The purpose of this discussion is to show through an examination of five trends -socioeducational demands, local political empowerment, technological options, economic trends, and nonlinear planning-how the theme of choice is emphasized. The common denominator of these trends is the weakening of the authoritative status of the school and the strengthening of the notion of choice. Planning for choice becomes an attribute of future educational policy-making and planning. Because planning is a structuring process and choice is a loosening one, the idea of planning for choice contains inherent dialectic tension. The discussion offers a conceptual framework for educational policy-making and planning strategies that will respond to these trends and tensions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, D.
(1988). Extending the educational planning discourse: Conceptual and pragmatic explorations. Comparative Educational Review, 32, 400-415.
2.
Adams, D.
(1991). Planning models and paradigms. In R. V. Carlson & G. Awkerman (Eds.), Educational planning, concepts, strategies, and practices (pp. 5-20). New York: Longman.
3.
Adler, M.
(1982). The Paideia proposal. New York: Macmillan.
4.
Boyd, W. L.
, & Cibulka, J. G. (Eds.). (1989). Private schools and public policy. London: Falmer.
5.
Boyer, E.
(1983). High schoolNew York: Harper & Row.
6.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
(1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Author.
7.
Castaneda, C.
(1968). The teachings of Don Juan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Cibulka, J. G.
(1989). Rationales for private schools: A commentary. In W. L. Boyd & J. G. Cibulka (Eds.), Private schools and public policy (pp. 91-104). London: Falmer.
9.
Cochran, M.
(1987). The parental empowerment process: Building on family strengths. Equity and Choice, 5, No. 1, 9-23.
10.
College Entrance Examination Board.
(1983). Academic preparation for college. New York: Author.
11.
Comer, J. P.
(1988). "Parenting" essential to good teaching? National Education Association Today, 6(6), 34-40.
12.
Cooper, B. S.
(1990, April). A tale of two cities: Radical school reform in Chicago and London. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
13.
Cronbach, L. J.
(1988). Playing with chaos. Educational Researcher, 17(6), 46-49.
14.
Cuban, L.
(1984). How Teacher taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman.
15.
Cuban, L
(1988). The managerial imperative and practice of leadership in school. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16.
Cuban, L.
(1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-14.
17.
Gartner, A.
(1988). Parents. No longer excluded, just ignored: Some ways to do it nicely. Exceptional Parents, 18(1), 40-41.
18.
Gleick, J.
(1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
19.
Goodland, J. I.
(1983).A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Gordon, D.
(1990). The "hidden curriculum" of second chance mechanisms. In D. E. Inbar (Ed.), Second chance in education: An interdisciplinary and international perspective (pp. 140-149). London: Falmer.
21.
Greene, M.
(1990). Revision and reinterpretation: Opening spaces for second chances. In D. E. Inbar (Ed.), Second chance in education: An interdisciplinary and international perspective (pp. 37-48). London: Falmer.
22.
Hess, G. A.
(1991). Restructuring schools, Chicago style. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
23.
House, E. R.
, & Howe, K. R. (1990). Second chance as educational policy. In D. E. Inbar (Ed.), Second chance in education: An interdisciplinary and international perspective (pp. 49-65). London: Falmer.
24.
Inbar, D. E.
(1980). Educational planning: A review and a plea. Review of Educational Research, 50, 377-392.
25.
Inbar, D. E.
(1985). An insight into planning: Toward a theory of transformation. Educational Planning, 4(4), 17-24.
26.
Inbar, D. E.
(Ed.). (1990). Second chance in education: An interdisciplinary and international perspectiveLondon: Falmer.
27.
Inbar, D. E.
(1991). Improvisation and organizational planning. In R. V. Carlson & G. Awkerman (Eds.), Educational planning, concepts strategies, and practices (pp. 65-80). New York: Longman.
28.
Inbar, D. E.
, & Sever, R. (1986). Second chance: Some theoretical and empirical remarks. Issues in Education, 4(2), 121-135.
29.
Inbar, D. E.
, & Sever, R. (1989). The importance of making promises: An analysis of second chance policies. Comparative Education Review, 33, 232-242.
30.
Kaestle, C. F.
(1985). Education reform and the swinging pendulum. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 410-415.
31.
Kamerman, S. B.
(1983). The new mixed economy of welfare: Public and private. Social Work28(1), 5-11.
32.
Krechevsky, M.
, & Gardner, H. (1990). Multiple intelligences, multiple chances. In D. E. Inbar (Ed.), Second chance in education: An interdisciplinary and international perspective (pp. 69-88). London: Falmer.
33.
Lancaster, D.
(1985). Management and planning issues in the use of microcomputers in schools. Bangkok: UNESCO Regional Office.
34.
Lieberman, M.
(1989). Privatization and educational choice. New York: St. Martin.
35.
Litwak, E. D.
, & Meyer, H. J. (1974). School, family and neighbourhood: Theory and practice of school-community relations. New York: Columbia University Press.
36.
Lourie, S.
(1985). Education planning. International Social Science Journal, 37, 247-258.
37.
Lynch, P. D.
, & Tason, M. (1984). Research on educational planning: An international perspective. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 307-367). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
38.
Malen, B.
, & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site based government councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.
39.
Marburger, C. L.
(1985). One school at a time. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
40.
Miller, G. A.
, Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt-Drylen.
41.
National Commission on Excellence in Education.
(1983). A nation at risk, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
National Science Foundation.
(1983). Educating America for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
Nevas, S. R.
(1977-1978). Analytic planning in education: Critical perspective. Interchange, 8(3), 13-42.
44.
Ost, D. H.
(1981). Teacher-parent interaction: An effective school-community environment. Educational Forum, 52, 165-176.
45.
Psacharopoulos, G.
(1986). The planning of education: Where do we stand? Comparative Education Review, 30, 560-573.
46.
Purpel, D.
(1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and compassion in education. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
47.
Quintero, M.
(1987). A critical review of parental involvement in mainstreaming. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Special Education Program.
48.
Rittel, H.
, & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-196.
49.
Sizer, T.
(1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
50.
Smith, B. L.
(1975). The new political economy: The public use of the private sector. New York: Wiley.
51.
Twentieth Century Fund.
(1983). Making the grade. New York: Author.
52.
Weick, K. E.
(1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
