specialization and school organization: investigating pedagogic culture

This article was downloaded by: [Jaamia Galant]On: 09 June 2015, At: 10:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

British Journal of Sociology ofEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Specialization and school organization:investigating pedagogic cultureUrsula Hoadleya & Jaamia Galanta

a School of Education, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, SouthAfricaPublished online: 08 Jun 2015.

To cite this article: Ursula Hoadley & Jaamia Galant (2015): Specialization and schoolorganization: investigating pedagogic culture, British Journal of Sociology of Education, DOI:10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-06-08

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Specialization and school organization: investigating pedagogicculture

Ursula Hoadley* and Jaamia Galant

School of Education, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

(Received 17 January 2014; final version received 26 February 2015)

Drawing on Bernstein’s notion of pedagogic culture or the ‘mode ofbeing’ of the school, this paper develops and uses a theoretical frame-work for the analysis of school organization that draws attention to spe-cialization of instructional practice. An understanding of the orderingprinciples of the school emerges from the analysis, fundamentally under-stood as relations of power and control in the school as an organization.The paper considers how the ordering principles of the school arerelated to differential performance. The framework is deployed in ananalysis of six primary schools located in poor communities in SouthAfrica.

Keywords: pedagogic culture; school organization; division of labour;power and control; authority; specialization

Introduction

Almost 20 years after the installation of a democratic state, persistent poorperformance and dysfunctional institutions characterize schooling in SouthAfrica. This paper considers the link between school organization and per-formance. Most current research in school organization has either beenlocated broadly within studies of school culture, on the one hand, or schooleffectiveness on the other. The paper offers a theorization of schools thatdraws attention to the instructional aspects of school organization as embed-ded within particular authority relations and social norms within the school.Drawing on Bernstein’s notion of pedagogic culture or the ‘mode of being’of the school (2000, 24), we are concerned with the ordering principles ofthe school, and how these might relate to differential performance. Thisframing of the issue presents a less diffuse theorization of the school as aninstitution than that found in culture studies (Anderson 1982),1 and a lessatomized one than that often encountered in the school effects and account-ability literature (for reviews, see Hallinger and Heck 1998; Leithwood

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149

et al. 2004). The framework developed in the paper enables a description ofschool organization in terms of power and control that inheres in the struc-tures, processes and relationships that underpin the instructional order.2

The research reported here was conducted within the ‘Schools Perform-ing Above Demographic Expectations’ (SPADE) research project based atthe University of Cape Town. Given a relatively robust understanding ofwhat is going wrong in poor schools in South Africa (Taylor 2007), theresearch set out to identify potential lessons to be learnt from those schoolsin poor communities achieving ‘against the odds’. This paper analyses sixof the 14 SPADE schools. All are located in the Western Cape province inSouth Africa, and serve communities with high unemployment levels andsevere social problems. The productivity of the analysis lies in the develop-ment of a novel framework for the analysis of the school as an institutionas well as the insights gained into the relationship between school organiza-tion and performance in contexts of poverty.

Within the Bernsteinian research tradition there has been significantempirical and theoretical work devoted to knowledge and curriculum (forexample, Moore and Young 2010; Muller 2000), and also a well-establishedfocus on pedagogy (for example, Gamble 2014; Hoadley 2008; Morais,Neves, and Pires 2004). To date, however, there has been little considerationof the site for the reproduction of specialized knowledge within the Bern-steinian frame. As Bernstein argues, ‘the educational institution is a primarycondition without which transmission cannot be stable or reproduced’(2000, 24). If specialized knowledge is to be transmitted, we suggest thatcertain organizational configurations optimize its ordering and reproduction,and these tend to be sustained by certain forms of authority, social relationsand identities in the school.

The paper first considers the theorizing of school organization withinBernstein’s work. An analysis of the school data follows. We report on theempirical findings of the analysis and demonstrate how we worked with thetheory in relation to the data to produce an analytic framework to considerthe ordering principles of the school.

