Organizational Decision Making

 

ED 576—School Improvement and Professional Development
Organizational Decision Making Activity

1. What is another word for devolution?
2. What is the difference between moral and professional accountability?
3. Ethics is about ________________.
4. Describe an ethical dilemma.
5. List and define the 4 theoretical approaches to ethical dilemmas.
6. What are the five main parts of the ethical dilemmas?
7. What are the nine competing forces in the ethical dilemma?
8. Prescribe a solution to the given scenario. Provide evidence (given in
the article) to defend your decision. Justify your answer.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 48: 76–102, 2012
Copyright C© American Educational Studies Association
ISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 online
DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2011.637257

Anarchist, Neoliberal, & Democratic
Decision-Making: Deepening the Joy

in Learning and Teaching

Felecia M. Briscoe

UTSA

Using a critical postmodern framework, this article analyzes the relationship of the
decision-making processes of anarchism and neoliberalism to that of deep democ-
racy. Anarchist processes are found to share common core principals with deep
democracy; but neoliberal processes are found to be antithetical to deep democracy.
To increase the joy in learning and teaching, based upon this analysis, practical
anarchist guidelines for school decision-making are suggested.

You ever been in a place, where everybody is real depressed, but they don’t really
know it. It is where the tedious and mundane are worshipped. . . . The least bit of
creativity and inspiration has been excised. People rule through fear and intimidation.
The staff is treated like children. People wonder what is wrong with our kids. We
aren’t doing them any favors, except making them sick of school. We have tested
them to death. When we aren’t testing them, we are pre-testing them or teaching
them test strategies. Richmond worships at the altar of standardized testing. There
is no room for heretics or non-believers.1

In the opening quote, Arter Jackson (personal communication 2008) describes his
experience teaching third grade in an urban school. Excited and passionate as a
beginning teacher, with each passing year, he became increasingly discouraged.
His experience is not an anomaly (Pesavento-Conway 2008). How has the joy
that learning and teaching could offer students and teachers turned into intolerable
tedium? Writers from a variety of eras and fields (e.g. Steven Shukaitis 2009 or
Emma Goldman 1907 in anarchism; John Dewey 1916 or Walt Whitman 1959 in

Correspondence should be addressed to Felecia M. Briscoe, UTSA, ELPS, One UTSA Circle, San
Antonio, TX 78249. E-mail: Felecia.Briscoe@utsa.edu

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 77

democracy; and Paulo Freire 1970 or Alistair Pennycook 2001 in critical theory)
all claim that such feelings emerge when people are denied the opportunity of
acting in accordance with their own judgment, will, and interests—in other words,
when people are denied autonomy and do not directly participate in the decisions
that shape their lives. The power relations of a society affect its decision-making
processes, the degree to which a person participates in that process, and thus the
type of decisions made.

The power relations of a democracy are affected by its political and economic
systems as well as its dominant ideology. To be a democracy, a political system
must include all citizens by some means in the social decision-making, but the
manner in which a particular individual participates depends upon the type of
democracy. For example, the decision-making processes in direct democracy are
different than those of a democratic republic. Likewise, the economic system of a
democracy also affects the degree of participation that different individuals have in
social decision-making. In a capitalist economy, like the United States, the degree
to which someone participates in social decision-making is largely dependent
upon one’s economic status. For example, running for state or national office
generally requires an expensive advertising campaign to be successful; thus, only
those with access to substantial money are likely to run for these offices. Finally,
the dominant ideologies of a democracy also affect the processes and types of
decisions made. Ideologies both make sense of the world and point to the type
of actions needed. Thus, ideologies act positively and negatively, inducing some
actions and subjectivities, but inhibiting others (Foucault 1980a, 1980b). In this
article, I examine neoliberal and anarchist ideologies and their relationships to
educational decision-making in a democracy. This examination indicates that the
power relationships fostered by a neoliberal ideology fit with those of superficial,
formal democracy, yet the power relationships fostered by an anarchist ideology fit
with those of deep democracy. I then propose guidelines for educational decision-
making based upon this examination.

A critical postmodernism frames the analysis. For the analysis of the power
relations and their effects, I use Michel Foucault’s (1980a, 1980b) ideas on how
power relations act to induce certain types of subjectivities, decisions, and thus ac-
tions, while proscribing others. Alistair Pennycook’s (2001) description of critical
postmodernism is problematizing: “insist[ing] on the notion of critical as engag-
ing with the questions of power and inequality, but . . . [rejects] any possibility of
critical distance or objectivity” (4). A postmodern critical perspective

raise[s] questions about the limits of its own knowing [but also operates] with some
sort of vision of what is preferable. Perhaps the notion of preferred futures offers
us a slightly more restrained and plural view of where we might want to head.
Such preferred futures, however, need to be grounded in ethical arguments for why
alternative possibilities may be better. (8)2

78 BRISCOE

In this article, the preferred future is one that fosters the development of deep
democracy and is grounded in an ethical argument for ameliorating the current
oppressive tedium experienced by students and teachers, allowing the inherent
joy of learning and teaching to emerge. By inherent joy, I mean the inner deep
satisfaction a person feels when they have learned something that they wished to
learn and the similar satisfaction teachers feel when they have successfully taught
something of worth to their students. However, my claim is offered with radical
uncertainty. By radical uncertainty I mean that the preferred future described is not
definitive, but rather a starting point, open to challenge, change, and refinement.
Furthermore, Pennycook (2001) argues that postmodern critical theory should be,
“an ethics of compassion and a model of hope and possibility” (9). Thus, although
anarchist theory occupies a space between nihilism (e.g., Kahn 2009) and hope
(e.g., Shukaitis 2009), I anchor my analysis in hope and possibility.

In this analysis, I first briefly describe neoliberalism and its growing influence.
Second, I distinguish the differences between superficial and deep democracy,
ending with a summary of the essential characteristics of deep democracy. Third,
I outline important differences between anarchism and neoliberalism. Fourth, I
delineate core principals shared by anarchism and deep democracy, linking the
productive and proscriptive aspects of these core principles to human wellbeing.
Fifth, I delineate neoliberalism’s antithetical relationship to deep democracy, as
exemplified by “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Finally, based upon this exami-
nation, I suggest guidelines for educational decision-making to deepen democracy
and allow for greater joy in learning and teaching.

NEOLIBERALISM

Rife with phrases such as free choice, individualism, competition, and freedom,
neoliberalism deemphasizes or rejects positive government intervention, focusing
instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market
methods. In other words, neoliberalism asserts that the divine hand of the mar-
ket is best able to determine optimal economic and social policies on a national
and global scale. Created as a framework for economic policy, neoliberalism has
grown to influence most social decision-making, the types of choices and therefore
actions taken; thus acting to create the reality it purports to describe (Clarke 2004).
Neoliberalism describes and structures society as a web of social relations medi-
ated by market exchange.3 Since the 1970s, according to Michael Apple (1999),
neoliberalism has gained ascendancy and become hegemonic increasingly able to
“win the battle over common sense” (5). The hegemonic sway of neoliberalism
is felt deeply in schools. Hill and Boxley (2009) describe neoliberalism’s effects
upon the US schooling system:

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 79

The neoliberal project for education is part of the bigger picture of the neoliberal
project of global capitalism. Markets in education worldwide, combined with so-
called “parental choice” of a diverse range of schools, are only one small part of the
education strategy of the capitalist class, with its Business Agenda for Education
[what it requires education to do] and its Business Agenda in Education [how it plans
to make money out of education]. (28–29; italics in original)

The privatization of schools (Hill and Boxley 2009) and the development of schools
as a market for testing products4 are examples of markets in education. Although
neoliberal ideology in theory eschews government intervention, it nevertheless
coerces decision-making through surveillance techniques (e.g. the mandated test-
ing in NCLB).5 Along with the growth of neoliberalism has been a corresponding
global expansion of inequality. Since the 1970s, the inequality of wealth has in-
tensified, both within and between nation states.6 During this same time-period,
democracy became the dominant form of government throughout the world.

DEMOCRACY AND INEQUALITY?

Presumed by many to be the most egalitarian form of government, how is it
possible that inequalities are increasing along with democracy? Some analysts
(e.g., Giroux 2002) claim that the corresponding increases in democracy and
inequality are unrelated. Rather, they claim it is the increasing global dominance
of transnational capitalism producing the growing inequalities, not the increase in
democracies. This argument is tenable because transnational capitalism has also
intensified during this same period. Likewise, Hill and Boxley’s (2009) description
of neoliberal influences over schooling suggests that neoliberalism is the offspring
of global capitalism. However, de Oliver (2008) reveals that vanguard democracies,
throughout history and by way of a variety of imperialist projects, have all created
greater internal and external inequalities in the distribution of wealth; thus, he
claims that democracy itself leads to greater inequalities. For example, in Ancient
Greece and the United Kingdom during the 1800s, the advent of democracy
signaled a decrease in the equal distribution of wealth within the nation states, but
even more so between nation states, primarily due to the colonial relationships
they established with the countries they annexed to their democratic empires. If
de Oliver (2008) is correct, then democracy can no longer be regarded as a means
to equitable power relations.

Judith Green’s (1999) trenchant analysis of the different types of democracy
provides an alternative explanation. She describes an array of possible and exist-
ing democracies, each providing different participatory opportunities and effects.
Pertinent to the present topic are her descriptions of deep democracy and super-
ficial democracy, which she calls formal democracy.7 Formal democracies limit

80 BRISCOE

most citizens’ participation to voting from a given list of options developed by
an elite subset of the electorate. Green (1999) notes that, “the United States of
America, a nation widely regarded as democracy’s world historic model, suggests
that a purely formal democracy is ideologically hollow and operationally sub-
vertible” (iv) and thus, is conducive to a number of social pathologies including
poverty and a market motivated hyper consumerism fostered by a mass media.
But, democracies need not remain purely formal.

Societies, including democracies, are dynamic and changing. There are points
in time when change is dramatic. In the United States, roughly between 1880
and 1920, with the closing of the frontier, the United States and other countries
underwent rapid processes of demographic transformation. During this period,
many different futures became possible. As people struggled to develop relations
and process appropriate to the new context, open conflict over emergent possibil-
ities occurred. Conflict occurred around ideas such as: hierarchical versus direct
participation as a way of organizing societal processes; the degree of inclusiveness
in decision-making; and the distribution of wealth produced by industries. Anar-
chism8 and deep democracy9 were two of the many viable ideological alternatives
for guiding social decision-making. Both ideologies advocated full, direct, and
more inclusive participation, as well as a more equitable distribution of wealth.
However, hierarchies, smaller groups of expert decision-makers for the masses,
and an unequal distribution of wealth continued and even intensified—all of which
are symptomatic of a superficial democracy. The struggle has not ended10 but, al-
though some aspects of anarchism and deep democracy have periodically emerged,
democratic relations within the United States largely have remained formal and
therefore superficial. Green’s (1999) analysis indicates that a formal democracy
is subvertible and conducive to neoliberal market ideologies. Deep democracy,
however, is less open to subversion due to its essential characteristics (as detailed
later).

Garrison and Schneider (2008), drawing from Walt Whitman’s conception of a
spiritual democracy, summarize the essential characteristics of deep democracy:

Everyone is equally moral and has the right to actualize whatever powers he or she
has to make a contribution. Secondly . . . each individual is unique and should have
the right to exercise his or her creative individuality. Finally, there is adhesion, by
which he meant love, [care, and respect of others].” (11–12)

For Dewey (1916), these essential characteristics are fundamentally dependent
upon a fairly equal spread of wealth and authentic communication11 (described
later), based on an understanding that the individual and society are not bina-
ries, but rather intimately related to one another. If deep democracy represents a
preferred future, how do we progress in that direction? From Foucault’s (1980a,
1980b) perspective, the various aspects of deep democracy are mutually dependent

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 81

upon each other and it is difficult for one aspect to emerge all by itself; however,
at the same time, changing one aspect of current power relations will affect other
aspects due to their connectedness.12 I argue that schools are a promising begin-
ning point. Schools are charged with inculcating appropriate knowledge and social
behavior in children (Dewey 1916). Thus, schools are key to the development of
deep democracy.

DIFFERENCES IN ANARCHIST AND NEOLIBERAL
IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

Both neoliberalism and anarchism claim to be based upon concepts of freedom,
free choice, and individualism. Thus, it may be difficult to imagine how anarchism
could be conducive to deep democracy but neoliberalism opposes it. However,
anarchism and neoliberalism interpret free choice, freedom, and individualism
differently, due to their different ideological frameworks and the relative emphasis
that neoliberalism and anarchism place on cooperation versus competition.13

There are four aspects of the ideological framework of anarchism that set the
parameters for its interpretation of individualism, freedom, and free-choice. These
four aspects are: the importance of joy and creativity, the relationship of the
individual to society, the uniqueness of each individual, and the need for equal
power relations. Anarchism seeks to create a greater possibility for joy in the world
for each and every individual, and thus for society. Anarchism’s premise that the
individual and society are inextricably linked promotes a pro-social perspective
of individualism, in which individual and societal well-being cannot be separated.
Therefore, anarchism opposes advancing one individual’s interest at the expense
of another’s. Thus, anarchism fosters a cooperative approach to social decision-
making. Furthermore, anarchists believe that people should creatively develop
their unique individualism, rather than selecting from the set of mass-produced
individualism produced by the market. This individualism is much like what
Dewey (1916) advocates in the freedom to fully develop one’s unique potential.
For anarchism, freedom and free choice are based on the premise of approximately
equal power (e.g., resources, wealth, and status) for everyone. From this equal
positioning of power, no one person or group is positioned to set out the options
from which others must choose, and each person in the society has full opportunity
to participate in decision-making that affects them.

On the other hand, a neoliberal framework bases the concepts of individualism,
freedom, and free choice upon market mechanisms, which means that the degree of
freedom and free choice are based upon what the market offers (e.g., who is running
for office or which textbooks are selected by the state) and what one can afford (how
much money or power one has). This conjunction, in effect, makes every individual
responsible for the choices they make, despite the fact that many do not have the

82 BRISCOE

means to take advantage of their free choices. Thus, from a neoliberal perspective,
those who find themselves in undesirable circumstances in our market-based world
have only themselves to blame.14 The neoliberal version of individualism, thus, is
antisocial. It is antisocial because there is an indifference to how the rest of society
is affected by one’s efforts to compete successfully. At best, people feel free to
pursue their own interest without care for others, based on the belief that somehow
the individual’s selfish pursuit of one’s own interests will ultimately benefit society
and that everything can be reduced to a price. Likewise, neoliberalism rarely
takes into account long-term damages.15 This type of antisocial individualism
perpetuates the idea that being purely self-interested and competing for individual
success will magically take care of all social problems, in spite of considerable
evidence to the contrary. Because of the aforementioned ideological differences
(among others), the essential characteristics of deep democracy are shared with
anarchism, but neoliberalism is antithetical to deep democracy.

