Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Bachrach, M. Baratz (1962)
Two Faces of PowerAmerican Political Science Review, 56
James Appleberry, W. Hoy (1969)
The Pupil Control Ideology of Professional Personnel in "Open" and "Closed" Elementary SchoolsEducational Administration Quarterly, 5
A. Smithson (1983)
KAMINSKY'S ADDENDUM TO THE “FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY” MEMORANDUM: A PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATION IN A CONTEXTUAL VACUUMJournal of Educational Administration, 21
A. Helsel (1971)
Status Obeisance and Pupil Control IdeologyJournal of Educational Administration, 9
B. Ryan (1982)
The Gifted ChildJournal of Sociology, 18
A. Rice (1983)
After Bureaucracy, What?Urban Education, 18
Paul Jones, Jacob Blankenship (1970)
A correlation of biology teachers' pupil control ideology and their class-room teaching practicesScience Education, 54
A. Helsel (1976)
PERSONALITY AND PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOURJournal of Educational Administration, 14
D. Willower (1969)
Schools as Organizations: Some Illustrated Strategies for Educational Research and PracticeJournal of Educational Administration, 7
This article argues that current socio-educational theorizing licenses a further restriction of opportunities for socially significant educational interventions. Recent major reports on education in South Australia identify technological change as decisive. Moreover, their emphasis upon its supposedly abstract character leads to a narrowly technocratic assessment of its ‘increasing complexities’ and ‘more pervasive influence’. This leads to a push to re-centralize curricular control, notably in those high-status areas nominated as necessary for national scientific and economic development. My analysis also reveals that this official sponsorship of tighter central (i.e. departmental) controls has a strong politico-economic basis because ‘necessary efficiencies' are emphasized at this time of increasing fiscal difficulties. Furthermore, I document the existence of a more narrowly technical emphasis in teacher education, and contend that this will increasingly foster a ‘silent’ acceptance of departmental control of the curriculum by teachers-to-be. I cite recent empirical evidence on teaching practices and attitudes in Australian schools to indicate that the re-centralization of curricular control would formalize—and, of course, extend—what is already the case. Furthermore, I demonstrate the general significance of these basic assumptions about the curriculum and its practices through an analysis of their probable impact upon typical conditions of teaching and upon ‘progressive’ policy initiatives (notably the Victorian Ministerial Papers). I examine at length the broader socio-cultural implications of centralist and technicist curricular assumptions. I conclude by outlining oppositional strategies: these are characterized by broadly based socio-educational interventions and an alternative formulation of what constitutes ‘really useful knowledge’ in ‘an advanced technological society’.
Australian Journal of Education – SAGE
Published: Apr 1, 1986
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.