Author(s): |
Brownlee, Jamie |
Source: |
Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, v49 n2 p194-216 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Student Attitudes; Foreign Countries; War; Educational Change; Political Power; Educational History; Advantaged; Power Structure; Politics of Education; Social Class; Futures (of Society)
Abstract:
In this article, I reopen some of the seminal theoretical debates among critical scholars on the nature of educational reform, arguing that there has been a consistent tendency in the literature to dismiss or downplay the significance of "instrumentalist" analyses in favour of cultural/hegemonic and structuralist explanations. As a result, education scholars who advance the instrumentalist emphasis on elite intervention in the policy process and the importance of organised class action have often been dismissed as one-dimensional and conspiratorial. To support this argument--and, by extension, those made by instrumentalist theorists--I bring together historical evidence from Canada and the United States in three historical periods: the mid-nineteenth century, the early twentieth century and post-Second World War. In each of these historical periods, I demonstrate how the structure and purpose of educational institutions were modified largely at the behest of economic elites (closely associated with political power and the professional educational establishment) in order to shape and implement a particular model of educational reform. Central to my argument is that powerful economic actors have always recognised the political nature of schooling and that elite class consciousness is and has been well-developed with respect to educational issues. The concluding section outlines the implications of my arguments for the future of educational reform. (Contains 100 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Adolescents; Foreign Countries; Social Control; Democracy; Young Adults; Political Power; Activism; Citizen Participation; Advisory Committees; Qualitative Research; Politics; Criticism; Socialization
Abstract:
This article provides a critical examination of a common form of adult attempts to promote civic engagement among young people, namely, youth advisory councils. While youth councils have been widely celebrated as an effective way to integrate young people into political processes, little research has explored why some politically active youth choose to leave, or refuse to join, youth councils. Based on two qualitative studies of politically active teens throughout North and Latin America, the authors argue that teenage activists possess valuable dissident knowledge of, and critical perspectives on, the potential for youth advisory councils to promote youth political power. We argue that young activists understand democracy in ways that are fundamentally different from that offered to them by youth councils. Youth activists put forth a theory of democracy that emphasizes authority and impact, not just voice; they understand democracy as representing collective concerns and perceive youth councils as elitist and nonrepresentative; and they emphasize the value of controversy and contentious politics while expressing anxiety that youth councils can function as modes of social control that tame and channel youth dissent, rather than opportunities to foster youth political power.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Social Justice; Teacher Education; Foreign Countries; Educational Change; Political Power; Social Change; Governance; Teacher Role; Power Structure; Political Attitudes; Educational History; Educational Policy
Abstract:
In line with broader politics of change at the national level, the Morales government aims at a radical restructuring of the governance mechanisms for the teacher education sector and a socio-political redirection of its curriculum, as teachers are perceived to be potential agents for decolonization and for developing social justice--or "vivir bien" (to live well). Morales' policies are not uncontested, and the tense socio-political state of affairs and political power plays are reflected in Bolivia's normales, teacher education colleges. They have become a socio-political battlefield where political affiliations, union strategies, and historically embedded institutional cultures all influence the way new generations of teachers are trained, and the way former and current policy initiatives are mediated and adopted. Given the complex and historically embedded socio-political context of struggles and tensions at and around the institutional level, the government still has a long way to go to change the continuing habits of the normales and to put its government's new ideals of transformation and decolonization into practice.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-12-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Political Power; Peace; Governance; Power Structure; Correlation; Conflict; Voting; Politics; Case Studies; Conflict Resolution; Public Service; Political Attitudes
Abstract:
Which components of power sharing contribute to the duration of peace and what explains the linkages between institutional design and stability? The authors argue that certain types of political power sharing are associated with more durable peace than others, primarily through their positive effects on governance and public service delivery. In particular, closed-list proportional representation (PR) electoral systems stand out among power-sharing arrangements, due to their ability to deliver superior governance outcomes which, in turn, can promote stability by undercutting the initial motivations for conflict or by reducing the feasibility of rebellion. The authors argue that these positive outcomes result from closed-list PR's ability to increase party discipline and checks on executive power, while reducing incentives for personalistic voting. The introduction of political institutions in postconflict negotiated settlements allows us to test the independent effects of institutions on governance and stability using survival analysis and a case study. (Contains 2 figures, 5 tables, and 23 notes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-08-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Social Justice; Psychology; Counselors; Career Counseling; Career Development; Models; Vocational Adjustment; Power Structure; Well Being; Values; Political Power; Validity
Abstract:
Adjusting to the world of work or challenging it is a dilemma that career counselors and helpers encounter daily. Counselors and clients may opt for one of the following choices: (a) adjust to, and challenge the system, at the same time, (b) adjust to the system but do not challenge it, (c) challenge the system but do not adjust to it, and (d) neither adjust to the system nor challenge it. These four scenarios are analyzed from the perspective of critical psychology and psychopolitical validity. A model depicting the various consequences of each choice for power relations, social justice, and the well-being of people, organizations, communities, and the environment is introduced. The model can guide practitioners in discerning the consequences of their actions and those of their clients. (Contains 1 table and 1 figure.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Travis, Jon E. |
Source: |
Thought & Action, v28 p91-102 Fall 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Access to Education; Higher Education; Academic Freedom; Governance; Power Structure; Civil Rights; Civil Rights Legislation; Investment; Public Colleges; Political Influences; Political Power; Politics of Education; Critical Theory; Political Attitudes; Resistance to Change; Activism; Barriers
Abstract:
When these inequities began to change in the 20th century, due in part to the sweeping court-ordered integration following Brown v. Board of Education and the simultaneous expansion of public colleges and universities, all citizens began to gain access to educational achievement and, as a result, true access to the American power structure. The powerful elites took notice and were not always willing to share control over the political system. Over the years, their resistance to equal opportunity has continued despite numerous court decisions and significant legislation (e.g., the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964). And it has grown increasingly organized and well funded. Identified as the "anti-egalitarians," individuals hostile to the tenets of American liberty, these oligarchs understand that by restricting educational access to the rich and white, by targeting public investment in higher education, and by attacking such democratic concepts as need-based aid, academic freedom, and shared governance, they can effectively restrict participation in the American governmental system. These are the people who seek to destroy public institutions of higher education. As incomprehensible as such an agenda may appear to those who support equality, respected researchers have been issuing similar warnings for more than 20 years. This article reemphasizes their warning of a very significant threat to public education in America and issues an urgent call to action for all educators and the public as well. Allowing anti-egalitarians to destroy public higher education in the U.S. would be a tragedy. Waiting for someone else to solve this problem would be a costly mistake. (Contains 36 endnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