ANARCHISM AND DEEP DEMOCRACY

Deep democracy emphasizes autonomy by recognizing the equal moral right
of all to actualize their potentials and by recognizing that each individual is
unique, having the right to exercise his or her creative individuality. Other core
characteristics of deep democracy include love, care, and respect of others; a fairly
equal spread of wealth; and authentic communication between people based on the
understanding that what harms or benefits one person likewise harms or benefits the
rest of society16 and, therefore, takes into consideration others’ interests, desires,
and goals.17 Furthermore, these core characteristics are interdependent. I draw
upon diverse social, political, and psychological research and theory to argue that
these common core characteristics, shared in both anarchism and democracy, are
beneficial to both the individual and society.18 Like deep democracy, anarchism
advocates:

• a more equal distribution of resources;
• each person directly participates in decisions affecting her or his life (auton-

omy);
• authentic communication;
• celebrating the joyful exercise of each person’s unique creative individuality;

and
• love, respect, and caring of others.

Paralleling this order, each of these points is discussed in the following sections.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 83

A More Equal Distribution of Resources

Emma Goldman describes anarchism as “an order that will guarantee to every
human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of
life” (1907, 68). Rocker (1938) describes the effects of acute inequality in the
distribution of resources:

Our present economic system, leading to a mighty accumulation of social wealth in
the hands of a privileged minority and to a continuous impoverishment of the great
masses of the people . . . sacrificed the general interests of human society to the
private interests of individuals and thus systematically undermined the relationship
between man and man [sic]. People forgot that industry is not an end in itself,
but should be only a means to insure to man his material subsistence and to make
accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is
everything and man is nothing begins the realm of ruthless economic despotism
whose workings are no less disastrous than political despotism. (2)19

Although Rocker wrote in 1938, the polarization of wealth20 and the elevation of
industry (or business/corporate interests) over human interests remain true.21 An
equal distribution of economic power or resources is fundamental to equalizing
power relationships. One anarchist, Fotopoulos (2008), describes this necessary
“economic democracy . . . as the authority of the people demos in the economic
sphere, implying the existence of economic equality in the sense of an equal
distribution of economic power” (442). Without equal power relations brought
about by a fairly equal distribution of wealth, the individual autonomy advocated
by deep democracy and anarchism cannot be operationalized.

Each Person Directly Participates in Decisions Affecting Her or His
Life (Autonomy)

Anarchism’s and deep democracy’s call for a more equal distribution of resources
helps to create the conditions necessary for autonomy. Perhaps the single most
important foundation of anarchist thought is autonomy, as described by Anna
Goldman (2010):

[Anarchism is] based in the understanding that we are best qualified to make decisions
about our own lives. Anarchists believe that we must all control our own lives, making
decisions collectively about matters, which affect us. Anarchists believe and engage
in direct action. (para 7)

Several scholars have analyzed the importance of autonomy to human experience.
Although Paulo Freire (1970) does not describe himself as an anarchist, his analysis
of autonomy in regards to determining one’s own thoughts and actions is often

84 BRISCOE

quoted by anarchists such as Spring (2008). Freire (1970) discusses the death that
occurs without autonomy:

Overwhelming control—is necrophilic; it is nourished by love of death, not life.
Based on a mechanistic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness; it
transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action,
leads men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power. (64)

Freire’s description of overwhelming control resonates with Mr. Jackson’s descrip-
tion of his experience in an urban school, with students being “tested to death”
under the current policies. A number of scholars22 note that without equal power
relationships, there is little autonomy; without autonomy, authentic communica-
tion becomes impossible.

Authentic Communication

Emma Goldman and Max Baginsky (1907) describe the importance of mutual
understanding:

The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to solve, is how
to be one’s self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings
and still retain one’s own characteristic qualities. This seems to me to be the basis
upon which the mass and the individual, the true democrat and the true individuality,
man and woman, can meet without antagonism and opposition. The motto should
not be: Forgive one another; rather, Understand one another. (77)

Understanding one another requires authentic communication—taking into ac-
count others’ well-being, desired ends, and eschewing purposeful deceit. It also
means recognizing the relationship between the quality of one individual’s life
and that of other individuals, as well as that what damages one individual or one
group damages everyone in society. This anarchist principle is integrated into
several social theories. For example, Kant ([1785]1879) incorporates this prin-
cipal into his categorical imperative. Likewise, Dewey (1916) notes the intrinsic
relationship of the individual and society and the falsity of privileging one over
the other. Understanding that relationship reveals the importance of considering
each individual’s desires, wants, and aims in decision-making that affects them.
This understanding goes beyond the toleration or mere acceptance of another’s
individuality into celebrating the joyful exercise of that unique individuality.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 85

Celebrating the Joyful Exercise of Each Person’s
Creative Individuality

Shukaitis (2009), an anarchist, describes people whose autonomy has been excised
as zombies and extols the importance of imagination and joyful exploration:

“The task is to explore the construction of imaginal machines, comprising the socially
and historically embedded manifestations of the radical imagination. Imagination as
a composite of our capacities to affect and be affected by the world” (15); and “One
would not want to abandon the inquisitiveness and joy of ‘uncovering’ something
precious” (10).

The dearth of joy and creativity that Mr. Jackson laments is at least in part due
to the lack of control over their lives experienced by students and teachers in
schools. For Emma Goldman (1907) shucking off this zombihood dramatically
changes the nature of all aspects of life, including work: “Anarchism aims to strip
labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to
make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that
the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope” (68).
Anarchists, like Goldman, claim that autonomous people are creative and find joy
in their work, including learning and teaching. Ignoring students’ and teachers’
unique abilities, interests, and will denies the creative expression of their unique
individualism, which damages the individual and, therefore, the social. Coercing
people to conform to anothers’ will kills their creativity. In squelching the creative
individuality society loses the diversity that such unique contributions would bring
to it. With a loss of diversity, society loses its ability to solve problems or adapt
to new conditions. Likewise, Dewey (1916) noted that schools fail in their aim to
educate for a democracy when “what is distinctively individual in a young person
is brushed aside” (10). Instead, claimed Dewey (1916), students learn to ignore
their own judgment and conform mindlessly to authority; under such conditions,
the knowledge students learn is dead and inert, useless in making life decisions.
Allowing students to learn, based upon their unique interests and abilities, permits
the exercise of individual creativity, while demonstrating and modeling love, care,
and respect for students.

Promoting Love, Care, and Respect of Others

The pro-social individualism of anarchism is concerned with the well-being of
others. Both anarchism and deep democracy promote love, care, and respect of
others or pro-social individualism in two ways. First both advocate that social
processes and interactions take into account the goals, desires, and wants of all
of those affected. Martin Buber (1937) referred to such social relationships as
Ich–du (I–thou) relationships. Intrinsic to an I-thou relationship is respect and

86 BRISCOE

care. Buber (1937), Dewey (1916), and Freire (1970) all distinguish between the
orientation appropriate to person–person (I–thou) relationships and that appropri-
ate to human–object (I–it) relationships. When interacting in an I–it relationship,
one merely uses or manipulates the object for one’s own purposes and has no
concern for the interests, desires, or goals of the object. To treat someone as an
object is dehumanizing and oppressive—the opposite of loving. When interacting
in an I–thou relationship, one always takes into consideration the desires, interests,
and goals of the other person. Buber (1937) points out that maintaining the I–thou
relationship is especially important in the teacher-student relationship.

Second, treating others with love, respect, and care becomes both logical and
common-sensical to anarchists, who clearly articulate the interdependent nature of
the individual and society. Both Dewey (1916) and Goldman (1907) maintain that
the individual and the society are not separate phenomenon (also in keeping with
postmodern thought23), but rather aspects of the same phenomenon. According to
Emma Goldman (1907), the individual and the social should be understood,

as closely related and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper environment: . . .

because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. The individual and
social instincts, —the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth,
aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness
and social wellbeing. . . . There is no conflict between the individual and the social
instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs: . . . The individual
is the heart of society, conserving the essence of social life; society is the lungs, which
are distributing the element to keep the life essence—that is, the individual—pure
and strong. (4–5)

From an anarchist viewpoint then, society ought to be promoting the love, care,
and respect of all; processes and relations ought to be largely cooperative rather
than competitive.

In sum, both anarchism and deep democracy emphasize autonomy by recog-
nizing the equal right of all to actualize their potential and abilities, celebrating the
right of each individual to exercise his or her creative individuality. Furthermore,
both anarchism and deep democracy espouse love, care, and respect of others;
a more equal spread of wealth; and authentic communication. Very few of these
ideological principles currently guide educational decision-making today. Instead,
neoliberalism dominates as a global ideology.

NEOLIBERALISM IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF DEEP DEMOCRACY

An especially powerful example in the United States of neoliberal policy affecting
educational decision-making is the recent NCLB legislation; therefore, I focus

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 87

on NCLB as an exemplar of neoliberal educational policy. In theory, NCLB
provides a process whereby good schools (like good businesses) gain more students
(customers) and more money, and poor schools lose students and money. Parents,
no longer fettered to a particular school by governmental regulations, ostensibly
are free to move their child out of their failing old school and choose a more
successful school for their child to attend.24 Over time, the loss of students and
funds, and eventually state decrees, force bad schools to go out of business.
Under such circumstances, the school’s management and personnel are replaced
by more competitive people, or the whole school can be replaced by a private
for-profit educational business. Of note, although NCLB mandates a marketplace
type of decision-making within education, it does so only by inducing states to
further reduce the autonomy of schools, teachers, and students. As explained in
the following, NCLB opposes the development of deep democracy because it:

1. perpetuates double-speak and obfuscating communication;
2. refutes an equal distribution of resources for education;
3. reduces equal opportunity to equal treatment/outcome (standardization);
4. abrogates the autonomy of students, teachers, and parents;
5. opposes students’ unique exercise of creative individuality; and
6. inhibits the development of love, respect and caring of others.

Double-Speak and Obfuscating Communication

There are many examples of obfuscating language in NCLB. One glaring example
of double-speak is the informal title of the law itself: “No Child Left Behind.”
Such a title would seem to claim that every child should be given an equal op-
portunity to achieve academically, especially because NCLB explicitly advocates
that: “All children shall meet the challenging state student academic achievement
standards.”25 A seemingly integral part of enabling all children to meet challenging
academic achievement standards would be to provide more resources for those
who have been historically disadvantaged, but at the minimum, to ensure equal
resources for all ethnic and economic groups. Yet, NCLB explicitly eliminates
this as an interpretation of the law: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to
mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State, local educational agency, or
school.”26 Yet, Kozol (2005) shows that schools primarily serving children who
have been historically, and are currently, disadvantaged by society (e.g., minority
and low-income students) are in general, provided with the fewest resources to
teach their students. For example, in one of the largest cities in Texas, the three of
the lowest-income school districts averaged 96% minority students, but the three
highest-income school districts averaged 31% minority students (Briscoe and de
Oliver forthcoming). Thus, both the moniker and advocacy claims of NCLB are
examples of double-speak.

88 BRISCOE

Refutes an Equal Distribution of Educational Resources

As previously noted, NCLB explicitly eliminates equal allocation of educational
resources as a possible interpretation of the law. Such an explicit denial implies
that many people reading the law might reasonably interpret it to mean that equal
funding would be necessary to provide all children an equal opportunity to achieve.
Denying an equal spread of resources is antithetical to deep democracy.

Abrogates the Autonomy of Students, Parents, and Teachers

The federal government, through its dispensing or withholding of money, coerces
states into adopting particular curricular emphases, standardized testing, and the
timeline of both curriculum and tests. And under the current hierarchy of school-
ing, starting with students and teachers . . . up to state boards of education are
enmeshed in a hierarchy of linked master–servant relationships, with those at the
bottom having the least amount of autonomy. NCLB’s coercive policies leave states
with little choice (given the dire condition of state budgets) but to further usurp
districts,’ schools,’ teachers,’ parents,’ and students’ autonomy in determining the
relative emphases in their curriculum as well as their mode of testing and testing
timelines. Schools, teachers, and students are required to proceed at a uniform
standardized schedule and do not have the option of conforming the curriculum
to students’ interests or strengths. Nel Noddings (1992) and John Dewey (1916)
describe just two of the many possible different ways that schooling could con-
form to students’ interests. Instead, they must proceed in a lockstep manner. This
uniformity occurs, in part, because NCLB reduces equity or equal opportunity to
a standardization of treatment and outcome.

Perhaps NCLB’s most invidious subversion of autonomy is that although it es-
pouses individual autonomy, NCLB premises this autonomy or free choice upon
market mechanisms, which privilege the choice-making of those with more money
over those with less money. This subversion holds schools, teachers, students, and
parents responsible for their choices, based upon this seemingly offering auton-
omy. In reality, NCLB coerces choices for those with little access to resources,
while at the same time inducing blame for those forced choices. Such subver-
sion counters deep democracy’s and anarchism’s mandate for real autonomy for
students, parents, teachers, and schools.

NCLB Opposes Students’ Unique Exercise of Creative Individuality

Related to NCLB’s abrogation of autonomy is its opposition to exercise creative
individuality. Part of deep democracy is the recognition that each person is unique
and should have the right to exercise her or his creative individuality. With NCLB
strong-arming states to emphasize a particular part of the curriculum in a lockstep

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 89

manner (based upon a mandated testing timeline for all students), the teacher
is unable to create a learning environment in which students can apply their
particular strengths or develop academic skills in the sequence that best fits that
student’s interests and abilities. Finally, under NCLB, the disregard of a student’s
unique exercise of creative individuality occurs with more intensity in schools that
serve economically underprivileged and minority students, as art, music, and other
creative arts are expunged from the school curriculum to improve standardized test
scores (Briscoe 2008). The loss of these opportunities acts to create subjectivities
of compliance, as Freire (1970) put it, the curtailment of their realities. Through
this process, NCLB encourages the development of citizens who participate only
as voters, choosing from a slate of pre-selected candidates.

NCLB Inhibits the Development of Love, Respect and Care
of Others

Inhibition of love, respect, and care of others is seen in the treatment of students and
faculty, as well as in the type of subjectivities and actions NCLB induces in school
members. As previously stated, NCLB mandates a lockstep curriculum and testing
timeline with no concern for the individual student’s interests, desires, or abilities.
Freire (1970) claims that this regime deadens the soul and mind of a person, suiting
that person for subjugation. Such dehumanization of students is the opposite of
loving, caring, and respect and, furthermore, induces students to treat others as
objects (Foucault 1980a). Not only do NCLB policies inhibit the development
of love, care, and respect among students, they also inhibit such development in
educators in three ways: (a) as described by Buber (1937), NCLB policies treat
teachers as objects in its insistence that they follow a lockstep curriculum for
every student regardless of teachers’ judgments; (b) by demanding that teachers
treat their students as objects; and (c) by fostering an antisocial individualism
among the school educators. As von Humboldt (1985) points out, treating another
person as an object or slave damages the perpetrator as much as the victim, in part
by developing an indifference or blindness to others’ suffering. Finally, through
its antisocial competitive individualism, NCLB fosters a climate of mistrust and
disregard of others among schools and faculty, rather than one of mutual care and
respect. This analysis of NCLB illustrates the antithetical relationship neoliberal
policies have to essential characteristics of deep democracy and to human well-
being. Anarchist guidelines offer an attractive alternative to the current neoliberal
policies guiding educational decision-making.

