4 (35), pp. 216-255
American
Bennett, A . M . G . (1988). Incentives for parent involvement in schools.

Victoria: University of Victoria, Faculty of Education. Unpublished
research project.
Bone, T . R . (1980). The principal in the future. In Sofianos (Ed.)
Managing the schools of the future Focus on principals. Nicosia:
Cyprus Educational Administration Society.
Caldwell, B.J., & Spinks, J . M . (1986). Policy-making and planning for
school effectiveness. Hobart: Tasmania Education Department.
Caldwell, B.J., Smilanich, R . & Spinks, J . M . (1988). ' T h e self managing
school'. The Canadian Administrator, 27(8), 1-8.
Chetcuti, F . (1980). The present cannot wait: Competencies needed by
the principal n o w . In Sofianos (Ed.), Managing the schools of the
future Focus on principals. Nicosia: Cyprus Educational
Administration Society.
Cloffi, M . R . (1982). Professional and lay group perceptions of advisory
council participation in decision-making in New York City public
schools. N e w York: Fordham University, unpublished doctoral disserta
tion.
Debeauvais, M . (1980). Education and national development. In J . M .
Hiratsuka (Ed.), Tradition and innovation in education. Tokyo:
Editorial Commission for the Report of the Fourth World Congress,
World Congress of Comparative Education Societies, 1980.
de Groot, J. (1979). Education for all people: A grassroots primer.
Boston: Institute for Responsive Education.
Fast, R . (1979). Educational leadership: Proactive or reactive?
Challenge in Educational Administration, 16 (1 & 2), 34-38.
58
Fullan, M . (1982).
Press.
The meaning of educational change. Toronto: O I S E
Goodlad, J.I. (1975, N o v e m b e r ) . Schools can m a k e a difference.

Educational Leadership, 33 (2), 108-117.
Gray, H . (1987). 'Problems in helping headteachers to learn about
management'. Educational Administration and Management, 15 35-42.
Hersey, P . & Blanchard, R . H . (1977). Management of organizational
behaviour: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Hilsen, B . & Ritchie, B . (1987). Collaborative School
Management.
Victoria: University of Victoria, Faculty of Education, unpublished
research project.
Johnson, W . L . & Snyder, K.J. (1985, M a y ) . 'Training needs of elementary school principals'. The Canadian Administrator, 24 (8), 1-6.
Johnston, M . & Slotnik, J. (1985, February). Parent participation in the
schools: A r e the benefits worth the burdens? Phi Delta Kappan, 66 (6),
430-433.
Kratzmann, A . , Byrne, T . C . and W o r t h , W . H .
conflict. E d m o n t o n : Ministry of Labour.
Leithwood, K . and M o n t g o m e r y , D . (1986).
Toronto: O I S E Press.
(1980).
A system in
The principal profile.
Miklos, E . & Nixon, M . (1979). A n exploration of professional preparation programmes

in educational administration.
Challenge in
Educational Administration, 18 (4), 23-27.
M u r p h y , P . (1987). 'Wanted: D e w e y ' s reflective m a n in school leadership'. School Organization, 7(3), 317-321.
O w e n s , R . G . (1987). Organizational behaviour in education. Third
Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
59
Parker, B . (1979). School based management improves education. The

American School Board Journal, 166 (7), 20-21.
Pellegrino, J. (1973, March). Parent participation. Education Canada,
13 (1), 5-9.
Toffler, A . (1980). The third wave. N e w York: Bantam Books.
60
H E P publications and documents
M o r e than 500 titles on all aspects of educational planning have been

published by the International Institute for Educational Planning. A
comprehensive catalogue, giving details of their availability, includes
research reports, case studies, seminar documents, training materials, occasional papers and reference books in the following subject categories:
Economics of education, costs and financing
Manpower
and employment.
Demographic studies.
The location of schools and sub-national planning.
Administration and
management.
Curriculum development and evaluation.

Educational technology.
Primary, secondary and higher education.
Vocational and technical education.
Non-formal, out-of-school, adult and rural education
Copies of the catalogue m a y be obtained from the H E P on request.

Administrationand Managementof Education: The Challenges Faced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrationand Managementof Education: The Challenges Faced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Institute for Educational Planning

XXVth Anniversary Workshop

Administration and management of

Institut international de planification de l'ducation

Administration et gestion de l'ducation :

Administration et gestion de l'ducation: un dfi relever

International Institute for Educational Planning,

W h e n the International Institute for Educational Planning was

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

O n the occasion of its X X V t h anniversary celebration, the Institute

M a n a g e m e n t and administration of educational

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Les systmes ducatifs et les pratiques administratives diffrent selon

Collaborative school management:

Management and administration of

Benno Sander is Resident Representative of the Organisation of American

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

the promotion of a free and just h u m a n life in school and society at

The notes are to be found at the end of this Chapter.

Management and administration of educational systems

milieu. It is concerned with the achievement of an equitable distribution

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

seeking development of a form of substantive quality of collective

A multidimensional paradigm of educational

Management and administration of educational systems

efficiency-based administration, effectiveness-based administration,

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Management and administration of educational systems

3. Responsiveness-based administration. A s a management model,

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Towards a general paradigm

Management and administration of educational systems

that is in a state of permanent change and that demands a constant

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

cultural and pedagogical nature that exist alongside extrinsic dimensions

A Multidimensional Paradigm of Educational

T h e economic dimension of the educational system involves finan

Management and administration of educational systems

control of resources, the organization of the institution in structural

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Management and administration of educational systems

philosophical anthropology, psychology and physical anthropology, and

issues and policy implications

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

administration; changes in educational policies and administrative

Management and administration of educational systems

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Educational policy and administration were submitted to a critical

Management and administration of educational systems

regionalization combined with central planning and control; (4)

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Management and administration of educational systems

to avoid the risk of contributing to the weakening of our sense of

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Management and administration of educational systems

character of Latin American university teaching to a more analytical

Educational administration in a cross-cultural perspective

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

Administration ( A N P A E ) , founded in 1961; the C o m m o n w e a l t h

Management and administration of educational systems

Administration and management of education: the challenges faced

training contents and methodologies in educational administration call