Bernstein’s theorizing of the school

As in his work on knowledge and curriculum, Bernstein’s approach to asociological examination of schools is influenced by Durkheim. There arethree moments in the development of Bernstein’s theory where he addressesthe structuring of the school directly. The first is his early work on ritual(Bernstein 1971), and the second is in relation to his work on collectionand integrated curriculum forms (Bernstein 1975) and their entailments forthe structuring of staff groupings and relationships. Finally, Bernstein(2000) talks about school organization in relation to the notion of‘pedagogic culture’.

2 U. Hoadley and J. Galant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

In the early work on ritual, and on stratified and differentiated schools,Bernstein offers a structural cultural analysis of the expressive order of theschool – the rules of conduct, character and manner. This work differenti-ates between consensual rituals (like assembly), which bind the schooltogether, and differentiating rituals (such as age groupings), which reinforceauthority relations and contribute to order and control. In his secondapproach to school organization, Bernstein (1971) attempts to explain howschools were shifting from social arrangements founded upon, and manifestin, mechanical solidarity, to those associated with organic solidarity.

The third iteration came after Bernstein’s extensive work on pedagogicdiscourse. Here he theorizes school organization as ‘pedagogic culture’. Theterm indicates that he is less concerned directly with ritual and more withthe regulation of the instructional order of the school. He is concerned witha conceptualization of school organization that connects with pedagogiccode. Pedagogic culture, then, is ‘a concept whose relations are dependentupon the pedagogic code but which also regulates the code. This conceptwould embrace the fundamental regulation of the mode of being of theagency’ (Bernstein 2000, 24; original emphasis). This third articulation ofschool organization is a terse formulation of school organization in terms ofclassification and framing and the division of labour and forms of solidaritywithin the school. This paper elaborates Bernstein’s framework through ananalysis of the SPADE schools.

Common to Bernstein’s three iterations of school organization (focusingin turn on ritual, curriculum code and pedagogy) is the grounding of theanalysis in Durkheim’s notions of the division of labour and forms of socialsolidarity. Bernstein considered the division of labour applied to the school,and the distinction between organic solidarity – referring to social integra-tion at the level of individualized, specialized, interdependent social roles –and mechanical solidarity, referring to social integration at the level ofshared beliefs (Bernstein 1971, 68). The concept of pedagogic culture iselaborated further below.

Theoretical framework: Bernstein’s concept of ‘pedagogic culture’

In his brief and expository formulation, Bernstein (2000, 24–26) initiallydescribes pedagogic culture through the familiar metaphor of the container(school or institution) and the contained (pedagogy or classroom practice).He introduces four dimensions to a consideration of the container: shape, sta-bility, economy and bias. In this paper, shape refers to the social division oflabour in the school, the academic identity of the institution and its learners,and the basis of authority. The basis for authority refers to the ways in whichmanagement, and principals especially, establish and derive their authority.Here we draw loosely on Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and forms ofauthority (Gerth and Wright Mills 1948), explained in more detail below.

British Journal of Sociology of Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

Specialized categories (e.g. managers, teachers, learners, the school) andtheir specialized functions (e.g. monitoring or teaching), as well as the basisof authority, give shape to the container. The division of labour and basis ofauthority are both related to power. As Ingersoll puts it:

… the division of labour is, at heart, a division of power – it is fundamentallyhierarchical. By definition, it limits the areas in which members haveresponsibility and authority and is thus a potential means of both organiza-tional coordination and control. (1993, 95)

Stability is crucially about direct and indirect forms of control. Indirectcontrol inheres in the social relations between categories (management andteachers; teachers and teachers; teachers and students), and in the forms ofsolidarity, conflict and resistance and the nature of consensus. Direct controlis about ordering, monitoring and strategizing around instructional practice(what we refer to as instructional order and control). Whereas shape referspredominantly to power, stability refers to control. The theory thus directsus to an analysis of the underlying forms of power and control thatconstitute the ordering principle of the school. We expand on this below inrelation to the data.

External to the school is bias, which refers to the external regulation(e.g. by the state) of the institution. This bias may affect both the containerand the contained, and the interest is in the extent to which bias influencesor produces the criteria that the institution has to meet.