AN ANARCHIST GUIDE FOR EDUCATIONAL
DECISION-MAKING

Most anarchists maintain that US schools, like the rest of the state and national
political system, have become subverted into servicing the interests and desires

90 BRISCOE

of the corporate elite, as seen in Goldman and Baginsky’s (1907) characterization
of schools: “The school, more than any other institution, is a veritable barrack,
where the human mind is drilled and manipulated into submission to various
social and moral spooks, and thus fitted to continue our system of exploitation
and oppression” (7). Under the current ideological hegemony of neoliberalism,
this characterization remains true. Thus, some anarchists, such as Illich (1971),
suggest disestablishing schools completely and letting citizens educate themselves
as they wish. Such efforts, they say, will eliminate public schools’ conditioning
of students for the economic and social status quo. However, eliminating free
access to an education would set us back historically to when the majority of
citizens simply went uneducated, as they could not afford to pay for teachers
and the accoutrements of learning, rendering them even more vulnerable to the
problematic conditioning of an increasingly ubiquitous mass media. Thus, my view
of the state’s role in education follows Noam Chomsky’s claim that “abolishing
the state is not a realistic strategy at this time” (2010),27 and Buck’s (2009)
suggestion that progress toward anarchism proceed piecemeal. My presentation
of anarchist guidelines is composed of two parts: First, I sketch an anarchist
model of educational decision-making, suggesting it be instituted through federal
legislation that would offer funds only to those states that adopt these guidelines.
These guidelines are not offered as the definitive, final, or only anarchistic way
in which to make educational decisions. Others can improve upon them, either
generally or based upon specific contextual conditions. However, they do provide
a starting point by providing practical suggestions about how schools might serve
students’ and parents’ interest, rather than the elite.28 Second, I address some
concerns that might arise over the guidelines.

Anarchist Educational Decision-Making Guidelines

The guidelines are simple. The state will provide equal money (per student) for all
nonprofit public schools within that state and all public school teacher salaries will
be paid from the same state salary schedule. The school constituents (parents and
students most geographically near a given school and the teachers of that school)
together decide upon the way the school is run, which includes teaching methods,
curriculum, hours, teacher hiring, adequacy of teaching, and the purchase of
educational supplies and services. If school constituents find someone’s teaching
to be inadequate, they also determine how to address this inadequacy. In any
particular school, all children will have equitable access to teachers, supplies,
and services provided by the school—teachers provide advice, but a student may
attend any class offered by their school that they and their parents wish. School
constituents also monitor to ensure that their school funding equals that of other
schools, appealing to the federal government if they find a lack of equal funding of
their school or equitable access within their school. Because the teachers, students,

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 91

and parents will be making the decisions regarding the curriculum, budgeting,
and method of schooling, there is no more formalized structural hierarchy and,
therefore, no need for a leader to coerce teachers and students into particular
actions. Noneducational duties left to be considered include bookkeeping and
organizing the use and maintenance of resources. School constituents also decide
how to handle this. Among the several possibilities are having teachers and/or
parents rotate into this position on a semester basis, with parents being paid or
teachers being relieved of their teaching duties. Students and teachers could be
responsible for the cleaning and minor maintenance of the facilities that they use.
For major repairs, if a student, parent, or teacher knows how to do the repair, they
may do so for whatever recompense is decided as fair or a professional could be
hired.

There are two final provisos. First, as discussed later, schools are limited to
300 students (small school concepts could be used for large school buildings as
the constituents of each small school retained decision-making rights over their
school). Second, although schooling is not compulsory, there is no age limit
to attending public schools without cost. The primary reason schooling should
not be compulsory is to retain the autonomy of students and parents; thus, the
decision-making of whether or not to attend school should be theirs. If those who
choose not to attend school but to experience the world should ultimately decide
that an education is important, they would still have free access to the public
school. However, some concerns might arise over such simple guidelines: Can
we really trust teachers (possibly lazy or incompetent), parents (not experts), and
children (possibly pleasure-oriented, short-sighted, and ignorant) to make the best
educational decisions? Why limit the number of students to 300 or less? What
about previous failed attempts at integrating parents into the decision-making
processes of schools? If all of these small schools are doing their own thing, what
will hold society together? Each of these possible concerns is discussed in the
order presented previously.

Students, Parents, and Teachers, as Educational Decision-Makers

As previously indicated, autonomy is perhaps the single most important aspect
of anarchism and deep democracy.29 Joyfully exercising creative individuality
entails student and teacher autonomy in making decisions about what education
would look like. Students would not dictate what the teacher should do, nor would
teachers dictate what students should do; they would come to a consensus about
the students’ curriculum. Although others (teachers, parents, or friends) can share
their observations, ideas, and advice, the student should ultimately define his or
her potential and abilities. Because children lack some of the knowledge that
adults have, parents should also be advocates for their children in terms of their

92 BRISCOE

education. Their primary input would be in the hiring of teachers. From that point,
parents would be advisory, leaving the day-to-day educational decisions to be
made jointly by teachers and students.

Buber (1937) describes the I–thou relationship between student and teacher in
which daily decisions about learning are made based upon both parties’ desired
ends, with neither the student’s nor the teacher’s desire eclipsing the others. In
fact, Buber emphasizes that teachers assume the role of students when they learn
from the children with whom they work. Learning is fun. Joint discovery is fun
(Shukaitis 2009). Both children and adults spend many hours learning things that
they wish to learn (such as new video games) without the specter of a test to drive
them. Respecting student and teacher autonomy in making the decisions about
learning will help put the excitement and joy back into learning and teaching.30

Jointly developing their curriculum with teachers, rather than just learning what
is mandated by the State, induces students to develop the habit of exercising their
autonomy31 and thus to participate in the decision-making of anarchistic deep
democracy. Students and teachers share a relationship much like counselors and
those being counseled. Research32 indicates that counselor and counselee belief
in what they are doing is the most important factor in whether counseling benefits
the counselee. Therefore, it is likely that more and better learning will take place
if teachers and students believe in what they are doing, rather than merely doing
what they are told.

Can we trust teachers, parents, and children to make the best schooling de-
cisions? During the 1920s there was an educational shift in the United States to
having experts make decisions, rather than parents or teachers (Tyack and Cuban
1995). Teachers were, and still are, often perceived as being lazy or incompe-
tent (Webb, Briscoe, and Mussman 2009). Parents, especially poor and minority
parents, are often constructed as deficit (Briscoe and de Oliver forthcoming) and
untrustworthy. Students seldom have been trusted to make good educational deci-
sions. Why should we begin trusting them now? The answer is simple. Autonomy
or the ability to make decisions concerning your own education is an essential
ingredient for human dignity, well-being (Freire 1970), and motivation.33 Further-
more, based upon the educational judgment of experts, too many poor and minority
students are largely learning that they are failures and stupid (McKenzie 2009).
With the current drilling, testing, and other school regimes in place, students are
induced to regard learning as boring and humiliating. Minority men, especially
those from the lower income brackets, are often channeled into prison by academic
and disciplinary practices (Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera 2010). It is difficult to
imagine how parents, teachers, and students could do a worse job in making these
decisions than the experts. The individual and societal benefits warrant placing
educational decision-making into the hands of those directly concerned.34

But what if students and teachers goof off instead of working? Goofing off
may be one of the best ways of learning. Countless treatises from Rousseau

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 93

([1762]1979) to Smith and Pelligrini (2008) have been written about how much
learning occurs through play. Furthermore, making these decisions in conjunction
with teachers may expose students to a whole new variety of play than what they
might normally engage in. Additionally, in the early 1900s, there was a general
consensus that the technology of mass production would provide more leisure time
for the masses. However, increasingly sophisticated technology has not opened up
more free time. Instead, there are more unemployed workers and those in the work-
force generally work longer hours and are expected to produce more.35 Finally, if
more people worked (but worked fewer hours) and played more, maybe society
would no longer be gripped by a sense of meaninglessness (Havel 1994). If work
became play, through worker autonomy, fewer antidepressants may be required.

Why Limit the School to 300 in the Geographic Area?

Although this latter guideline is not explicitly part of anarchism or deep democracy,
I include it for a number of reasons that relate to love, care, and respect of others and
direct participation in educational decision-making. Simmel’s ([1903] 1950) social
theory described the kind of alienation and anomie that occurs when a group grows
too large. In addition to social theory, psychological research has similar findings.
Dunbar’s (1992) research suggests that our brains tend to limit us to knowing,
understanding, and thus caring about no more than 150-300 individuals.36 Other
psychological studies (Demasio 1994) show that the further away people are from
our decisions or actions, that is, as people become more abstract to us, the more
indifferent we are to the suffering we cause them by our decisions. Finally, the
more people who take part in a decision (voting for local vs. national political
positions), the less impact each person has on that decision. Therefore, smaller
is better in terms of direct participation in group-decision making that takes into
account the needs, interests, and wellbeing of all group members.37

Failed Attempts at Integrating Parents Into School Decision-Making

Finally, what about earlier failed attempts at integrating parents, teachers, and
sometimes students into the decision-making processes of schools?38 First, not all
attempts failed (e.g., Somech 2002). There is considerable research that suggests
integrating parental perspectives into schools results in much higher academic
achievement, especially for minority students (González, Moll, and Amanti 2005).
Research investigating the differences between shared decision-making attempts
that failed and those that were succeeding suggests that the anarchist guidelines
presented here incorporate important aspects that were linked with success and
avoid many of the aspects that lead to failure. Aspects that were related to success
included “genuine authority over budget, personnel, and curriculum . . . adequate

94 BRISCOE

information to make informed decisions about student performance, parent and
community satisfaction” and decision-making that incorporated all school con-
stituents.39 The most consistently reported aspect that was linked to success of
integrating teachers and parents into school decision-making was that they had
autonomy—or the genuine authority to make decisions.40 Elements found to be
linked to failure included overwork and frustration of teachers as they attempted
to both teach and make school-wide decisions (this was the most commonly re-
ported element linked to failure);41 too much conflict (Geraci 1995); inadequate
knowledge or understanding of issues;42 and the difficulty faced by the principal in
mediating demands of the school district with those from the teachers and parents
(e.g., Geraci 1995).

However, the context in which integration of parents, teachers, and students, as
suggested in this article, is quite different from earlier attempts in two important
ways: the degree of autonomy granted to school constituents and the number of
students in a school. The strongest element in these anarchist guidelines is that
teachers, students, and parents do have true autonomy. They are freed from a
hierarchy of control except for the one regulation, enforced by the federal gov-
ernment, that they provide equitable access to all students in their schools. As
this type of autonomy was the most often repeated element related to success
or failure of shared decision-making, it bodes well that autonomy is an essential
element of these anarchist guidelines. In addition, research was generally done
on schools whose student population was much greater than 300.43 Parents and
teachers are more likely to feel overwhelmed, overworked, and frustrated by issues
that come with schools whose student population far exceeds 300, because with
fewer students, there are likely to be fewer issues. Furthermore, in a school of 300,
students’ decisions are easier to make and the effects of those decisions are easier
to track. Finally, research was primarily conducted in a context where constituents
were expected to help make decisions, while embedded in a hierarchy reaching
from the federal government to state, to state boards, to district boards, to local
schools. This hierarchy was replete with codes, regulations, and other limits upon
decision-making (Wylie 1995). Eliminating the bureaucratic hierarchy of regula-
tions, codes, etc., and issues emanating from a multitude of hierarchical levels
means that teachers, parents, and students primarily need to have knowledge and
understand local issues. Under the suggested anarchistic guidelines parents will not
be embedded in a hierarchy nor fenced in by a number of hierarchical regulations.

Conflict will occur when people have different ideas, interests, and desires.
In the past, this conflict has been avoided by simply leaving teachers and parents
with their unique individualities out of decision-making. Undoubtedly, conflict will
occur and it will take time to sort through and come to decisions. However, conflict
with open and authentic communication is much healthier than the orderliness that
occurs under conditions of extreme control (Freire 1970), as described earlier by
Mr. Jackson.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 95

Schools are ‘Doing Their Own Thing’: How Will Society
Hold Together?

Logically, society will hold together and survive, because it will be more adaptable
to changes in technology and the environment and because of the diversity of
knowledges and epistemologies inherent in a number of small schools and groups
doing their own thing. Diversity strengthens the survivability and adaptability
of a species and should aid in that of a society. In addition, rather than being
passive spectators in societal and military actions of their nation, students will
be socialized to be critical and then to directly participate in the decisions made
by their country. Dewey (1916) maintains that for a democracy to improve itself,
students must believe they have the ability to affect society and the will to do so.
Small schools in which students, teachers, and parents make educational decisions
produce diversity and socialize students to participate in the decision-making that
affects their lives.

A further concern related to schools doing their own thing, might be that such
autonomy grants the freedom that racists, sexists, and others will use to turn back
the clock to racial- and gender-based apartheid, exclusion, and oppression in pre-
viously practiced in schools. No doubt, racial apartheid or oppression may occur
in some schools (as it does now).44 However, any constituent of the school has the
right and opportunity to appeal to the federal government if anyone in the school
is denied equal access. Currently, this is the only recourse that students have if
they are excluded or experience oppression based upon race. Thus, the greater
autonomy offered by these guidelines is unlikely to result in worse apartheid or
oppression. In addition, if exclusion or oppression of a student were occurring,
it would be much more evident in a small school of 300. Furthermore, even if
(based upon the composition of the neighborhood) the 300 students in a school
are primarily of a single ethnicity/race, such segregated schools exist today, some-
times within the same school (Oakes 1985). This current de facto segregation
in schools—“African American and Latino students presently attend schools that
are three-fourths minority and 40 percent are in intensely segregated schools”
(Zamudio, Russell, Rios, and Bridgeman 2011, 44)—is often accompanied by a
dearth of money for low-income and minority students. Thus, allowing school
constituents to do their own thing is unlikely to make racial or gender apartheid
and oppression worse than the current situation. However, offering students and
teachers greater autonomy in determining what and how they learn is likely to
be far more motivational to both students and teachers than the current tedium of
schools caused by lockstep learning, as described earlier by Mr. Jackson.

I have addressed some of the concerns, which may arise in regards to the im-
plementation of anarchist guidelines for educational decision-making. Undoubt-
edly, there are other concerns, but for pragmatic reasons, I leave those for future
debate.

