This analysis and synthesis explores constructs of professional autonomy and accountability using constructivist theory and practice to examine the organizational dynamics of centralization/decentralization, particularly as applied to educational organizations. Major schools of constructivist thought are explored to shed light on centralization/decentralization dynamics, which then are used to explore constructs of professional autonomy and accountability. Oldroyd's comparison of the United States and United Kingdom's heavy focus on “education for results,” or accountability, is compared with Scandinavia's preference for “education for learning.” The former results in centralization and accountability; the latter emphasizes the local locus of control, thus supporting autonomy.
The overwhelming consensus as the twentieth century closed has been that knowledge is constructed.
—D. C. Phillips, Constructivism in Education (2000, p. viii)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenjaminW. F. (1989, spring). From the curriculum editor: The test-driven curriculum.Florida ASCD Journal,5, 2–5.
2.
BerlinerD. (2009). Blame for school achievement gap misplaced. New policy report explains how poverty's effects are the real culprit.Tempe, AZ: EPRU Research Policy Research Unit.
3.
BraceyG. W. (2007, February). Research: Things fall apart. NCLB self-destructs.Phi Delta Kappan,88(6), 475–476.
4.
BredoE. (2000). Reconsidering social constructivism: The relevance of George Herbert Mead's interactionism. In PhillipsD. C. (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 127–157). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Evaluating No Child Left Behind.The Nation,284(20), 11–21.
6.
DavisT. M., & MurrellP. H. (1993). Turning teaching into learning: The role of student responsibility in the collegiate experience [abstract to ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6]. In Active learning, critical thinking, learning styles, and cooperative learning.Washington, DC: George Washington University.
7.
GrubbW. N. (2007). Dynamic inequality and intervention: Lessons from a small country.Phi Delta Kappan,89(2), 105–114.
8.
HargreavesA. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the post-modern age.London: Cassell.
9.
HuntJ. J., BenjaminW. F., & ShapiroA. (2004). What Florida teachers say about the FCAT.Tampa, FL: Ad Hoc.
10.
IsaacsonL. S. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of constructivism as an organizational change model: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International.
11.
KorenA. (2007). Centralisation and autonomy: A case study of “constructed” views.International Journal of Innovation and Learning,4(5), 487–500.
MalysiakR. (1996). Deciphering the Tower of Babel: Examining the theory and paradigm base for wraparound: An emerging collaborative model. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.
14.
MannD. (1987). Can we help dropouts? Thinking about the undoable. In NatrielloG. (Ed.), School dropouts: Patterns and policies (pp. 3–19). New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
OldroydD. (2003). Educational leadership for results or for learning? Contrasting directions in times of transition.Managing Global Transitions International Research Journal,1(1), 49–67.
17.
PhillipsD. C. (Ed.). (2000). Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
RothsteinR., JacobsenR., & WilderT. (2006). “Proficiency for all”: An oxymoron.New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
SgagaP. (2003, September). The Bologna process: Bologna 1999, Prague 2001, Berlin, 2003—And what will be next? Realizing the European higher education area. Paper presented at the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Berlin.
20.
ShapiroA., & ThompsonA. S. (2008). Why band-aids don't work: Analyzing and evaluating No Child Left Behind in light of constructivist philosophy, theory, and practice.Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table.
21.
TylerR. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Von GlasersfeldE. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning.London: Falmer Press.
23.
WilsonW. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the urban poor.New York: Knopf.
24.
WongK. C. (1990). Teacher wastage, a preliminary study of the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong.Education Research Journal,5, 81–87.