Finally the economic base (or what Bernstein refers to as ‘economy’) isabout the symbolic, human and material resources of the institution and itslocation. These four components – shape, stability, bias and economic base– describe the structuring of the institution and its external regulation, andare shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The pedagogic culture of the school.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

For Bernstein, school organization is pedagogic culture. In other words,the specialized function of the school in relation to the transmission ofknowledge drives the theorization.

There are two useful aspects of Bernstein’s schema. Firstly, it drawsattention to both the instructional and regulative aspects of school organiza-tion. For Bernstein, in relation to educational processes, the instructionalorder is embedded in a regulative order. ‘Instructional order’ refers to theknowledge and skills inscribed in the curriculum, while ‘regulative order’here refers to the ‘moral order’ of the school, the set of norms and socialrelations that underpin its working. This conceptualization of the instruc-tional order embedded in the regulative order goes beyond the focus on ‘in-structional leadership’ and the more technical dimensions of curriculummanagement in schools found in the school effectiveness literature. Wefocus on issues of authority, division of labour and forms of solidarity inthe school. Bernstein’s framework allows us to consider the underlyingsocial relationships and norms (the regulative order) within which instruc-tional aspects are embedded. At the same time, the conceptualization avoidsthe lack of concern with knowledge and instruction of school culture stud-ies, many of which tend to emphasize class effects of tradition, expectationsand teacher cultures, focusing on ‘the micro interactions of schooling asexemplifications of power relations’ (Young 2012, 5).

The second useful aspect of Bernstein’s conceptualization of the educa-tional institution is that it focuses on relations of power that regulate rela-tions between contexts or agents, and on relations of control withincontexts. Bernstein refers to the former as classification and the latter asframing. If the study of school organization, as Ingersoll (1993) suggests, isa study of power and control, bureaucratic or otherwise, then classificationand framing in Bernstein’s terms allow for systematic analysis of this. Bern-stein’s formulation of pedagogic culture thus allows for a consideration ofschool organization in terms of power and control that inheres in the pro-cesses, structures, authority, roles and functions that underpin the instruc-tional order. The schema opens up possibilities for a theoretically systematicand coherent way of considering the relation between pedagogic culture andpedagogic code (although this is not explored in this article).

The analysis of the data is presented below, showing how pedagogicculture was operationalized. Given space limitations, we focus on twodimensions of pedagogic culture in the paper: shape and stability.

Methodology

The analysis is based on data generated through in-depth interviews withprincipals, heads of departments (HODs) and teachers in the six schools.Selected questions were repeated in each interview. The purpose of multipleinterviews was to obtain information from different actors in the school and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

to triangulate responses, thus generating more reliable data. The triangulatedresponses allowed us to construct a picture of the school and its culturegenerated from the overlapping descriptions given from different vantagepoints within the school. Our analysis of pedagogic culture is thus based onhow multiple school agents express the pedagogic culture, rather than ananalysis of independently observed pedagogic culture.

In developing an external language of description (Bernstein 2000), tobring the data into conversation with the theory, we developed a set of con-cept variables to elaborate the initial constructs of shape, stability, economyand bias. For shape, our measurements were primarily in terms of classifica-tion – indicating degrees of specialization between contexts and agents. Forstability, our measurements were primarily in terms of framing – indicatingdegrees of control over instructional order and the nature of social relation-ships within the school. A wide range of empirical indicators (several sug-gested by the school effectiveness literature)3 was identified in order tomeasure each dimension in the data. An example of the development of thelanguage of description is given in Figure 2 in relation to shape.

Figure 2. An example of the development of the external language of description.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

The example in Figure 2 shows how, from the theoretical constructshape (which refers to the division of labour, academic identity and bases ofauthority), a set of concept variables to elaborate the initial construct wasdeveloped. So, for example, the division of labour is read off the ways inwhich management and teacher roles are defined and specialized in theschool. The empirical variables then specified the data, providing evidencerelated to the concept variable. In the example, descriptions of the tasks ofthe principal and HODs provide evidence for the coding of managementinstructional roles. The indicator variable describes how the concept dimen-sion might vary in the data and the coding represents a final measurementof the concept variable. This is an iterative process, working from theory todata, with the data informing the development of the concept variables andrefining the definition of the theoretical construct.