96 BRISCOE

CONCLUSION

In sum, this article has described the negative social and educational environ-
ment that is generated by the increasing implementation of neoliberal policies,
which perpetuate the practices of superficial democracy. However, the decision-
making processes of neoliberal policies oppose the practice of deep democracy
by: perpetuating double-speak; refuting an equal distribution of educational re-
sources; abrogating the autonomy of school constituents; denying students and
teachers the opportunity to exercise their creative individuality; and inhibiting
the development of love, respect, and caring for others. These policies together
treat humans as objects, creating a recipe for inhumane tedium and alienation. In
contrast, anarchist policies promote decision-making processes that act to deepen
democracy and the joy of teaching and learning. Anarchism promotes authentic
communication; espouses a fairly equal distribution of power that allows for the
exercise of real autonomy; advocates the joyful exercise of students’ and teachers’
creative individuality; and promotes the love, care, and respect of others. The
suggested anarchist guidelines for educational decision-making are designed to
make a preferred future more possible—a preferred future based upon improving
the well-being of students and teachers, and eventually society. Consideration of
this preferred future allows a more positive interpretation of The Second Coming:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; . . . .
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. (Yeats 1989, 187)

The center should not control the periphery, but rather should fall apart into a form
of decision-making that is more equally distributed among all concerned. Mere
anarchy loosens the chains that prevent people from acting autonomously. It is
better to lack conviction so that one considers what others have to say than to be
so full of passionate intensity that one ignores others’ interests, desires, and needs.
Perhaps this type of ignorance is what turns the best into the worst. This is but a
starting point, offering exciting challenges and opportunities for further research
and flexible application based upon the context of schooling.

Notes

1. Arter Jackson, public school teacher, e-mailed the author on September 16, 2008. Mr.
Jackson was a former student of mine who had remained in communication with me over
the years, describing his teaching and educational experiences.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 97

2. This characterization of critical postmodernism fits with anarchism. See for example, a
number of discussions of anarchism’s relationship with possible and preferred futures in
Randall Amster et al. (2009).
3. For a fuller description of neoliberalism and its productive effects see Clarke (2004) or
Dave Hill (2009).
4. For a description of the expansion of the testing market and its effects of further narrowing
the types of knowledge taught in schools see Felecia Briscoe (2008).
5. See Taylor Webb, Felecia Briscoe, and Mark Mussman (2009), for a detailed discussion
of the coercive surveillance techniques found in neoliberalism as exemplified in NCLB.
6. See for example, Firebaugh (2003) or Gailbraith and Hale (2005).
7. Other democratic typologies include shallow, weak, etc.
8. E.g., Emma Goldman (1907) or Peter Kropotkin (1899).
9. E.g., Walt Whitman (1959) and John Dewey (1916).
10. See Steven Shukaitis’s Imaginal Machines (2009) for more about how these types of
decisions are constantly being remade with the possibility of a more anarchic decision
occurring and that hope is a necessary ingredient for such transformative changes to occur.
11. From a postmodern perspective, reality is social construction and words like authentic
can at best, be merely contingent. Recognizing this, I later provide a definition of authentic
communication as described by political and sociological theorists.
12. Furthermore, many anarchists such as Buck (2009) advocate a piecemeal transformation.
13. Later in the sections analyzing the relationships of neoliberalism and anarchism to deep
democracy, each of the assertions in this section are discussed in detail.
14. See Briscoe and de Oliver (forthcoming) for a detailed description of the imaginary
“free choice” offered by neoliberalism.
15. And when neoliberalism does, its response is market-based, such as the Kyoto agreement
in which wealthy industrialized countries buy the right to a large carbon footprint from
countries who are not fully industrialized. Although not fully industrialized may sound
deficit in comparison to fully industrialized, in reality it is not. Fully industrialized indicates
a disproportionate use of global resources and a disproportionate amount of pollution. At
this point in time, a fully industrialized country is one that uses far more than its share of
resources and pollutes far more than its counterparts that are not fully industrialized.
16. By harm, I mean the kind of harm that results in the dehumanization or alienation of
a person as described by Paulo Freire (1970) in Pedagogy of the Oppressed or the kinds
of suffering described by Pennycook (2001) in Critical Applied Linguistics. By benefit, I
refer to the sort of benefit that allows for the fuller expression of a person’s humanity as
described by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed or Dewey (1916) in Democracy and
Education.
17. For a fuller discussion of authentic communication, see Green (1999) or Walt Whitman
(1959).
18. From a postmodern perspective, research and theory are integrated into current power
relations. However, there is always resistance and perhaps the theories and research findings
cited in this article are points of resistance. See Foucault (1980a).
19. Because Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice was written in 1938, it is important
to note two things. Minorities in this context does not refer to those who have been
historically oppressed, but rather to the small number of people who overwhelming benefit
from the current economic system to the detriment of the masses. Also, the language used
here is patriarchal in that the masculine pronoun is used to refer to all of humankind. I resist
language that promotes sexism and therefore point to it, but at the same time recognize that
this was considered correct essay style in the time period.

98 BRISCOE

20. See Wolff (2007).
21. In consideration of the education of minorities, Black authors such as Vanessa Siddle-
Walker (1996) or bell hooks (1994), based upon their research, argue that the education prior
to desegregation of African Americans was taught by African Americans who inculcated
higher expectations in students than that inculcated in minorities by most of the teachers
in desegregated urban schools of today; the problem wasn’t segregation per se, but access
to resources. At least, minorities or low-income students were not being “schooled” into
deficit identities, including low expectations of themselves. See, for example, Ivan Illich
(1971); Paulo Freire (1970) or, more recently, Jean Anyon (1998) and Tara J. Yasso (2006).
22. For example, Gordon W. Allport ([1954] 1968), Habermas (1968) or von Humboldt
(1985).
23. See for example, Foucault (1980a).
24. In reality, a large number of students do not have the option of going to a particular
school in their school district, but are stuck in a school, which has now been labeled as
failing. See Roslyn Arlin Mickelson and Stephanie Southwort (2005) for more on this.
25. NCLBa, Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Part I, sec. 1903
(a)(2). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg18.html.
26. NCLBb, Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Part I, sec 1906.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html.
27. See Noam Chomsky (2010),.
28. As described in several analyses (e.g., Briscoe & de Oliver, forthcoming) neoliberalism
has redefined the public good as that which services the interest of the corporate elite.
29. See, for example, Anna Goldman (2010).
30. See, for example, Friere (1970) or Emma Goldman (1907).
31. See Foucault (1980a) for a description of how power affects subjectivities.
32. See for example, Gary Greenburg (2010).
33. See Dewey (1916) for a theoretical grounding on why autonomy leads to motivation and
an example of empirical working supporting the relationship of autonomy and motivation
by Nichols (2006).
34. In addition, without the truancy apparatus, more money is available for education.
35. See for example, Braverman (1974) or, more recently, Schaal (2010).
36. Furthermore, the less autonomy (or control) a person has, the more debilitating the
effects of group size; “Both environmental stress and crowding annoyance are significantly
related to personal control” (Schmidt 1983 229).
37. Furthermore, smaller schools generally produce higher achievement rates. See, for
example, McMillen et al. (2000).
38. Referred to variously as school-based management, e.g., Gleason, Donohue, and Leader
(1995); participative management, e.g., Somech (2002); or site-based management, e.g.,
Wylie (1995).
39. Odden and Wohlstetter (1995). Likewise, Conway and Calzi (1995), as well as Geraci
(1995), found that lack of genuine authority to make decisions was linked to the failure of
shared decision-making.
40. Odden and Wohlstetter (1995); Conway and Calzi (1995); and Geraci (1995) all noted
that lack of genuine authority to make decisions was linked to the failure of shared decision-
making.
41. See, for example, Sanders (2001), Wylie (1995), or Geraci (1995).
42.
43. See, for example, Gleason et al. (1995), Geraci (1995), Conway and Calzi (1995), or
Somech (2002).

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 99

44. See, for example, Oakes (1985) for research showing how the ubiquitous practice of
tracking acts to exclude minority and low-income students from the upper academic tracks
in schools, creating a sort of apartheid.

REFERENCES

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amster, Randall, Abraham DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony Nocella, and Deric Shannon, eds. 2009.

Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. New York:
Routledge.

Anyon, Jean. 1998. “Rank Discriminations: Critical Studies of Schooling and the Mainstream in
Educational Research.” Educational Researcher 313: 32–33.

Apple, Michael. 1999. “Friere, Neoliberalism and Education.” Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education 201: 5–20.

Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Briscoe, Felecia. 2008. “Discipline.” Pp. 199–207 in Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy
(2nd ed.). Edited by David Gabbard. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Briscoe, Felecia, and Miguel deOliver. Forthcoming. “The Discourse of School Leaders in the Con-
text of NCLB’s Marketplace Mandates: The Construction of Deficit Minority and Low Income
Identities.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies.

Buber, Martin. 1937. I and Thou. Translated by Ronald G. Smith. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark.
Buck, Eric. 2009. “The Flow of Experiencing in Anarchic Economies: Pp. 57–70 in Contemporary

Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. Edited by Randall Amster,
Abraham. DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony Nocella, and Deric Shannon. New York: Routledge.

Chomsky, Noam. 2010. “‘Abolishing the State’ Not a Strategy” [Video]. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2011,
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw

Conway, James and Frank Calzi. 1995. “The Dark Side of Shared Decision Making.” Educational
Leadership 53: 45–50

Clarke, John. 2004. “Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-liberalism.” Journal
of Social Policy 33: 27–48.

Demasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.

de Oliver, Miguel. 2008. “Democratic Materialism: The Articulation of World Power in Democracy’s
Era of Triumph.” Journal of Power 1: 355–383.

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New
York: Macmillan.

Dunbar, Robin. 1992. “Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates.” Journal of Human
Evolution 226: 469–493.

Firebaugh, Glen. 2003. The New Geography of Global Income Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press

Fotopoulos, Takis. 2008. “Inclusive Democracy.” Pp. 435–448 in Knowledge and Power in the Global
Economy (2nd ed.). Edited by David Gabbard. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Foucault, Michel. 1980a. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977.
Edited by Colin Gordon. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate
Soper. New York: Pantheon Books.

———. 1980b. The History of Sexuality: Vol. I. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage
Books.

100 BRISCOE

Friere, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gailbraith, James K., and Travis Hale. (2005), “Within-State Income Inequality and the Presidential

Vote 1992–2004: A First Look at the Evidence.” UTIP Working Paper 29. Retrieved from http:
//utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers.html.

Garrison, James, and Sandra Schneider. 2008. “Democracy.” Pp. 5–12 in Knowledge and Power in the
Global Economy, Edition II. Edited by David Gabbard. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geraci, Bill. 1995. “Local Decision Making: A Report from the Trenches.” Educational Leadership
53: 50–53.

Giroux, Henry. 2002. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The
University as a Democratic Public Sphere.” Harvard Educational Review 724: 425–463.

Gleason, Sonia, Nick Donohue, and Gerald C. Leader. 1995. “Boston Revisits School-Based Manage-
ment.” Educational Leadership 53: 24–28.

Goldman, Anna. 2010. “Anarchism: What Is It?” Anarchia: An Excess of Passion for Liberty. Retrieved
Sept. 2011, from http://anarchia.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/anarchism-what-is-it/.

Goldman, Emma. 1907. Anarchism and Other Essays. New York: Mother Earth.
Goldman, Emma, and Max Baginsky. 1907. “Report of the American Conditions.” Pp. 47–52 in

Anarchism and Other Essays. New York: Mother Earth.
González, Norma, Luis C. Moll, and Cathy Amanti, eds. 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Prac-

tices in Households, Communities and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Green, Judith. 1999. Deep Democracy: Community, Diversity, and Transformation. Lanham, MD:

Rowan & Littlefield.
Greenburg, Gary. 2010. “The War on Unhappiness.” Harpers Magazine 321: 27–35.
Gregory, Anne, Russell J. Skiba, and Pedro A. Noguera. 2010. “The Achievement Gap and the

Discipline Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Educational Researcher 39:59–68.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Knowledge and Human Interests. Translated by Jay Shapiro. Boston: Beacon.
Havel, Václav. 1994. “The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World.” Speech given at Inde-

pendence Hall, Philadelphia, July 4, 1994. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2011, from http://www.worldtrans.
org/whole/havelspeech.html

Hill, Dave, ed. 2009. Contesting Neoliberal Education: Public Resistance and Collective Advance.
New York: Routledge.

Hill, Dave, and Simon Boxley. 2009. “Critical Education for Economic, Environmental, and Social
Justice.” Pp. 28–60 in Contesting Neoliberal Education: Public Resistance and Collective Advance.
Edited by Dave Hill. New York: Routledge.

hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. London: Routledge.
Illich, Ivan. 1971. Deschooling Society. London: Calders & Boyers.
Kahn, Richard. 2009. “Anarchic Epimetheanism: The Pedagogy of Ivan Illich.” Pp. 125–135 in

Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. Edited by
Randall Amster, Abraham. DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony Nocella, and Deric Shannon. New
York: Routledge.

Kant, Immanuel. [1785] 1879. The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics. Translated by
Otto Manthey-Zorn. New York, London: D. Appleton-Century.

Kozol, Johnathon. 2005. The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America.
New York: Crown.

Kropotkin, Peter. 1899. Memoirs of a Revolutionist. London: Smith, Elder.
McMillen, Bradley, Gongshu Zhang, Carolyn Cobb, Gary Williamson, Kris Kaase, Judy Williams, and

Helmuts Feifs. 2000. “School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and Behavior.” In Public
Schools of North Carolina, Division of Accountability Services, Evaluation Section. Retrieved Sept.
30, 2011, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/data/reports/size .

McKenzie, Kathryn. 2009. “Emotional Abuse of Student of Color: The Hidden Inhumanity in our
Schools.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22: 129–143.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 101

Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin and Stephanie Southwort. 2005. “When Opting Out is Not a Choice: Im-
plications for NCLB Transfer Options from Charlotte North Caroline.” Equity and Excellence in
Education 38: 1–15.

Nichols, Joe. 2006. “Empowerment and Relationships: A Classroom Model to Enhance Student
Motivation.” Learning Environments Research 9: 149–161.

Noddings, Nel. 1992. The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Odden, Eleanor R., and Priscilla Wohlstetter. 1995. “Making School-Based Management Work.”
Educational Leadership 52: 32–36.

Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Pennycook, Alister. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Pesavento-Conway, Jennifer. 2008. “Teacher Retention: An Appreciative Approach.” Ed.D. diss.,
University of California, San Diego and California State University, San Marcos.

Rocker, Rudolf. 1938. Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice. Edinborough, Scotland: AK Press.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. [1762] 1979. Émile. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books.
Sanders, Mavis G. 2001. “The Role of ‘Community’ in Comprehensive School, Family, and Commu-

nity Partnership Programs.” Elementary School Journal 102: 19–34.
Schaal, Eduord. 2010. “Uncertainty, Productivity and Unemployment in the Great Recession.” Re-

trieved from http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/18569/Schaal 20110120 .
Schmidt, Donald H. 1983. “Personal Control and Crowding Stress: A Test of Similarity in Two

Cultures,” Journal in Cross-Cultural Psychology 229 14: 221–239.
Shukaitis, Steven. 2009. Imaginal Machines: Autonomy & Self-Organization in the Revolutions of

Everyday Life. London: Minor Compositions.
Siddle-Walker, Vanessa. 1996. Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in

the Segregated South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Simmel, Georg. [1903] 1950. “The Mental Life of the Metropolis.” Pp. 409–424 in The Sociology of

Georg Simmel. Edited by Kurt Wolff. New York: Free Press.
Smith, Peter K., and Pelligrini, Anthony. 2008. “Learning Through Play.” Pp.1–6 in Encyclopedia on

Early Childhood Development. Edited by R. R. Tremblay, R. G. Barr, R. D. Peters, et al. Montreal,
Canada: Centre for Excellence for Early Childhood Development.

