RamseyerJohn. “A Concept of Educational Leadership”. Leadership for Improving Instruction, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA Yearbook, 1060–56.
2.
Griffiths leans this way in summing up research done in the field inCampbellRoald F.GreggRussell T.Administrative Behavior in Education. N.Y.: Harper, 1957, 375.
3.
BartkyJohn A.Administration as Educational Leadership. California: Stanford University Press, 1956, 17. (Italics mine).
4.
CampbellHugh. “Tension in the Planners: Karl Mannheim”. The Australian Journal of Education, II, 2, July, 1968, 119.
5.
PopperKarl. The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957, 3.
6.
Ibid., 148.
7.
Ibid., 115.
8.
Ibid., 61.
9.
Ibid., 57.
10.
Quoted inUrwickL. F.Leadership in the Twentieth Century. London: Pitman, 1958, 48. (Italics mine).
11.
Urwick op. cit., 74. Lynd's judgement is also relevant here: “At point after point our culture plays down extensive, acute, and subtle feeling”. (LyndRobert S.Knowledge for What?Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939, 84).
12.
Bartkyop. cit., 105–113.
13.
Ibid., 103.
14.
CampbellGreggop. cit., 135–150.
15.
“Modern Approaches to Theory in Administration”. In HalpinAndrew W. (Ed.). Administrative Theory in Education. University of Chicago, 1958, 31.
16.
MortPaul R.RossDonald H.Principles of School Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957, 35.
17.
Modern Philosophies and Education. N.S.S.E. 54th Yearbook, Part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955, 255.
18.
Bartkyop. cit., in the preface.
19.
Urwickop. cit., 57.
20.
This remark is not vitiated by the extensive supplement on “Guiding Purposes of Education and Their Conditioners”, which addresses itself more to the sociological conditioners than to the philosophical objectives. For example, the school's social purpose is quaintly described as taming “the potential savagery of every newborn child”. P. 310, see also p. 245 within the main text.