The school sample

The sample comprises six schools, four that performed above average insystemic tests and two comparator schools that performed just below aver-age. Schools were selected in matching sets of three schools each. Theschools were matched on their socio-economic and demographic profiles.Each set included two high performers and a low performer. The selectionof demographically matching sets of schools keep the potential influencesof social class or socio-economic conditions on school performance con-stant, while allowing for the observation of variation in school leadership,management and school culture.

Table 1 presents some of the contextual features of the matched sets ofschools, drawn from 2011 national census data as well as school question-naires administered in the broader SPADE project. The schools sampledhere were labelled Schools 6, 7 and D in one set and Schools 8, 9 and E inthe other.

All schools are located in economically depressed communities with arange of social problems, including high levels of substance abuse, absentand/or young parents, illiteracy and unemployment. Schools 6, 7, 8 and 9were selected as achieving against the odds. Schools D and E, performingjust below average, were selected as comparator schools and matched theother schools in the set in terms of demographics, location, language andformer education department.4 Rather than rehearsing more acute and obvi-ous differences between high-performing and very low-performing schools,the broader study aimed to discern more subtle differences for better perfor-mance in the ‘high’ achieving schools. All schools are primary schools,with Grade Three the particular focus of the study.

As required by national policy, all schools have a School ManagementTeam (SMT) which consists of a principal, a deputy principal and HODs.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

Table

1.Sam

pleof

schoolsforanalysis.

Set

4(former

HOR;Afrikaans

medium)

Set

5(former

DET;isiXhosa/Englishmedium)

School6

School7

SchoolD

School8

School9

SchoolE

Broad

locatio

nPeri-urban

Peri-urban

Peri-urban

Peri-urban

Peri-urban

Peri-urban

Household

employment(%

)(South

Africa

Census,2011)

58%

3858

5046

41

Household

highest

education(South

AfricaCensus,2011)

24%

with

matric

12%

with

matric

24%

with

matric

8%with

matric

20%

with

matric9%

with

matric

Dom

inantcommunity

issues

(SPA

DE

school

survey)

Vandalism;

low

literacy

levels

Violence;

gang

activ

ity;

drug

andalcoholabuse;

low

literacylevels

Vandalism;drug

andalcoholabuse;

low

literacylevels

Drugabuse

Alcohol

abuse;

low

literacy

levels;child

abuse

Drugand

alcoholabuse;

low

literacy

levels


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

All schools have three to four Grade Three classrooms. Learners are taughtlanguages, mathematics and life skills. All children are tested annually inlanguage and mathematics through a systemic benchmarked test adminis-tered by the provincial department.

Schools in the SPADE study were selected on the basis of five iterationsof this systemic test over 10 years,5 thus selecting for consistent perfor-mance. Better performance in these schools is not taken uncritically as bettereducation. Results from these tests, confirmed by other national and interna-tional tests, show very low levels of numeracy and literacy in all schools.Table 2 shows the average test results for the six schools in our sample rela-tive to the average performance for schools within similar demographics.The ‘higher performing’ schools selected for the study were higherperforming relative to schools of similar demographic and historicalcategories.6

Findings

Given space constraints, we present a detailed analysis of shape and stabil-ity only. As described above, with respect to economy, the SPADE schoolswere selected on the basis of similar demographics and material conditionsso as to control to some extent the influences of social class or socio-economic conditions on school performance.

A detailed analysis of shape and stability in two schools (School 8 andSchool E) follows. We have chosen to present case studies of these twoschools since they are the highest and lowest performing schools respec-tively in the same matching set. They represent contrasting cases in whichsimilarities and differences emerge that may be associated with differentialperformance. For shape and stability we show how a coding scheme wasdeveloped through the qualitative analysis for use in the broader sample. Inthe final section of the paper we show the results for all six schools used inthis paper for developing the scheme.

Table 2. Average school performance on literacy and numeracy tests (2002–2011).