Somech, Anit. 2002. “Explicating the Complexity of Participative Management: An Investigation of
Multiple Dimensions.” Educational Administration Quarterly 38(3): 341–371.

Spring, Joel. 2008. Wheels in the Head: Educational Philosophies of Authority, Freedom, and Culture
from Confucianism to Human Rights (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1985. “Foundations: Language, Understanding, and the Historical. 2008
World.” Pp. 98–117 in The Hermeneutic Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlighten-
ment to the Present. Edited by Kurt Mueller-Vollmer. New York: Continuum.

Webb, Taylor, Felecia Briscoe, and Mark Mussman. 2009. “Preparing Teachers to Resist the Neoliberal
Panopticon.” Educational Foundations 233: 3–18.

Whitman, Walt. 1959. Complete Poetry and Selected Prose. Edited by James E. Miller, Jr. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Williams, Dana M. 2010. “An Anarchist-Sociological Research Program: Fertile Areas for Theoretical
and Empirical Research.” Pp. 243–266 in New Perspectives on Anarchism. Edited by Nathan J. Jun
and Shane Whal. New York: Lexington Books.

102 BRISCOE

Wolff, Edward N. 2007. Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and
the Middle-Class Squeeze. Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 502. Retrieved from
http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp 502 .

Wylie, Cathy. 1995. “Finessing Site-Based Management with Balancing Acts.” Educational Leader-
ship 53: 54–60.

Tara J. Yasso. (2006), “Whose Culture has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community
Cultural Wealth.” Pp. 167–190 in Critical Race Theory in Education: All God’s Children Got a
Song. Edited by Adrienne D. Dixon and Celia K Rousseau. New York: Routledge.

Yeats, William. B. 1989. “The Second Coming.” Pp. 187 in The Collected Poems of W. B Yeats, Revised
by Anne Yeats. New York: Scribner and Schuster.

Zamudio, Margaret M., Caskey Russell, Francisco A. Rios, and Jacquelyn L. Bridgeman. 2011. Critical
Race Theory Matters: Education and Ideology. New York: Routledge.

Copyright of Educational Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Westminster Studies in Education, Vol

.

26, No. 2, October 2003

The ‘Right’ Decision? Towards an Understanding of
Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders

NEIL CRANSTON, LISA EHRICH & MEGAN KIMBER, Queensland University of
Technology, Australia

ABSTRACT Over the last two decades or so, organisations everywhere have been
subjected to considerable restructuring and reform. Schools have been no exception to
this trend. Devolution has been prominent amongst the managerial reforms which have
affected primarily the work practices of managers (James, 2003). In the context of
schooling, devolution or school based management has increased the decision-making
powers of schools and their communities. It has also brought with it the requirement that
schools meet a wider range of accountability measures (Whitty et al., 1998). In such a
climate, school leaders are likely to find themselves juggling a ‘multitude of competing
obligations and interests’ (Cooper, 1998, p. 244). This complex operational milieu
requires school leaders to confront and resolve conflicting interests as they endeavour
to balance a variety of values and expectations in their decision-making. Not surpris-
ingly, the result is often ethical dilemmas for leaders.

In this paper we argue that an understanding of ethics and ethical dilemmas is crucial
for educational leaders due to the value-laden nature of their work. We put forward a
tentative generic model that endeavours to assist our understanding of the forces
impacting upon and processes characterising the decision-making dynamics emerging
from an ethical dilemma. A scenario is posed and tested against the model.

Introduction

Over the last two decades public sector organisations including State and Common-
wealth public service departments in Australia and other countries have undergone
considerable restructuring (O’Faircheallaigh et al., 1999). Among these changes has
been the predominance of managerialist thinking and practices in public sector organisa-
tions which has seen the application of private sector management practices into the
public sector (James, 2003). These and other reforms have had a direct impact also upon
the management of schools and school systems throughout many western countries
including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of
America (Whitty et al., 1998).

Devolution or decentralisation has been prominent among these managerial practices
and has impacted significantly on the work of public sector managers and educational
leaders. While decentralisation of authority means that organisations have greater control

ISSN 0140-6728 print; 1470-1359 online/03/020135-13  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0140672032000147599

136 N. Cranston et al.

over resources and budgets and greater autonomy to make operational decisions, it also
means adherence to tighter accountability measures in terms of specific outputs and
outcomes (Bradley & Parker, 2001). In the context of schooling, devolution or school
based management has increased the decision-making powers of schools and their
communities (Williams et al., 1997; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Cranston, 2002). It
has also brought with it the requirement for schools to meet a wider range of
accountability measures such as the implementation of mandated curricula, state-wide
testing and more systematic forms of teacher appraisal (Whitty et al., 1998). In such a
context, there are direct implications for school leaders regarding potentially competing
accountabilities between the centre’s (or government’s) demands, the demands from the
profession, and the demands from the community (Eraut, 1993). Because school leaders
are caught at the interface between the system and the school and are accountable to both
bodies (Nadebaum, 1991) they are likely to find themselves juggling a ‘multitude of
competing obligations and interests’ (Cooper, 1998, p. 244). This complex and more
autonomous operational milieu requires school leaders to confront and resolve
conflicting interests as they endeavour to balance a variety of values and expectations in
their decision-making. Not surprisingly, the result is often ethical dilemmas for the
school leader, arising, for example, where conflict and tension may arise as the leader
struggles to decide between alternative decisions, one reflecting the immediate oper-
ational context of the school and the other, a more systemically oriented choice reflecting
a political imperative.

In this article, we argue that an understanding of ethics and ethical dilemmas is crucial
for educators due to the value-laden nature of their work. We begin by discussing the
emergence of ethics in education, and then explore the meaning of ethics and ethical
dilemmas before identifying four prominent theories of ethics. We put forward a
tentative generic model that endeavours to assist our understanding of the forces
impacting upon and processes characterising the decision-making dynamics emerging
from an ethical dilemma. A scenario is posed and tested against the model. Some
consideration is given to the implications and repercussions of ethical dilemmas for
leaders and schools.

Ethics In and For Education

In recent literature, the moral and ethical dimensions of leadership have received
emphasis and attention (e.g., Campbell, 1997; Cooper, 1998; Starratt, 1996). In part, this
attention has been driven by the belief that ‘values, morals and ethics are the very stuff
of leadership and administrative life’ (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 11). Thus, there is an
expectation that those who hold leadership positions will act justly, rightly and promote
good rather than evil (Evers, 1992). This entails leaders demonstrating both moral and
professional accountability to those they serve (Eraut, 1993). Moral accountability is
concerned with wanting the best for learners (whether they are students or staff) while
professional accountability is concerned with upholding the standards of ethics of one’s
profession (Eraut, 1993). Both accountabilities reinforce the notion that education
leadership fundamentally has a moral purpose (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Another reason for heightened interest in ethics within education in recent years is due
to the more complex operational milieu (Grace, in Campbell, 1997, p. 223) in which
leaders are now working. The advent of school-based management has generated new
forms of, and competing, accountabilities (Burke, 1997; Ehrich, 2000). Several writers
(Burke, 1997; Dempster, 2000; Dempster et al., 2001) argue that the values underpinning

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 137

managerialism and school-based management are opposed to the traditional understand-
ing of education as a public good. These writers maintain that the focus on management
arising from economic rationalism is inconsistent with the professional and personal
values of school leaders and can contradict important ethics of care and justice. When
contractual accountability, that is accountability to the government or system, is a strong
and competing force against other accountabilities (such as moral and professional
accountabilities), there is much potential for ethical dilemmas. In this situation, a skilful
administrator needs to optimise his or her most valued beliefs, responsibilities and
obligations in ways that minimise adverse consequences.

It is important to note that for the purpose of clarity in this article, we focus our
attention on issues, characteristics and theories of ethics, rather than undertake an
extended discussion on the possible similarities and differences between ‘ethics’ and
‘morality’.

Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas

The meaning of ethics is subject to much contestation. In some instances it is defined in
terms of what it is not, referring to matters such as misconduct, corruption, fraud and
other types of illegal behaviour, while in others, notions of integrity, honesty, personal
values and professional codes are raised. There appears to be general agreement that
ethics is about relationships—whether relationships with people, relationships with
animals and/or relationships with the environment (Freakley & Burgh, 2000). Further, it
can encompass what people see as good and bad or right and wrong. Several writers (see
for example, Singer, 1994, 1995; Preston & Samford, 2002) argue that ethics can be
divorced from religion and to some extent from morality but most refer to its religious
and philosophical bases (see for example, Burke, 1997; Preston, 1999a & 1999b; Ehrich,
2000). Freakley and Burgh (2000) put it simply when they say that ethics ‘is about what
we ought to do’ (p. 97). Therefore, ethics requires a judgement be made about a given
problem or situation.

If ethics is viewed in this light it indicates that people are faced with choices that
require them to make decisions that enable them to lead an ethical life within the context
of their relationships with others. This suggests that people can be placed in ethical
dilemmas. An ethical dilemma, then, arises from a situation that necessitates a choice
between competing sets of principles. For example, a principal may be faced with a
decision to award an academic prize to a student who has just missed being placed first
in her year, but whose parents have made large and regular donations to the school
building fund. Does the principal award two prizes, alter the order of merit, or abide by
the given situation with the student missing out on a prize? Thus, an ethical dilemma can
be described as a circumstance that requires a choice between competing sets of
principles in a given, usually undesirable or perplexing, situation. Conflicts of interest as
in the above mentioned example are possibly the most obvious situations that could
place school leaders in an ethical dilemma.

Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Ethics

Leaders resolve dilemmas everyday in the natural course of their work. In most cases,
however, leaders make decisions with little or no knowledge of the theoretical ap-
proaches to ethics. As Freakley and Burgh (2000, pp. 95–96) remind us, theoretical
approaches cannot be applied entirely to solving problems or dilemmas due to the

138 N. Cranston et al.

abstract nature of theory and the complexity of practice. Yet, the advantage that
knowledge of theory holds is that it helps leaders organise their beliefs and perspectives
in a more coherent and systematic way (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 96). Understanding
theoretical approaches ‘may assist in accuracy, clarity, and consistency in ethical practice
and decision-making’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 22). Thus, theory has the potential
to enable leaders to reflect critically on their values and the values guiding theoretical
approaches. In this section, we consider briefly four theoretical approaches to ethics that
appeal as useful ways of endeavouring to understand the complexities of the ethical
issues associated with decision-making in schools. What needs to be emphasised here is
that, in practice, they are not independent of each other; rather, they are likely to be
interdependent and may be in evidence to varying degrees depending on the circum-
stances and nature surrounding the decision to be made. Importantly, given that there is
no theorised framework available for describing and “mapping” ethical dilemmas in
schools (Campbell, 1997), they provided a useful starting point and ways of conceptual-
ising the development of the model discussed later in this article. The four theoretical
approaches are consequentialism, non-consequentialism, virtue ethics and institutional
ethics.

Consequentialism

Consequentialism can be defined as ‘any position in ethics which claims that the
rightness or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences’ (Hinman, http://eth-
ics.acusd.edu/Glossary.html, p. 1). Consequentialists adopt the perspective that actions
can only be justified with reference to the end or outcomes they achieve (Freakley &
Burgh, 2000, p. 120). A person who follows this perspective would make a decision after
weighing up the foreseeable consequences and choosing the alternative that produces the
better result (p. 121). Utilitarianism is an example of the consequentialist approach
(Preston & Samford, 2002; Singer, 1995). Utilitarians are individualists who aim to
promote the greatest good for the greatest number (Dinwindy, 1989), i.e., it is the
outcomes in terms of benefits for the most people that is of concern.

Non-consequentialism

By contrast, those who adopt a non-consequentialist approach to ethics live ‘by an
uncompromising, moral legalism which requires adherence to duty, principle or absolute
truth, etc as more important than consequences … in determining what is good, just,
right and fair’ (Burke, 1997, p. 15). Thus, non-consequentialists make judgements based
on duty, rights, laws, motive, intuition, or reason. The golden rule of doing unto others
what we would want them to do to us, illustrates non-consequentialism since it values
that all humans are worthwhile and should be treated with equal respect. Other examples
include ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ (from Christianity) and Kant’s natural law based
on reason (see Singer, 1993, p. 11)

Critics of consequentialism and non-consequentialism note that an ‘ethic of care’ is
missing from both approaches. This ethic ‘emphasises the quality of [interpersonal]
relationships and contextual factors in an ethical life’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 24).
An ethic of care emerged from the feminist writings of Noddings (1984) and Gilligan
(1982). Gilligan, for example ‘emphasises relationships over principles of justice, and
focuses on caring as the central ethical concept’ (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 128).
Values such as these illustrate the third approach to ethics—virtue ethics.

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 139

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is based on the assumption that morality is best understood in terms of
peoples’ inner traits (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 124). Virtue ethicists ‘argue in favour
of a connection between character and reasoning for without good character I may reason
about what is right but still choose not to do so’ (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 125). The
virtue approach is critical to professional ethics as ‘… a just society depends more upon
the moral trustworthiness of its citizens and it[s] leaders than upon structures designed
to transform ignoble actions in socially useful results’ (Hart, quoted in Preston &
Samford, 2002, pp. 25–26). Virtue ethics is important not only to individuals but also to
institutions since it is people who create and work within them.

Institutional Ethics

Institutional ethics, then, focuses on individuals within institutions and requires them to
justify their institutions to the community (Preston & Samford, 2002). It is concerned
with building ethics ‘into the operations and decision making of the institution’ (Preston
& Samford, 2002, p. 50) making it part of rather than periphery to, decision making. For
this reason, it requires that the values and functions of an institution be determined by
ongoing discussion and debate because these values are multiple, complex, competing
and changeable. Knowledge of the four theories can assist our understanding of ethical
decision-making.

The next part of this article explores a tentative model of ethical dilemmas. While we
are aware that no model is able to provide a full explanation of the decision-making
process or is applicable to every context (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 94), theoretical
and empirical research suggests that models, like theories, can provide a basis for
discussion between ‘engaged academics’ and ‘reflective practitioners’ (Preston & Sam-
ford, 2002, pp. 163–164). These theoretical approaches offer a useful framework to
better understand ethics and its complexities. However, it must be emphasised that in
practice, ethical dilemmas faced by educational leaders, for example, are likely to be
highly complex and not simply framed by one particular theoretical approach or the
other. Rather, it is more likely that some or all of these approaches may be at play to
some degree or other. Importantly, however, the framework they provide is useful in
considering the model of ethical dilemmas discussed below. What also needs to be
understood is that the model we propose is a dynamic one, and one in which the forces
as we identify them are acting at various degrees of intensity (or perhaps not in evidence
at all) not only directly on the individual as they make their decision, but potentially also
on and with each other.

