The policy agenda of the Labour government embodies both continuities and discontinuities with its Conservative predecessor. Its new departures, especially those which involve increased central direction from Whitehall, imply a number of assumptions about the values which should underpin the management of the education service, the ways in which power should be distributed within it and the mechanisms through which policy objectives can be best translated into actual changes in schools and colleges. This article explores how far the concept of managerialism contributes to our understanding of institutional responses to the new policy environment and draws some conclusions about possible future directions for research in education management.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball, S.J.
(1993) ‘Education Markets, Choice and Social Class: The Market as a Class Strategy in the US and the UK’, British Journal of Sociology of Education14(1): 3–20.
2.
Bolman, L.
and Deal, T. (1991) Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
3.
Brundrett, M.
(1998) ‘What Lies behind Collegiality, Legitimation or Control? An Analysis of the Purported Benefits of Collegial Management in Education’, Educational Management and Administration26(3): 305–316.
4.
Bullock, A.
and Thomas, H. (1997) Schools at the Centre: A Study of Decentralisation. London: Routledge.
5.
Bush, T.
(1995) Theories of Educational Management, 2nd edn.London: Paul Chapman.
6.
Bush, T.
(1997) ‘Crisis or Crossroads? The Discipline of Education Management in the Late 1990s’, paper presented at the First ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Leicester, 5–6 June.
7.
Caldwell, B.
(1997) ‘The Future of Public Education: A Policy Framework for Lasting Reform’, Educational Management and Administration25(4): 357–370.
8.
Clarke, J.
and Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State. London: Sage.
9.
Dearlove, J.
(1997) ‘The Academic Labour Process: From Collegiality to Managerialism and Proletarianism?’, Higher Education Review30(1): 56–75.
10.
Department for Education and Employment
(1996) Setting Targets to Raise Standards: A Survey ofGood Practice. London: HMSO.
11.
Department for Education and Employment (1997a) Excellence in Schools, Cm 3681. London: HMSO.
12.
Department for Education and Employment
(1997b) From Targets to Action: Guidance to SupportEffective Target-Setting in Schools. London: HMSO.
13.
Department for Education and Employment
(1998a) Consultation Paper: Fair Funding: ImprovedDelegation to Schools. London: HMSO, May.
14.
Department for Education and Employment (1998b) Target setting in Schools, Circular 11/98. London: HMSO.
15.
Department for Education and Employment
(1998c) Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change. London: HMSO.
16.
Elliott, G.
and Hall, V. (1994) ‘FE Inc.: Business Orientation in Further Education and the Introduction of Human Resource Management’, School Organisation14(1):3–10.
17.
Exworthy, M.
and Halford, S. (eds) (1998) Professionals and the New Managerialism in the PublicSector. Buckingham: Open University Press.
18.
Further Education Funding Council (1998) Draft Guidance on Target-Setting,Circular 98/35. London: FEFC
19.
Gewirtz, S.
, Ball, S.J. and Bowe, R. (1995) Markets, Choice and Equity in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
20.
Glatter, R.
(1997) ‘Context and Capability in Educational Management’, Educational Management and Administration25(2): 181–192.
21.
Gunter, H.
(1997) Rethinking Education: The Consequences of Jurassic Management. London: Cassell.
22.
Hallinger, P.
and Heck, R. (1998) ‘Can Leadership Enhance School Effectiveness?’. Paper presented at the 3rd ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Milton Keynes, 4–5 June
23.
Hargreaves, A.
(1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell.
24.
Hodgkinson, C.
(1997) ‘The Triumph of the Will: An Exploration of Certain Fundamental Problematics in Administrative Philosophy’, Educational Management and Administration25(4): 381–394.
25.
Leva.ci¥c, R.
(1995) Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
26.
McGavin, H.
(1998) ‘New Data Put College Performance in Spotlight’, Times EducationalSupplement(4 Sept.): 29-29.
27.
Morgan, G.
(1997) Images of Organization,2nd edn.London: Sage.
28.
Office for Standards in Education
(1998) Making Headway. London: OFSTED.
29.
Ouston, J.
(1998) ‘The School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movement: A Reflection on its Contribution to the Development of Good Schools’, paper presented at the 3rd ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Milton Keynes, 4–5 June.
30.
Pollitt, C.
(1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s?2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.
31.
Power, S.
, Halpin, D. and Whitty, G. (1997a) ‘Managing the State and the Market: “New” Education Management in Five Countries’, British Journal of Educational Studies45(4): 342–362.
32.
Power, S.
, Halpin, D. and Whitty, G. (1997b) ‘School Managers, the State and the Market’, paper presented at the 1st ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Leicester, 5–6 June.
33.
Randle, K.
and Brady, N. (1997) ‘Further Education and the New Managerialism’, Journal ofFurther and Higher Education21(2): 229–239.
34.
Reynolds, D.
(1993) ‘Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement’, in C. Dimmock (ed.) School-Based Management and School Effectiveness. London: Routledge.
35.
Reynolds, D.
, Bollen, R., Creemers, B., Hopkins, D., Stoll, L. and Lagerweij, N. (1996) MakingGood Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and Improvement. London: Routledge.
36.
Ribbins, P.
(1998) ‘On Ladders and Greasy Poles: Developing School Leaders’ Careers’, paper presented at the 3rd ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Milton Keynes, 4–5 June.
37.
Seddon, T.
(1997) ‘Markets and the English: Rethinking Educational Restructuring as Institutional Design’, British Journal of Sociology of Education18(2): 165–185.
38.
Sharpe, F.G.
(1996) ‘Towards a Research Paradigm on Devolution’, Journal of EducationalAdministration34(1):4–23.
39.
Simkins, T.
(1997) ‘Autonomy and Accountability’, in B. Fidler, S. Russell and T. Simkins (eds) Choices for Self-Managing Schools: Autonomy and Accountability, London: Paul Chapman.
40.
Simkins, T.
(1998) ‘Managerialism and Education: Interpreting the Evolving Process of Educational Reform in England and Wales’, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, May.
41.
Tomlinson, H.
(1998) ‘A Response to Brundrett’, Educational Management and Administration26(3):217–319.
42.
Trow, M.
(1994) ‘Managerialism and the Academic Profession: The Case of England’, HigherEducation Policy7(2):11–18.
43.
Wallace, M.
(1997) ‘Combining Cultural and Political Perspectives for Analysing Interaction in Educational Management Settings: The Best or Worst of Both Conceptual Worlds?’, paper presented at the 2nd ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Cardiff, 9–10 Oct.
44.
Webb, R.
and Vulliamy, G. (1996) ‘A Deluge of Directives: Conflict Between Collegiality and Managerialism in the Post-ERA Primary School’, British Educational Research Journal22(4): 441–458.
45.
Weindling, D.
(1998) ‘The Stages of Headship, paper presented at the 3rd ESRC Seminar on Redefining Educational Management, Milton Keynes, 4–5 June.
46.
Willower, D.J.
(1997) ‘Inquiry in Educational Administration: Pitfalls and Possibilities’, Educational Management and Administration25(4): 437–449.
47.
Woods, P.
, Bagley, C. and Glatter, R. (1998) School Choice and Competition: Markets in the PublicInterest?London: Routledge.