Matching sets School

Formereducationauthority

Average for allschools in formerdepartment (%)

Averageof school(%)

Set 4 (peri-urban) School 6 HOR 50 55School 7 54School D 45

Set 5 (peri-urban School 8 DET 43 53School 9 50School E 37


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

Shape

The shape of the institution is characterized according to five dimensions:specialization of management instructional roles, specialization of teacherinstructional roles, classification of learner academic identity, classificationof school academic identity, and basis of authority. Empirical indicators foranalysing shape included: the roles and functions of principals and HODs(management) and teachers; the prioritizing of academics in the school;expectations and characterizations of learners; and how management assertsauthority in the school.

The two contrasting cases are presented below as illustrative of the varia-tion in dimensions of shape.

Specialization of management instructional roles

Management instructional roles refer to the roles and functions that princi-pals and HODs fulfil in relation to teaching and learning within the school.Variation along this dimension depends on the extent to which roles andfunctions of management are strongly or weakly classified with respect toinstruction. Schools were coded on a scale ranging from C++ to C–, whereC++ represents strongly specialized roles and functions for management, andC– represents weak specialization and lack of distinction between differentmanagement roles and functions with respect to instruction. Strong degreesof classification between agents suggest a complex division of labour.

In School 8, management have clearly defined instructional roles andfunctions. The SMT is key in curriculum oversight. HODs specifically focuson selection and allocation of instructional resources (e.g. textbooks) andtheir main function is monitoring instruction (classroom observations andlearner book inspections). The principal’s role is broader and focuses on‘building relationships’, ‘team work’ and professional development of thestaff through workshops. Grade heads lead meetings with structured agendaswhere 80% of the meeting has to address curriculum issues. School 8 wascoded as C+ for specialization of management instructional roles, wherethey have different, clearly defined instructional functions.

In School E, management roles are neither clearly differentiated nor spe-cialized. The SMT has been largely dysfunctional, and, where functions areidentified, there are no clear distinctions between different managementroles. According to the principal, many members of the SMT had beenappointed on the basis of length of service and nepotism rather than anyparticular expertise:

The old culture has interjected into the current. The SMT is not at my level. Iwould have preferred some of them to go. They have no management rolesand have had some training but it had little impact. I tried to force jobdescriptions. (Principal interview, School E)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

It was not clear from the interviews what roles or functions the SMT fulfilsin relation to instruction. The principal was vague about his own role in theschool, stating: ‘I’m not a principal; I’m a school manager…with a range offunctions’ (principal interview, School E). His functions include a four-day -week teaching load. While the SMT appears to play little role in the man-agement or monitoring of instruction, grade heads take responsibility forsome instructional monitoring tasks. In sum, roles and functions of manage-ment at School E are weakly classified with respect to role and function.School E was coded as C– for management instructional roles.

Specialization of teacher instructional roles

Analysis of the specialization of teacher roles was based on how teachersand managers spoke about teaching and teachers’ other roles and functions.We were interested in the extent to which teachers expressed clarity aroundwhat was expected of them as individual teachers, and expressed clear under-standings of their instructional roles. Schools were coded on a scale rangingfrom C++ to C–, where C++ represents clear understanding and demarcationof the specialized instructional function across teachers in the school, and C–

represents diffuse notions of what teachers’ roles and functions are or astronger focus on functions other than instruction (e.g. pastoral care). Hereagain, strong degrees of classification indicating specialized roles of teacherssuggests a complex division of labour within the school.

At School 8, teachers’ roles and functions with respect to instruction areclearly understood and generally carried out. Teachers refer to the particularinstructional requirements of learners at the level they teach. They under-stand and draw on structured opportunities for enacting their functions, suchas participation in joint instructional planning and active engagement in pro-fessional development. School 8 was coded as C++ for specialization of tea-cher instructional roles.

At School E there are vague references to teachers working together, butit is not clear what this constitutes. Roles, functions and responsibilities inrelation to teaching are not foregrounded in the ways in which teachers’work is spoken about. Although there are positive communal relationsamong staff, these are not constituted around the work of teaching. Whilethere is an acknowledgement of serious underperformance amongst somestaff, there are no strategies in place to deal with this. School E was codedas C– for teacher instructional roles.