A Model of Ethical Dilemmas

The model in Figure I represents diagrammatically the context, forces, and decision-
making process that individuals facing ethical dilemmas are like to experience. It extends
Preston and Samford’s (2002, p. 14) model of ethical decision-making in the public
sector by identifying and describing a range of competing forces that are likely to
provide a perspective or perspectives on the problem or situation. Furthermore, unlike
Preston and Samford’s model, our model acknowledges that decisions can have implica-
tions and effects on the individual, the organisation and the community either directly or
indirectly. An attempt to understand the relationship among individuals, institutions and

140 N. Cranston et al.

FI
G

.
1.

A
m

od
el

of
et

hi
ca

l
di

le
m

m
as

.

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 141

the community influenced the development of the model. Clearly, this is a highly
complex challenge and emphasises the essentially dynamic nature of the model and its
components. Thus, while we describe the various components of the model separately,
we are acutely aware of the interdependence of the components and often at times
non-linear nature of the dilemma we are attempting to capture.

The model consists of five main parts. The first is the critical incident or problem that
is the trigger for the ethical dilemma, i.e., what ‘sets off’ the dilemma. The second is a
set of forces, each of which has the capacity to illuminate the critical incident from its
own particular bias or basis. Clearly, there may be competing tensions across these.
Illustrated here are nine competing forces—professional ethics; legal issues, policies;
organisational culture; institutional context; public interest; society and community;
global context; political framework; economic and financial contexts; and? The untitled
force (?) was included to signify that a significant force not identified at this time could
emerge in the future.

Each of these forces is now considered briefly. What needs to be again emphasised is
the potentially dynamic interdependence of each of these, some surfacing more domi-
nantly than others depending on the context and nature of the decision to be made. More
practice-orientated illustrations of these are provided in the scenario commentary
discussion later.

• The public interest is a key factor in ethical decision-making and refers to the
‘expectations’, needs and wants, and ultimately the well being of the community as
a whole (Edwards, 2001, pp. 11–13). The public interest can be expressed through the
ballot box, interest groups and on-going debate and discussion.

• Professional ethics refers to the standards, or norms, values and principles members
of a person’s trade or profession hold. These standards may be formal or informal,
written or unwritten. Highlighted here are the ethical obligations generated by being
accepted into a profession or trade (Edwards, 2001, p. 15; Campbell, 1997, p. 221).

• Society and community refers to the influence that community members or stakehold-
ers can exert on institutional decision-making. School leaders are often required to
reconcile these competing interests as best they can in making decisions that further
the community well being (Campbell, 1997).

• The political framework is detailed in the political science and public administration
literature (see, for example, Singleton et al., 1996) and here refers to potential
implications of a particular ideological view of the government of the day that may
translate into a significant force at the institutional level.

• By legal issues, policies we mean legislation impacting on public institutions such as
anti-discrimination legislation requirements (Ehrich, 2000) as well as rulings made by
courts, especially when they set a precedent.

• The economic and financial contexts might emerge from say economic rationalist
thrusts applied to the public sector whereby private sector practices are introduced into
the public sector (James, 2003) such that concepts of the free market, for example, are
brought to bear on schools.

• The global context relate to the wider global, social, political and economic context
impacting on institutions.

• The institutional context may, for the principal, manifest as the need to seek to
reconcile multiple and competing accountabilities to students, teachers and the wider
school community (Campbell, 1997, p. 225).

• Finally, the customs or ‘ethos’ of an institution inform its organisational culture

142 N. Cranston et al.

(Edwards, 2001). Organisational culture centres on relationships amongst people, and
on building and maintaining trust in those relationships. An organisational culture can
be strong or weak. ‘A strong culture … is characterised by the organisation’s core
values being intensely held, clearly ordered and widely shared’ (Robbins & Barnwell,
quoted in Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 57).

The third component of the model is at the core of the ethical dilemma. This is the
individual who is faced with the challenge of resolving the ethical issue at hand. The
individual is in no way neutral but brings to the dilemma his/her own values, beliefs,
ethical orientations and personal attributes that have been shaped over time by a variety
of sources such as religion, socialisation and conscience (Edwards, 2001; Singer, 1993).

The fourth component of the model is the choice which is made among the competing
alternatives. It is in the consideration of the alternatives that the ethical dilemma
emerges. The decision might lead to either ignoring the dilemma or acting in one or
more ways in order to resolve it. Those actions can be formal or informal or external or
internal. Finally, the action (or non-action) is most likely to create particular types of
implications for the individual concerned, for the employing organisation and for the
community as a whole. Also illustrated in the diagram is that the implications of the
decision could continue beyond the individual, organisation and community and could
generate new critical incidents, dilemmas and/or contribute to new ways of thinking
about the forces involved. Each of the five components will be explained more fully in
the next section that presents a scenario of an ethical dilemma and provides a
commentary regarding each part of the model.

Scenario

Hilltop Senior School has a strict policy on drugs for students—immediate exclusion for
any such offence. The teachers and parents are very supportive of the policy and two
students have been excluded this year. Daniel, a seventeen year-old Y12 student, is
caught at the school dance two weeks before his final examinations with a small amount
of marijuana. Daniel has not always been an easy student for the school although in the
past year he has worked hard, not been in trouble with teachers and seems likely to
achieve his ambition of achieving well enough to attend a Polytechnic and become an
electrician. Harriet, the School Head, knows that he works 15 hours part-time to support
his ill mother and younger brother, who also attends the school. Exclusion means he
might miss his final exams and his place at a Polytechnic and potentially lose his
part-time job if his employer finds out.

Commentary

The following commentary makes three important assumptions. These are that:

• The School Head is ultimately the final decision-maker in such cases in this
school—this is likely to be consistent with current practice in most schools where the
Head is the accountable officer for decisions taken in the school. Of course, in
practice, it may be that other members of the school administration team and
potentially the school council or governing board might be involved to some degree
through consultation, sharing of information, and so on; and

• The School Head, in this position of decision-maker, actually finds this particular
situation problematic; that is, that there is the potential for an ethical dilemma to arise

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 143

in such circumstances. The following commentary assumes that there will be an
ethical dilemma of some order for the Head.

• There is a range of options in terms of the decisions that the Head might take.

The critical incident in this scenario centres around the student, Daniel, being caught
with a small amount of marijuana at the Hilltop Senior School dance. Subsequent events
are triggered when this is reported to the Head, Harriet.

The milieu of forces at play for the Head with respect to this critical incident is
discussed below. It is important to note that the forces may be evident to varying degrees
and intensity at different times. There are also obviously overlaps across the various
forces. As such, the following comments are indicative only of the various impacts on
the individual, Harriet, the Head, as she responds to the reporting of the drug incident
with Daniel.

• Professional ethics: Educators (Heads, teachers) are expected to operate according to
certain established codes of behaviour and/or within particular ethical frameworks
(these are often formally documented); other, less formal, aspects here might include
the desire to do the best for all students (i.e., moral accountability) and general
expectations placed on teachers by the community to act in certain ways.

• Legal issues, policies: Given the particular misdemeanour of interest here, viz.
possession of a prohibited substance, there may be certain legal obligations that the
Head must respond to, eg., reporting such incidents to the police; duty of care, from
a legal perspective, is also likely to impact here as the safety and welfare of students
(both Daniel as an individual and the school student population more generally) now
feature as key responsibilities of educators with failure to do so adequately likely to
lead to potentially litigious situations.

• Organisational culture: The school culture (eg., is it supportive, inclusive or other-
wise?) will play an important role in the Head’s and the school’s response; the actions
by the school in similar incidents previously will also contribute to overall impact of
the culture on the decision response.

• Public interest: There may be a broad public interest in this incident involving ‘tough
on drugs’ community expectations related to a desire to reduce drug-taking among
young people; alternatively, or possibly concurrently, there may be strong community
support for the socio-economically disadvantaged; the notion of education as a public
good and, hence, the implication that drugs should be strongly discouraged by punitive
action may also be evident here.

• Society and community contexts: The school community, for example through the
school council or parent and friends’ association, may play a key role in this incident
(eg., parents may have collaboratively developed, with school staff, a school drug
policy requiring a particular response in this case).

• Institutional context: Most schools will have established behaviour management
policies and practices which, one might expect, would address issues of drugs in
school, expectations on students regarding these and penalties for failing to conform
to these expectations.

• Global context: Wider societal developments and influences (eg., postmodern changes
that have seen a collapse in some measure of the influence of church and the state)
may present challenges to schools’ expectations in such incidents (eg., as drug taking
among some young people persists as a challenge for schools as well as the broader
society, resulting in a clash of social norms and behaviours across the various
individuals and groups involved, such as students, parents, teachers).

144 N. Cranston et al.

• Political framework: The capacity for schools to exercise any discretion in such
incidents may be seriously limited by external systemic constraints, such as binding
responses imposed by education departments or systems in such incidents—these
constraints may well reflect a particular (and potentially powerful) ideological stance
of the government of the day.

• Economic and financial contexts: The financial situation of the student may have a key
influence here, as might less tangible influences such as a negative impact on the
school reputation as a result of a particular decision resulting in parental decisions
about enrolments in the future; at a broader level, it might be argued that broader
economic policies, such as economic rationalist trends, may have led to the situation
whereby Daniel and his family are financially challenged, particularly in terms of
Daniel’s longer term educational goals.

• The question mark (?) acknowledges the point that a critical force not identified at this
time could be evident in a different dilemma.

All of these forces will interact to varying degrees on the individual as she responds to
the incident. It is more than likely that Harriet’s personal attributes and her values and
beliefs will play a major role in determining the type of decision she will make. As a
result, a number of choices emerge. The decision taken creates, and is part of, the ethical
dilemma for the Head as she struggles to rationalise a clear ‘acceptable’ response, to the
student, school (staff), school community and parents, wider community and to herself.

The actions taken subsequently or as part of the decision itself by the Head may be
either formal or informal, external or internal. Ignoring the situation, an action in itself,
is most likely not an option in this case as there will be expectations of some response
by the Head, for example, from those catching the student with the drugs. Hence, actions
might include some or all of the following (note these are examples only and the
possibilities are many, complex and interrelated).

Formal action might mean following the processes and procedures (i.e., school policy;
legislative requirements) developed in the school, but possibly also required by the law,
regarding the handling of students who are caught with drugs leading to suspension or
exclusion from school. An informal action, which is probably unlikely in this case, may
be to warn the student verbally with no formal recording of the incident in any way.

External action might incorporate actions taken outside the school such as if the Head
contacts the police and the police then take action. An internal action might include
some ‘internal school’ penalty of a lesser degree than say a suspension, such as a
detention. There are many possibilities here.

As a result of the decision, there are certain implications for the:

• individual: the reputation of the school, both within and external to the school, may
be affected impacting on perceptions on the Head’s reputation as leader of the school;
the future career prospects of the Head may also be affected, as might the general
health and well being of the Head if stressful consequences result; of course, there are
also the effects on Daniel, the student—these could well be major as his future study
prospects and financial position may well be altered as a result of particular decisions
taken;

• organization: as above, the reputation of the school may be affected in the wider
community; in addition, there may be considerable repercussions internally for the
school among the teaching staff and parent body; finally, as a result of this ‘case’,
there may be a review of the school’s current drug policy;

• community: as above; in addition, the broader community perception of school staff

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 145

generally and their roles and responsibilities in the social development and care of
young people may be affected.

Clearly the implications across the individual, the organisation and the community are
not independent with considerable overlap and consequential effects occurring. The
cyclical nature of the model re-enforces that this ethical dilemma, like others, does not
take place in isolation and that the particular decision taken in this case will most likely
have an impact on similar subsequent incidents.

Discussion

Using the knowledge gained from our excursion into ethical theory and from the exercise
of testing the model against a scenario from practice, we would argue that the situation
Harriet finds herself in could be viewed as one of conflicting values or accountabilities—
between school policies and personal values, between the best interests of the student
and school policies, between the values and beliefs of different sections of the school
community and the law. In other words, she is caught in a highly complex dynamic
milieu of forces. If the Head were a consequentialist then she would weigh up all the
known factors and implications of the alternatives open to her. These would depend not
only on the school policy (institutional context) but also on her personal and professional
values, the legal ramifications (including past decisions) of adopting a particular
decision, the needs of the student and those of the community. A non-consequentialist
is likely to be guided by one or more strongly held principles or values. A conflict
between these principles such as a religious belief and strict adherence to policy could
exacerbate this dilemma as it would challenge her fundamental beliefs. Virtue ethicists
may privilege values such as care and integrity in their decision-making. An institutional
ethicist might look to the values of the community and the function(s) that it has ascribed
to the institution in guiding their thinking. In this case, the Head could also draw on one
or more of the other approaches to ethics in deciding how to handle the situation. As we
noted earlier, characteristics of some or all of these theoretical approaches are likely to
be evident in this scenario, whatever the decision Harriet takes. Moreover, it is likely that
there will be compromises as some values will be embraced, while others will be
silenced in pursuit of a resolution.

What is also clearly illustrated here is the important point made earlier about the
dynamic interdependence of each of the forces, some surfacing more dominantly than
others depending on the context and nature of the particular decision to be made. Also
worth highlighting is the importance of Harriet’s values, beliefs and ethical orientation,
and the potential tension developed when that orientation may well differ from that held
by others in the Hilltop Senior School Community.

Conclusion

The essence of what we have explored in this paper was not only ambitious but highly
challenging. However, we believe that we have made some contribution via the
introduction of the ethical dilemma model to better understand the nature of ethical
dilemmas particularly as they might be evidenced in practice. Our model conceptualises
the particular forces impacting upon and the processes characterising the decision-mak-
ing dynamics facing an individual with an ethical dilemma. By use of the scenario, it was
shown that the model not only has practical application but also it has the potential to

146 N. Cranston et al.

assist researchers (in education and other discipline fields) to analyse, better understand
and categorise particular types of ethical dilemmas.

The exercise of developing a model has reinforced to us the complexity of the field
of ethics and underscored the acute challenges of resolving ethical problems. From our
review of the literature, however, it seems that arguments by proponents of institutional
ethics (see Preston, 1999a, 1999b; Preston & Samford, 2002) are worthy of closer
inspection since they maintain that ethics needs to be built ‘into the ethos, policies, and
practices of an institution’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 50). Some strategies that work
towards ethics building include conducting an ethics audit; subjecting the values and
functions of the institution to ongoing debate and discussion within the institution itself
and within the community generally; developing and implementing a code of ethics; and
ensuring that all members of the institution receive training and education (Preston &
Samford, 2002). There is no doubt that if institutions are going to move in the direction
of embedding ethical practices into their culture, processes and structure, there is a
strong role for leadership in facilitating this process. Better understanding of the dynamic
complexities of ethical dilemmas, as we have attempted to do in the model presented
here, should contribute in some way to unravelling how leaders might respond.

