Micropolitical Analysis between Professionals and Parents in Decision-Making: A Case Study in Taiwan

Author(s):

Hsin-Jen ChenYa-Hsuan Wang

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 03, Network 26 Session 3

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-10

14:00-15:30

Room:

AK2 133

Chair:

Klaus Kasper Kofod

Contribution

The policy of parental representatives entering into school affairs committees, the so-called school governing bodies, has been introduced in 1999 in Taiwan, which would be significantly influenced on school management and administration. This study aimed to explore how teacher delegates collaborated with parental representatives on the school affairs committee in a Taiwanese elementary school. In recent years in many countries, school-based management and lay participation in local school policy-making have been developed (Deem, 1994: 35). The introduction of parental involvement in school governance may raise school effectiveness and improvement due to external forces imposing on school administration. Likewise, in his work, School-based Decision-making and Management: International Developments, Caldwell (1990) identifies that current educational trends in the globe tend to develop a decentralized system of school governance, and in particular, more and more state governments require all public schools to institute school councils composed of teachers, parents and other members of the school community. Taiwan, as a member of the global village, is inevitable to be influenced by international education developments and trends. Thus, the Amendment of Compulsory Education in 1999 legislatively empowered parental involvement in the internal decision making processes of the school, which resulted in wider participation in the school affairs committee, with representatives of the local school community, including senior staff, teaching staff and parental representatives. This committee would determine the school’s educational needs and priorities, deploy the resources and develop a management plan. The principal, assuming the role of the chief executive officer (CEO) of an enterprise, would play an essential role in the committee, assisting it in formulating the school development plan, while securing its implementation with the collective support of the whole staff. The mechanism of the trilateral highest decision committee, in my view, seemed to be modeled after the organisation of the English school governing body but with different sources of members. This was the first time the school parental association empowered to select representatives to become commissioners of the school affairs committee. Specifically, this kind of approach to school management could be related to a new formula distribution of school decision-making mechanism, forcing the school to share its decisions in a “collaborative” manner, which ensured that the school could correspond to customers’ (i.e. parents’) needs (Spence, 1996). Briefly, this article tended to analyze how teacher delegates and parental representatives interacted at the local school affairs committee in Taiwan. More specifically, this study focused on potential conflicts and collaborative relationships between school members and lay participants in terms of the micropolitical perspective.

Method

This study employed the qualitative case study

Expected Outcomes

According to my qualitative data revealed, however, teachers may encounter professional crisis with external demands and pressures. As Andy Hargreaves (2000) maintains, “if teachers want to become professionally stronger, they must now open themselves up and become more publicly vulnerable and accessible” (p. 232). On the other hand, such top-down process of mandating educational change may be viewed as a learning opportunity whereby educational practitioners need to re-learn how to cope with external pressures and develop new professional techniques and communicational skills through in-service workshops and training (Bailey, 2000). In order to achieve “real” partnerships with parents, the school has to empower parents’ right and provide sufficient information on school operation and management so that the parental delegates could feel a sense of “authentic participation” in school-based management.

References

Bailey, B. (2000). The impact of mandated change on teachers. In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, learning and the realities of reform (pp. 112-128). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London: Routledge. Bastiani, J. (1993). Parents as partners: genuine progress or empty rhetoric? In P. Munn (ed.) Parents and schools: Customers, managers or partners? (pp. 101-116). London: Routledge. Blase, J. (1987). Political interaction among teachers: sociocultural contexts in the schools. Urban Education, 22(3), 286-309. Blase, J. (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Burns, T. (1961). Micro-politics: mechanisms of institutional change. Administration Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281. Caldwell, B. (1990). School-based decision-making and management: International developments. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 3-26). London: Falmer Press. Chen, H-J. (2005). Routines and micropolitics in a Taiwanese primary school: A qualitative analysis of the dialectical relationship between structure and agency. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(5), 580-581. Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Deem, R. (1994). Free marketers or good citizens? Educational policy and lay participation in the administration of schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(1), 23-37. Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-12. Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers’ professional lives: aspirations and actualities. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 1-27). London: Falmer Press. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Professionals and parents: a social movement for educational change? In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: teaching, learning and the realities of reform (pp. 217-235). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hoyle, E. (1988). Micro-politics of educational organisations. In A. Westoby (Ed.), Culture and power in educational organizations (pp. 252-269). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Leung, P. & Yuen, M-T. (2001). Parent-teacher conferences in a secondary school: a case study. Pastoral Care, March, 28-30. Seddon, J., Angus, L., & Poole, M. (1990). Pressures on the move to school-based decision-making management. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 29-54). London: Falmer Press Shimahara, K. & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and the United States. New York: Galard. Spence, B. (1996). The need for in-service education. In A. McClelland & V. Varma (Eds.), The needs of teachers (pp.82-97). London: Cassell. Verhoeven, J. C. & Heddgegem, I. V. (1999). Parents’ representatives in the new participatory school council in Belgium (Flanders). Educational Management and Administration, 27(4), 415-429. Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participation. London: Falmer Press.

Author Information

Hsin-Jen Chen

National Chung Cheng University

Centre for Teacher Education

Chia-Yi

215

Ya-Hsuan Wang

National Chung Cheng University

Institute of Education