School academic identity

Variation along this dimension depends on the extent to which the school’sacademic identity is strongly or weakly classified with respect to academics;that is, the extent to which the school has a reputation for good academic


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

performance, and the extent to which academic performance and instructionare foregrounded in the ways in which the school is spoken about. Schoolswere coded on a scale ranging from C++ to C–, where C++ represents astrongly classified academic identity, and C– represents a weakly classifiedacademic identity. In the latter case, the school or its learners have a weak rep-utation for good academic performance, and academic achievement is not atthe centre of the school’s functioning or purpose (e.g. as in the case of SchoolE, its dominant purpose as expressed by management and teachers is around‘community upliftment’). Here degrees of classification indicate the extent towhich academic activity marks out the specialized identity of the school.

In School 8, the school prioritizes learner performance and has clear,specific strategies to address learner underperformance. The principal andteachers provide extra support to learners after school on most days. Thisvisible commitment and dedication to the academic performance of the learn-ers contributes to the school’s academic reputation in the community. A tea-cher comments: ‘We work till 5, come in on Saturday, even in the holidays.The community likes the school, they say they want their children to be inthat school’. The principal speaks of the ‘betterment of learners, for shapinglearners’, and the professional pride that teachers take in their commitmentto improving learner performance. Performance is celebrated throughrewards, praise and encouragement for learners and staff. In 2011 the schoolreceived a substantial monetary award from the provincial department forimproved results. School 8 was coded C++ for school academic identity.

Given that School E has a troubled and dysfunctional past, academicidentity at School E is weak. A cohesive and coherent idea around the aca-demic project of the school is lacking. According to the principal, teacherslack academic focus: ‘People tend to focus on irrelevancies. They haven’tempowered themselves. They resist development and like their comfortzones. This takes the focus away from education’ (principal interview,School E). Although the principal strives for the improvement of its chil-dren’s academic and life chances – ‘For the sake of the children I want theschool to do better’ (principal interview, School E) – this is undermined byan academically weak staff component. School E was coded as C– forschool academic identity.

Learner academic identities

Learner academic identities were coded as being strongly or weakly classi-fied. This coding was based on the extent to which academic aspects wereforegrounded in discussions and characterizations of learners, and in theschools’ expressed academic expectations of the students. As with theschool academic identity, learner academic identity was coded on a scaleranging from C++ (strongly classified academic identity) to C– (weaklyclassified academic identity). Here, degrees of classification indicate the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

extent to which academic competence marks out the specialized identities oflearners. Empirical indicators included the school’s expectation that studentswould complete the school-leaving examination, and teachers and managers’descriptions of their learners.

At School E, learners are primarily described in relation to their commu-nity location and the difficult homes that are common to all. They are alsodescribed in terms of patterns of social behaviour rather than reference toacademic performance: ‘They are obedient and listen’ (HOD interview,School E). Some reference is made to levels of achievement in relation totest performance. The expectation that the students will complete their highschool leaving examination is low: ‘Some will, some won’t. We can dowhat we can at school, but what are learners exposed to when they leaveschool?’ (principal interview, School E). Learner academic identity atSchool E was coded as weakly classified (C–).

At School 8, learners are similarly discussed in relation to their beha-viour, ‘good and neat’, as well as references to truancy and bullying. Again,in relation to expectations, children’s home background is framed as trump-ing academic potential: ‘you know in the township, there is such poverty.Learners are not strong enough to resist this. So [whether they will com-plete their school leaving examination] depends from family to family’(principal interview, School 8). No reference was made to learners’ aca-demic character in the data. Learner academic identity at School 8 wascoded as very weakly classified (C–).

Basis of authority

This dimension varies in terms of what management recruits to establishand assert authority as managers of the school. We draw loosely on Weber’stheory of bureaucracy and forms of authority (Gerth and Wright Mills1948) to elaborate different forms of authority identified across the data:

• Epistemic authority7 – where management recruits specialized knowl-edge and experience regarding pedagogy, curriculum and evaluation toestablish their authority in the school.

• Official/bureaucratic authority8 – where management bases theirauthority either on the position they hold or on the function/manage-ment procedures they perform.

• Communitarian authority – where authority is established in terms ofobligations and moral responsibility to the larger school community.