Acknowledgements

This paper was funded in part by the Centre for Innovation in Education, QUT, and
through the Institute of Public Administration Australia/University of Canberra Public
Administration Research Trust Fund.

Correspondence: Dr. Neil Cranston, School of Learning and Professional Studies,
Faculty of Education, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia; email:
n.cranston@qut.edu.au

REFERENCES

BRADLEY, L. & PARKER, R. (2001) Public sector change in Australia: are managers’ ideals being realized?
Public Personnel Management, 30, pp. 349–361.

BURKE, C. (1997) Leading Schools Through the Ethics Thicket in the New Era of Educational Reform
(Hawthorne, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Administration).

CAMPBELL, E. (1997) Administrators’ decisions and teachers’ ethical dilemmas: implications for moral agency,
Leading & Managing, 3, pp. 245–257.

COOPER, T. L. (1998) The Responsible Administrator: an approach to ethics for the administrative role (San
Francisco, Jossey Bass).

CRANSTON, N. (2002) School-based management, leaders and leadership: change and challenges for principals,
International Studies in Educational Administration, 30, pp. 2–12.

DEMPSTER, N. (2000) Guilty or not: the impact of and effects of site-based management on schools, Journal
of Educational Administration, 38, pp. 47–63.

DEMPSTER, N., FREAKLEY, M. & PARRY, L. (2001) The ethical climate of public schooling under new public
management, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 41, pp. 1–12.

DINWIDDY, J. (1989) Bentham (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
EDWARDS, G. (2001) Ethics in practice, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 102, pp. 11–17.
EHRICH, L. (2000) Principals as morally accountable leaders, International Journal of Education Reform, 9,

pp. 120–127.
ERAUT, M. (1993) Teacher accountability: why is it central in teacher professional development? in: L.

KREMER-HAYON, H. C. VONK & R. FESSLER (Eds) Teacher Professional Development: a multiple perspective
approach (Amsterdam, Swets & Zeitlinger).

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 147

EVERS, C. (1992) Ethics and ethical theory in educational leadership: a pragmatic and holistic approach, in: P.
DUIGNAN & R. MACPHERSON (Eds) Educational: a practical theory for new administrators and managers
(London, Falmer).

FREAKLEY, M. & BURGH, G. (2000) Engaging with Ethics: ethical inquiry for teachers (Australia, Social
Science Press).

FULLAN, M. G. & HARGREAVES, A. (1991) What’s Worth Fighting For? Working Together For Your School
(Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Administration).

GILLIGAN, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: psychological theory and women’s development (Cambridge, Mass,
Harvard University Press).

HINMAN, L. (n.d.) Glossary. Available http://ethics.acusd.edu/Glossary.html.
HODGKINSON, C. (1991) Educational Leadership: the moral art (Albany, Suny Press).
JAMES, C. (2003) Economic rationalism and public sector ethics: conflicts and catalysts, Australian Journal of

Public Administration, 62, pp. 95–108.
LEITHWOOD, K. & MENZIES, T. (1998) Forms and effects of school-based management: a review, Educational

Policy, 12, pp. 325–346.
NADEBAUM, B. (1991) Noah or Butterfly? The Changing Role for School Principals in the 1990s, Australian

Council for Educational Administration Monograph Series (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian Council for
Educational Administration).

NODDINGS, N. (1984) Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education (Berkley, University of
California Press).

O’FAIRCHEALLAIGH, C., WANNA, J. & WELLER, P. (1999) Public Sector Management in Australia: new
challenges, new directions (South Yarra, Macmillian).

PRESTON, N. (1999a) Ethics and government: preliminary considerations, Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 58, pp. 16–18.

PRESTON, N. (1999b) Public Sector Ethics in Queensland since Fitzgerald. Australian Society of Archivists,
1999 Conference.

PRESTON, N. & SAMFORD, C. with CONNORS, C. (2002) Encouraging Ethics and Challenging Corruption
(Sydney, The Federation Press).

SINGER, P. (1993) Practical Ethics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
SINGER, P. (1995) How are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest (South Melbourne, Mandarin/Reed

Books).
SINGLETON, G., AITKIN, D., JINKS, B. & WARHURST, J. (1996) Australian Political Institutions (South

Melbourne, Longman).
STARRATT, R. (1996) Transforming Educational Administration: meaning, community and excellence (New

York, McGraw Hill).
WHITTY, G., POWER, S. & HALPIN, D. (1998) Devolution and Choice in Education: the school, the state and

the market (Camberwell, Vic, ACER).
WILLIAMS, R., HAROLD, B., ROBERSTON, J. & SOUTHWORTH, G. (1997) Sweeping decentralisation of educational

decision-making authority, Phi Delta Kappan, 78, pp. 626–631.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636517709368

NASSP Bulletin
2017, Vol. 101(2) 77 –89

© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192636517709368

journals.sagepub.com/home/bul

Article

Longitudinal Analysis
Technique to Assist School
Leaders in Making Critical
Curriculum and Instruction
Decisions for School
Improvement

Gary D. Bigham1 and Mark R. Riney1

Abstract
To meet the constantly changing needs of schools and diverse learners, educators
must frequently monitor student learning, revise curricula, and improve instruction.
Consequently, it is critical that careful analyses of student performance data are
ongoing components of curriculum decision-making processes. The primary purpose
of this study is to demonstrate the application of panel study longitudinal analysis
techniques to inform curricula and instructional improvement efforts using actual
data retrieved from state accountability reports of a Texas school district.

Keywords
longitudinal panel analysis, school leadership, curriculum and instruction, summative
student assessment, data-driven decision making

The 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk report by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education became a catalyst for closer public scrutiny of American
schools, standards-based testing, and increased accountabilities for education in gen-
eral. Nineteen years later, the No Child Left Behind Act increased accountability mea-
sures and federal control of K-12 education. For instance, the No Child Left Behind
Act resulted in substantial changes nationally on school accountability systems by

1West Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.

Corresponding Author:
Gary D. Bigham, P.O. Box 60208, Canyon, TX 79016-0001, USA.
Email: gbigham@wtamu.edu

709368 BULXXX10.1177/0192636517709368NASSP BulletinBigham and Riney
research-article2017

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/bul

mailto:gbigham@wtamu.edu

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0192636517709368&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-05-26

78 NASSP Bulletin 101(2)

mandating student performance assessments and accountability measures at individ-
ual school levels (Groen, 2012; Hunt, 2008).

Similarly, the recent Every Student Succeeds Act requires states to assess stu-
dents annually to continue accountability measures. Consequently, school dis-
tricts are under considerable pressure to increase student learning as measured on
state-mandated standardized tests, and school administrators must assiduously
analyze longitudinal and current student performance data to inform collabora-
tive decision making processes about how to improve curricula and classroom
instruction to foster student learning and to meet changing needs of diverse stu-
dent populations (Darling-Hammond, Ramos-Beban, Altamirano, & Hyler, 2016;
Fullan, 2016).

Background

To enhance the reality and applicability of the longitudinal analysis technique demon-
strated, data were collected from publicly accessible state reports for a small, rural,
early childhood through 12th-grade Texas public school district. The school district’s
total student enrolment ranged from 370 to 431 with an average enrolment of 393.6
over the 10-year period from which data were collected. Although the data in Table 1
were restricted to state-assessed reading scores, they provide a sense of the high levels
of success the school district had experienced with its student population over the
decade covered by this study. However, the aggregate longitudinal performance of
four graduating classes grouped as panels and tracked by class from Grades 3 through
9, resulted in an unfavorable trend line in overall reading performance as measured by
the state-mandated standardized reading assessment.

Table 1. Percentage of Students Meeting Minimum State-Standardized Reading Performance
Standard From Year 1 to Year 10.

Year

Elementary grades Middle school grades High school

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 93 100 90 100 100 100 96
2 91 97 96 88 100 100 100
3 94 92 100 100 93 100 100
4 100 97 88 100 100 100 100
5 96 100 100 96 100 100 100
6 100 82 95 94 86 100 95
7 100 95 89 100 96 100 100
8 90 81 95 100 100 96 95
9 100 76 78 86 100 91 93
10 80 96 84 89 81 96 83

Note. The brackets group the four graduating classes as each progressed from grade 3 to grade 9. Bold
face and lighter bold face are used only to facilitate ease of comparison of the individual classes for the
reader as they progressed from grade to grade.

Bigham and Riney 79

Problem

Public schools are data-rich institutions; yet thorough analysis of available data may
be lacking in many cases. This is not to suggest that school leaders do not analyze
student achievement data in making curricula and instruction decisions, but full sched-
ules with endless task lists and limited time may prevent many school leaders from
engaging in data analysis extending beyond previous- and current-year information
that is listed on most state and federal accountability reports. In this era of high-stakes
accountability, school effectiveness is mostly measured by the aggregate student per-
formance on state-mandated standardized exams by class at the campus level and by
both class and campus at the district level. In the school from which the data for this
study were obtained, reading achievement measured via state-wide assessments
increased slightly as students transitioned from elementary to middle school and then
dropped noticeably as students transitioned from middle school to high school.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a panel study longitudinal data analysis
technique as applied to student test scores aggregated by class and campus as obtained
from state accountability reports. Since the stated purpose was to demonstrate a data
analysis technique, we opted to use data reported on accountability reports accessible
by the public on the state education agency’s website with whom the school district
was associated. To avoid potential violations of institutional review board policies and
procedures, no attempt was made to contact the school district. A fictitious data set
could have been used to fulfil this article’s purpose; however, because the focus was
on the demonstration of a technique, the use of data from an actual school was
employed to add practical reality to the method demonstrated. The technique reported
is applicable to any school district with historical student achievement data and should
facilitate campus- or district-level decision making with respect to curricula and
instruction. The information yielded by this type of analysis is valuable to school lead-
ers in making mission-critical decisions and the technique demonstrated can be con-
ducted by most practitioners with minimal data analysis expertise.

Research Hypotheses

Through trend analyses of 10-year reading performance data obtained from the school
district’s state accountability reports, mean student passing percentage scores were
computed for four graduating classes by grade level and by campus. The calculated data
were analyzed to answer the following question: Is the drop in aggregate test scores
from middle school to high school significant enough to constitute examination of cur-
ricula and methods of instruction employed in the high school and if so, what possible
factors should be taken into consideration before implementing changes? Considering
the case study parameters, (i.e., a single school district and the ex post facto nature of
the data collected), the answer to the question was sought through hypothesis testing by
comparing student reading achievement, aggregated by campus, among the three

80 NASSP Bulletin 101(2)

campuses within the same school district. While acknowledging obvious extraneous
variables, the single distinguishing variable isolated among the three campuses was the
transition of students from elementary to middle school and from middle school to high
school. The research question was therefore addressed through the testing of the null
hypotheses, from 10-year data compilations that read as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The transition of four graduating classes from elementary to middle
school demonstrates no significant relationship to student performance on the state-
mandated standardized reading assessment, tracked by class and aggregated by
campus.
Hypothesis 2: The transition of four graduating classes from middle school to high
school demonstrates no significant relationship to student performance on the state-
mandated standardized reading assessment, tracked by class and aggregated by
campus.

Review of Literature

In many respects, reading is the foundation of school learning, and students’ levels of
academic success are significantly determined by their reading abilities. Consequently,
it is not surprising that most elementary schools devote substantial instructional time
to reading in early elementary grades to address complexities of reading processes and
key components of reading such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, flu-
ency, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Also, many school districts
allocate considerable resources for intervention programs to ensure that struggling
readers are provided opportunities in the early elementary grades to improve their
reading (Roskos & Neuman, 2014).

However, reading instruction is not only part of school curricula in early elemen-
tary grades but also is a key component of language development for students through-
out their years of schooling. For instance, in elementary, middle school, and secondary
grades, teachers should instruct students on comprehension strategies, such as making
inferences (Hansen & Hubbard, 1984; Pearson, Raphael, Benson & Madda, 2007),
identifying salient information (Pressley, 2000), and summarizing and mapping
(Graves, 2006; Graves, August, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2013), to develop students’
abilities to become strategic readers. Furthermore, it is important that content area
teachers teach students content-specific reading strategies to improve their reading
comprehension and to foster critical thinking and development of higher levels of lit-
eracy (Hapgood & Palincsar, 2006; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009; Ness, 2007;
Shanahan & Shanahan, 2017). Equally important, instruction in academic vocabulary
development and word-learning strategies improve students’ reading comprehension
and increase literacy development at all grade levels (Graves et al., 2013; Neuman &
Wright, 2013).

Another way to improve students’ reading abilities is through writing instruction.
Reading and writing have reciprocal functions in that students’ understanding of
texts increases when they write analytically about what they read (Gomez & Gomez,

Bigham and Riney 81

2007). Conversely, close analytical readings of essays provide students with exam-
ples of types of compositions they are expected to produce in addition to critical
reading and logical writing activities in content areas help students develop concep-
tual knowledge of academic disciplines they study (Adams, 2011; McConachie
et al., 2006).

Method

Research Design

The descriptive research design was employed in this study and is appropriate for
school leaders to use in their data analysis procedures when the objective is limited
to describing educational phenomena (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 290), such as
tracking aggregate class performance on state-mandated standardized exams.
Moreover, the descriptive research design is instrumental in providing answers to
questions about relationships among variables (Best & Kahn, 2006, p. 133). Since
this study endeavored to determine the relationship between student classes transi-
tioning from campus to campus (the independent variable) and aggregated student
class performance on the state-mandated standardized reading assessment (the
dependent variable), longitudinal tracking was conducted by class and aggregated
by campus.

Because the collected data consisted of historical student performance on state-
mandated standardized reading assessments as reported on state accountability
reports over a 10-year period of time, the longitudinal study methodology—a deri-
vation of the descriptive research design—was designated as the most appropriate
method for this study. Pursuant to the direction of Gall et al. (2003), aggregate class-
level student achievement data were collected from publicly accessible annual
accountability reports.

Longitudinal research designs from which to choose include trend, cohort, panel,
and cross-sectional approaches. Considering the data collected, the panel methodol-
ogy was most appropriate for this study. Whereas a panel study in its truest form is
designed to focus on individuals within the preselected samples, due to the impor-
tance placed on class- and campus-level performance by state and federal account-
ability systems, the individual classes selected for analysis were operationally defined
as the “individuals.” Thus, no effort was made to actually track individual students
within the selected graduating classes. In taking this approach, it must be acknowl-
edged that individual students within the tracked graduating classes change as each
class gains or loses students across time. While a change of students within the classes
will alter outcomes, in most cases, the “base” of each class remains constant.
Consequently, this approach remedied concerns of loss of subjects and biased sam-
ples addressed by Gall et al. (2003). Furthermore, since standardized examinations
were administered annually to all students in designated grade levels as required by
state law, the concern of unintended side effects from repeated measures (Gall et al.,
2003) ceased to be problematic as well.

