The architecture of school governance: Rebuilding democratic legitimacy within an academized system

IF 2.5 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Allen, Nigel Gann
{"title":"The architecture of school governance: Rebuilding democratic legitimacy within an academized system","authors":"A. Allen, Nigel Gann","doi":"10.1177/08920206211068132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Successive governments, in embracing a neoliberalist ideology of decentralization and privatization, have radically reformed the nature of community-based, comprehensive state education. The transition from ‘government to governance’ (Rhodes, 1997) combined with the ideology of academization (DfE, 2010a) has created a democratic deficit 1 (Corbett, 1977). Academies are placed outside of local elected scrutiny or community-based accountability systems and governance legitimacy is in crisis (Glatter, 2013). This article explores the problematization of academized governance (Allen and Gann, 2017) with respect to the democratic deficit and the consequential lack of stakeholder engagement – argued as unethical within a democratic society and a system that frequently leads to failings of accountability (Wilkins, 2016). Utilizing the conceptual lens of Empowered Participatory Governance (EPG) (Fung and Wright, 2003), the authors seek to present a new architecture of governance that seeks to restore democratic legitimacy. Democratic governance innovations, the micro-governance network (Allen, 2017) and a refreshed local education board (Gann, 2021) provide a new architecture for a post new governance environment and, in so doing, a counter-narrative to the rhetoric of academization.","PeriodicalId":40030,"journal":{"name":"Management in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206211068132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Successive governments, in embracing a neoliberalist ideology of decentralization and privatization, have radically reformed the nature of community-based, comprehensive state education. The transition from ‘government to governance’ (Rhodes, 1997) combined with the ideology of academization (DfE, 2010a) has created a democratic deficit 1 (Corbett, 1977). Academies are placed outside of local elected scrutiny or community-based accountability systems and governance legitimacy is in crisis (Glatter, 2013). This article explores the problematization of academized governance (Allen and Gann, 2017) with respect to the democratic deficit and the consequential lack of stakeholder engagement – argued as unethical within a democratic society and a system that frequently leads to failings of accountability (Wilkins, 2016). Utilizing the conceptual lens of Empowered Participatory Governance (EPG) (Fung and Wright, 2003), the authors seek to present a new architecture of governance that seeks to restore democratic legitimacy. Democratic governance innovations, the micro-governance network (Allen, 2017) and a refreshed local education board (Gann, 2021) provide a new architecture for a post new governance environment and, in so doing, a counter-narrative to the rhetoric of academization.
学校治理的架构:在学术体系中重建民主合法性
历届政府在接受新自由主义的权力下放和私有化意识形态的过程中,从根本上改革了以社区为基础的综合性国家教育的本质。从“政府到治理”的转变(Rhodes, 1997),再加上学院化的意识形态(DfE, 2010),造成了民主赤字1 (Corbett, 1977)。学院被置于地方选举审查或基于社区的问责制度之外,治理合法性处于危机之中(Glatter, 2013)。本文探讨了学术治理的问题化(Allen and Gann, 2017),涉及民主赤字和随之而来的利益相关者参与的缺乏——在民主社会和经常导致问责失败的制度中,这被认为是不道德的(Wilkins, 2016)。利用授权参与式治理(EPG)的概念透镜(Fung和Wright, 2003),作者试图提出一种新的治理架构,旨在恢复民主合法性。民主治理创新、微观治理网络(Allen, 2017)和更新的地方教育委员会(Gann, 2021)为后新治理环境提供了一个新的架构,并在此过程中,对学院化的修辞进行了反叙述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Management in Education
Management in Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Management in Education provides a forum for debate and discussion covering all aspects of educational management. We therefore welcome a range of articles from those dealing with day-to-day management to those related to national policy issues. Our peer review policy helps to enhance the range and quality of the articles accepted supporting those new to publication and those that are more expereienced authors. We publish research findings, opinion pieces and individual stories and our contributors come from all sectors of education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信