• Charismatic authority9 – where authority is vested in the exemplaryand charismatic personality of an individual person.

All forms of authority are present to a greater or lesser extent in all schools.We coded schools on the basis of the dominant basis of authority.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

In School 8, the principal commands the respect of teachers and commu-nity, asserting authority that is based on a strong commitment and sense ofresponsibility to the school and its broader community. He describes theschool as ‘being there to contribute to the betterment of learners who comethrough my hands to go on to do better things’ (principal interview, School8). Teamwork and follow-through on decisions are identified as thestrengths of the SMT. Their authority derives from their reliability and ded-ication in doing what they are tasked to do. The management of the princi-pal and SMT are defined by deep care towards learners and theircommunity, and conscientious performance of their official functions. Thebasis of authority for management is a combination of communitarian andofficial authority.

At School E, the principal’s authority is defined by his care towards thechildren and community of the school, and defence against what he per-ceives as inequitable treatment of schools for different racial communities.He is defensive of his position in relation to how he feels he and his staff areoften treated, especially by the provincial department – ‘I am not a gardenboy’; ‘they treat us like bus drivers’ (principal interview, School E) – and heis assertive in terms of what he wishes to achieve for the community: ‘Forthe sake of the children I want this school to be better. Few people are forthe development of [community name]. Some people who were, educatedpeople, are going … there is no ploughing back’ (principal interview, SchoolE). The principal expressed a strong sympathy and favour for the childrenand the community surrounding the school. At School E the basis of author-ity is predominantly communitarian, because of the expressed responsibilityto provide moral guidance and care beyond the school gates.

Summary: Shape

The two case studies presented above illustrate the variation in the differentdimensions of the shape of an institution. Table 3 presents a summary of

Table 3. Summary coding for shape in School 8 and School E.

Performer Highest Low

Concept dimension School 8 School EConstruction of management’sinstructional roles

C+ C–

Construction of teachers’ instructionalroles

C++ C–

Construction of learners’ academicidentity

C– C–

School academic identity C++ C–

Basis of authority of management Official andCommunitarian

Communitarian


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

the contrasting cases of School 8 and School E for each dimension ofshape.

The table shows the stronger classification of roles and identities in thehigher performing school, and the difference across schools in the bases forauthority. Stronger specialization of roles indicates a more complex divisionof labour in School 8.

Stability

Stability was analysed in relation to two dimensions: forms of solidarity,and instructional order and control. Forms of solidarity refer to the socialrelations in the school and nature of cohesion. Instructional order and con-trol was analysed in terms of external framing (or control) over instructionalprocesses and structures within the school.

The empirical indicators for analysing forms of solidarity were manage-ment–teacher relations and teacher–teacher relations. For instructional orderand control, the indicators were the monitoring of learning, time manage-ment, instructional planning and strategic action.

Forms of solidarity

In terms of the forms of solidarity, we were interested in whether interde-pendence between teachers and between teachers and managers was basedon communalized or differentiated roles and functions. We identified threeforms of solidarity across the full dataset:

• Professional solidarity – staff coheres around a professional ethic ofresponsibility for teaching and learning; everyone understands theirprofessional, specialized role and function.

• Bureaucratic solidarity – relations are based around everyone as afunctionary of the state and ‘getting the job done’, or being proficientin administrative techniques.

• Communitarian solidarity – relations are based on collective responsi-bility for the well-being of the school, the learners, teachers and/or itscommunity.

Again, while aspects of all three types could be found in schools, we wereconcerned with the dominant form of solidarity in a particular school.

In School 8, the relationship between management and teachers ischaracterized by mutual respect. Words such as ‘team work’, ‘dedication’and ‘commitment’ feature regularly in the ways in which management andteachers talk about each other. Role expectations are clear, systems are pre-dictable and teachers are satisfied: ‘We love our job, as much as we say ourprincipal is strict, but he’s not, we work till 5, come in on Saturday, even


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

on a holiday’ (teacher interview, School 8). The principal actively generatesa positive work environment, encouraging, praising and providing instruc-tional direction for teachers. The form of solidarity at School 8 is character-ized as professional – the teachers’ focus on instructional matters is strongand they cohere around a robust and explicit instructional programme in theschool.