82 NASSP Bulletin 101(2)

Population and Sample

The population was defined as aggregate student classes in Grades 3 through 9 on
three campuses in the selected school district over a 10-year period. The samples were
defined as the four graduating classes of students tracked (diagonally in Table 1) as
they progressed from the third to the ninth grade. Thus, with data collection occurring
annually at the designated grade levels, the samples remained constant each year
(moving down one row and one column to the right in Table 1).

Data Collection

Ten years of state-mandated standardized reading assessment data were extrapolated
from the selected school district’s state accountability reports accessible from its state
education agency’s Website. The data were reported as the percentage of students
meeting the state standard, hereinafter referred to throughout this study as the passing
rate. It should be noted that as with any state testing system, state-level changes to the
exam over time are common. Although these changes are beyond the control of school
leaders, those who wish to employ any longitudinal data analysis techniques do so
acknowledging that a change in the exam will alter the results that would have been
obtained in the absence of the change. However, all state-mandated reading assess-
ments in Texas focused primarily on reading comprehension. Reading performance
data, reported as the percentage of students in each class meeting the passing rate,
were collected and organized on a spreadsheet in columns by grade level and in rows
by year as displayed in Table 1.

Data Analysis

The data analyzed from Table 1 were restricted to the percentage of passing and failing
test scores generated by students in the four graduating classes, contained within the
brackets and displayed diagonally downward, from Grades 3 through 9. Since these
data were obtained from a small school district with small classes ( X equals 31.7 in
grade levels and years analyzed as reported in Table 2), the four graduating class data
sets were aggregated by grade level and campus to enhance statistical power analysis.
This aggregation process is not necessary in large school districts where student enrol-
ments are sizable, but in small school settings, aggregation is recommended to enhance
statistical findings (Gall et al., 2003). The data aggregated over the 10-year period for
the four graduating classes resulted in 887 total state-mandated standardized reading
exams completed by students in the classes selected for analysis in this school district
as reported in Table 2.

Mean scores were calculated for each grade level reported in Table 1, reflective of
percentages of students passing the reading assessments over the measured time periods.
Then, campus-level mean scores for the elementary and middle school were calculated
by averaging grade-level mean scores for Grades 3 through 5 and Grades 6 through 8,
respectively. The high school mean score was computed by simply averaging ninth

Bigham and Riney 83

grade passing percentage scores. These grade- and campus-level mean scores were
reported in graphical format in Figure 1 to facilitate the visual identification of evolving
trends. The data were combined into a single graph whereby the grade-level scores were
plotted linearly and campus-level data were plotted by histogram.

To methodically analyze the findings in a nonbiased fashion, the application of a
quantitative data analysis technique was employed. Individual students’ state-man-
dated standardized reading assessment results were not available to the researchers;
thus, data collection was limited to the combined percentages of students passing the
reading assessments as displayed on the school’s state accountability reports and
reported in Table 1. This effectively reduced the analysis to two categories of stu-
dents—those who passed and those who failed the state-mandated standardized read-
ing assessment. Since only passing percentages were reported on the state accountability
reports, the need for enrolment data came into play to calculate an estimated number
of students tested. These data, also collected from the state accountability reports, are
displayed in Table 2.

However, it should be noted that student enrolment per grade level, as indicated on
the state accountability reports, did not necessarily represent the exact number of stu-
dents who were actually tested in all cases. For example, an enrolled student could
have been absent on the day of an assessment. Although this is problematic from a
strict academic research perspective, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate these
methods to school leaders and not to make generalizations. Therefore, it ceases to be a
problem because school leaders have access to their exact enrolment and test partici-
pation counts, which should be used in place of the more general and publicly acces-
sible enrolment data reported on public documents as used by the authors of this study.
Consequently, for demonstration in accordance with the stated purpose of this study,

Table 2. Aggregated Student Enrollment Counts by Year and Grade Level for the
Graduating Classes Involved in the Study.

Year

Elementary grades Middle school grades High school

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 35
2 28 38
3 39 31 29
4 27 38 29 28
5 31 41 30 36
6 30 39 26 38
7 28 31 24 34
8 28 32 26
9 28 34
10 29
Total 129 138 129 125 121 122 123
Mean 32 35 32 31 30 31 31

84 NASSP Bulletin 101(2)

these calculations included all enrolled students in the frequency counts as test takers.
Simple mathematical procedures were used to calculate passing and failing frequency
counts by campus. Passing percentage rates were multiplied by the respective student
enrolments in the tested grade levels on each campus to determine a total number of
students passing the assessments. Then, by subtracting these products from the total
enrolment counts, the total number of students failing the assessment per campus was
derived.

Based on the categorical assessment results (i.e., passing or failing rates per cam-
pus), the chi-square test was used to quantitatively analyze the data. The chi-square was
the most appropriate statistical test, because the data being analyzed consisted of fre-
quency counts (calculated from percentages) of students passing and failing (catego-
ries) the state-mandated reading assessment. As noted by Gravetter and Wallnau (1996),

The chi-square test for goodness of fit uses sample data to test hypotheses about the shape
or proportions of a population distribution. The test determines how well the obtained
sample proportions fit the population proportions specified by the null hypothesis. (p.
548)

The null hypotheses stated that no relationship would exist between the indepen-
dent and dependent variables for the population. For the purposes of these analyses,
the independent variables were operationally defined as the classes of students transi-
tioning from one campus to another and the dependent variable was student perfor-
mance on the state-mandated standardized reading assessment, tracked by class and
aggregated by campus.

Figure 1. Ten-year cumulative mean scores by grade level of all students tested in Grades 3
through 10 who met the passing standard established by the state of Texas for reading.

Bigham and Riney 85

Two methods of setting up the chi-square test for goodness of fit are (a) no prefer-
ence, where nothing is known about the potential outcome, and all categories are
weighted equally; and (b) no difference from a comparison population where informa-
tion is known about the probable outcome based on prior knowledge (Gravetter &
Wallnau, 1996). Since the null hypotheses stated that the transition of the four graduat-
ing classes from one campus to another would demonstrate no significant relationship
to student performance on the state-mandated standardized reading assessment, “No
Difference From a Comparison Population” was deemed most appropriate for these
analyses.

For this panel study, the chi-square calculation requires obtained and expected fre-
quencies of students passing and failing from campus to campus. The obtained passing
frequencies were calculated by multiplying the mean passing rates per campus
(obtained from data displayed in Table 1) by the campus enrolments (obtained from
data displayed in Table 2). Next, the products were subtracted from the total campus
enrollments to determine failing frequencies. Expected frequencies were calculated by
multiplying the passing/failing percentages of the previous campus by the enrollments
in the current campus. On deriving obtained and expected frequencies, comparison
groups for the “No Difference From a Comparison Population” chi-square tests were
established. The elementary served as the comparison population against which the
middle school was compared, and the middle school was used as the comparison pop-
ulation against which the high school was compared. Hypothesis testing was con-
ducted and results are displayed in Table 3.

The obtained passing/failing frequencies ( fo ) for the elementary, middle, and high
schools were fo equals 378.50/17.50 for 396 exams; fo equals 355.41/12.59 for 368
exams; and fo equals 114.08/8.92 for 123 exams, respectively. The expected passing/
failing frequencies ( fe ) were fe equals 351.73/16.27 for the middle school and fe
equals 118.79/4.21 for the high school. The .05 alpha was used for the level of signifi-
cance, and with only two categories—passing and failing—the degrees of freedom
(df) was 1. For df equals 1 and α equals .05, the critical chi-square χ2

crit is 3.84 (Gravetter
& Wallnau, 1996).

Results

The findings were organized, as described in the methodology section, by presenting
raw test score data presented graphically to facilitate the visual identification of evolv-
ing trends. The data were combined into a single graph, whereby the grade-level scores
were plotted linearly, and campus-level data were plotted by histogram.

A grade-level examination of the data, depicted in the linear graph in Figure 1,
revealed a “seesaw” effect beginning in Grade 3 and ending in Grade 9. The linear
graph peaked at the sixth grade and plummeted going into high school. The campus-
level examination of the data, depicted by the histogram bars also in Figure 1, revealed
a 1% student performance increase from elementary (95.58 for Grades 3 through 5), to
middle school (96.58 for Grades 6 through 8). Later, student performance decreased
3.83 percentage points as students moved from middle school to high school (Grade 9).

86 NASSP Bulletin 101(2)

As described in the Method section, the chi-square test for goodness of fit was used
to determine the significance of the differences observed in the campus mean scores.
Setting up the chi-square test in accordance with the “No Difference From a
Comparison Population” method, resulted in the testing of two hypotheses. The first
null hypothesis indicated no significant difference from the elementary score to the
middle school score where the elementary score served as the comparison population
for determining the probable outcome of the middle school score. Similarly, the sec-
ond null hypothesis indicated no significant difference from the middle school score to
the high school score with the middle school score being employed as the comparison
population for determining the probable outcome of the high school score. With only
two categories of analysis—passing and failing—the df equaled 1 and with the alpha
level set at .05, the critical chi-square was 3.84. The chi-square test results are reported
in Table 3.

Where the calculated chi-square was 0.871, pursuant to standard hypothesis-testing
practices, the decision was to fail to reject the first null hypothesis, indicating no sig-
nificant difference from the elementary score to the middle school score. However,
where the calculated chi-square was 5.455 in testing the second null hypothesis, the
decision was to reject it, indicating a significant difference from the middle school
score to the high school score.

Discussion

The primary purpose of longitudinal trend analysis is to provide school leaders with a
viable tool of analysis of standardized test results over an extended period of time. The
research question posed at the outset of this study read: Is the drop in aggregate test
scores from middle school to high school significant enough to constitute examination
of curricula and methods of instruction employed in the high school and if so, what
possible factors should be taken into consideration before implementing changes? In

Table 3. Chi-Square Results in Testing the Goodness-of-Fit Using the “No Difference From
a Comparison Population” Methodology Applied to 10 Years of Compiled Panel Data for
Four Graduating Classes.

Campus
No. of
exams

fo fe

χ2Passing Failing Passing Failing

Elementary 396 .9558 (396) .0442 (396) N/A N/A N/A
378.50 17.50 378.50 17.50

Middle school 368 .9658 (368) .0342 (368) .9558 (368) .0442 (368) 0.871
355.41 12.59 351.73 16.27

High school 123 .9275 (123) .0725 (123) .9658 (123) .0342 (123) 5.455*
114.08 8.92 118.79 4.21

Total 887 847.99 39.01 849.02 37.98

*p < .05.

Bigham and Riney 87

lieu of the statistically significant drop in reading achievement found in the transition
from middle school to high school, school leaders should target high school literacy–
related curricula for reexamination as part of ongoing school improvement as advo-
cated by Fullan (2016).

For instance, school leaders may want to determine whether teachers are taking
time to teach students academic vocabulary/word-learning strategies, general read-
ing strategies (e.g., prereading strategies), and content-specific reading strategies to
increase students’ reading comprehension and conceptual understanding of con-
tent-related themes (Graves, 2006; Hapgood & Palincsar, 2006; McKeown et al.,
2009; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Equally important, school leaders may decide
to study how much and what types of writing are actually taught across school cur-
ricula because focused writing instruction, such as teaching students how to sum-
marize and to write analytically about key concepts, not only fosters literacy
development but also increases students’ conceptual understanding of content area
themes (Graves et al., 2013; Unrau, 2008). In addition, school leaders may need to
determine if high school teachers require more staff development about efficacious
content area–reading and writing- strategies and learning activities. Some high
school content area teachers may be reluctant to emphasize reading and writing
instruction in lessons if they do not believe they have adequate knowledge and
skills to do so.

In brief, longitudinal panel analysis provides school leaders with a valuable and
viable method of identifying key trends in student performance on state-mandated
standardized exams, and in the case of this longitudinal panel analysis, school leaders
may want to use data about the decline in state-mandated standardized test scores in
reading comprehension in the transition from middle to high school initially to reex-
amine emphases on literacy development at the high school level to determine possi-
ble reasons for the decrease of student performance and to improve curricula and
instruction to foster students’ language development. Because we live in an era of
increased federal and state-mandated accountabilities as initiated by the No Child Left
Behind Act and more recently continued by the Every Child Succeeds Act (Groen,
2012), school leaders are under substantial pressure to improve students’ levels of
achievement on state-mandated tests, and the employment of longitudinal trend analy-
sis is one way school leaders can monitor students’ academic progress to identify areas
of strengths and weaknesses in school curricula and instruction for ongoing school
renewal.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

88 NASSP Bulletin 101(2)

References

Adams, M. J. (2011). Advancing our students’ language and literacy: The challenge of complex
text. American Educator, 34, 3-11.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ramos-Beban, N., Altamirano, R. P., & Hyler, M. E. (2016). Be the
change: Reinventing school for student success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gomez, L. M., & Gomez, K. (2007). Reading for learning: Literacy supports for the 21st cen-
tury learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 224-228.

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to English
language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (1996). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). St.
Paul, MN: West.

Groen, M. (2012). NCLB: The educational accountability paradigm in historical perspective.
American Educational History Journal, 39, 1-14.

Hansen, J., & Hubbard, R. (1984). Poor readers can draw inferences. Reading Teacher, 37,
586-589.

Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2006). Where literacy and science intersect. Educational
Leadership, 64(4), 56-61.

Hunt, J. W. (2008). A nation at risk and No Child Left Behind: Déjà vu for administrators? Phi
Delta Kappan, 89, 580-585.

McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Ravi, A. K., Bill, V. L., Bintz, J., & Taylor, J. A. (2006).
Task, text, and talk. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 8-14.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. K. (2009). Rethinking reading instruction: A com-
parison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly,
44, 218-253.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the sub-
groups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Clearinghouse.

Ness, M. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content-area classrooms. Phi
Delta Kappan, 89, 229-231.

Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2013). All about words: Increasing vocabulary in the Common
Core classroom, PreK-Grade 2. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pearson, P. D., Raphael, T. E., Benson, V. L., & Madda, C. L. (2007). Balance in comprehen-
sive literacy instruction: Then and now. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 30-54). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosentahl, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bigham and Riney 89

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (2014). Best practices in reading: A 21st century skill update. The
Reading Teacher, 67, 507-511.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2017). Disciplinary literacy: Just the FAQs. Educational
Leadership, 74(5), 18-22.

Unrau, N. (2008). Content area reading and writing: Fostering literacies in middle and high
school cultures (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Author Biographies

Gary D. Bigham is the program chair of educational leadership at West Texas A&M University.
During his career in education, he has served in the positions of secondary teacher, principal,
and superintendent in Texas public schools and adjunct, assistant, and associate professor in
higher education.

Mark R. Riney is the program chair of curriculum and instruction at West Texas A&M
University. He is a former English/language arts teacher, who currently teaches courses in cur-
riculum theory and analysis, curriculum history, and multicultural education.