In School E there are good relations between teachers and a positivecommunal spirit. However, this is at the expense of addressing seriousunderperformance of a number of teachers. The principal is aware of thistension: ‘There’s a human factor here. Communal thinking defeats the pur-pose of education itself. In the private sector it’s easy – you underperform,you go. We can’t do that. There are good things to communal stuff so can’tbreak that’ (principal interview, School E). Generally, teachers work welltogether and the principal is acknowledged for improvements in the schoolin the last few years. The strong communal spirit amongst teachers is basedmore around ‘being in it together’, working hard and facing common chal-lenges, than forged around clear instructional goals or concerns. The formof solidarity at School E is characterized as communitarian.

Instructional order and control

Variation along this dimension depends on the extent to which instructionalprocesses and structures within the school are coordinated, monitored andcontrolled by management. Schools were coded on a scale ranging fromFe++ to Fe–. Here, Fe refers to the external framing (or control) over issuesrelated to instruction. Fe++ indicates strong external framing, where internalprocesses for structured instructional planning and monitoring of instructionare frequent, routine and strongly controlled. Instructional time is monitored,and absenteeism among learners and teachers is controlled. Fe– indicatesweak external control, where internal processes for structured instructionalplanning and monitoring of instruction are infrequent, random and weaklycontrolled. Disruptions to teaching and absenteeism are not monitored.

At School 8, teachers’ collaborative work and willingness to workbeyond school hours is apparent across the interviews. The school providesopportunities for structured instructional planning by teachers, especiallythrough regular, moderated grade meetings. The school has a concerted,strategic response to student achievement. Standardized test results are anal-ysed in order to stream students for after-school remediation and additionalteachers appointed to reduce class sizes.

There are a number of instructional strategies that target specific prob-lems. There is planned and regular monitoring of instruction, especiallythrough inspection of learner books and teacher planning schedules, andclassroom observations. The HODs’ role in identifying problems and alert-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

ing the principal to problems is central. There is strong external framing ofinstructional order and control at School 8. This school was coded as Fe++.

At School E, monitoring of instruction is infrequent and lines of commu-nication between management and teachers around monitoring, planningand academic matters are not clear. Joint planning is haphazard: ‘the prob-lem with the SMT is that they are ineffectual and lack expertise’ (principalinterview, School E) and ‘They [SMT] do not meet regularly to discussproblems and there are no minutes’ (HOD interview, School E). The princi-pal has a four-day per week teaching load, which limits his ability to man-age instruction. He lacks support from the SMT in trying to address ahistory of poor performance and weak staff in the school. He explains: ‘Theprevious principal was two years on sick leave. There were acting people.There was no proper monitoring of the age of children coming in, docu-ments were all over the place’ (principal interview, School E).

Some strategies for improvement exist, but it is not clear to what extentthese are sustained and coordinated. There are no instructional monitoringmechanisms. There are no clear roles, times or procedures for monitoring oraddressing absenteeism. External framing of instructional order and controlat School E is weakly framed and it was coded Fe–. While weak externalframing in schools with strong professional cultures may not be deleterious,in School E weak external framing is coupled with a simple division oflabour that seemingly works against performance.

Summary: Stability

The two case studies presented above illustrate variation on the differentdimensions of stability. Table 4 is a summary of the contrasting cases ofSchool 8 and School E. Table 5 presents a summary of the analysis of allsix schools in the sample, and shows the codes for shape and stability.

Discussion

There are a number of discernible patterns and relational aspects thatemerge from the analysis, represented in the summary tables (Tables 3–5).Below we elaborate on the key relations that emerge from the analysis, andshow how these are potentially related to differential performance.

Table 4. Summary of stability in School E and School 8.

Performer Highest Low

Concept dimension School 8 School EDominant forms of solidarity Professional CommunitarianInstructional order and control Fe++ Fe–


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

Table

5.Sum

maryof

coding

forthetotalsampleof

sixschools.

Set

A(D

ET)

Set

B(H

OR)

Highest

performer

High

performer

Low

performer

Highest

performer

Highperformer

Low

performer

Concept

dimension

School8

School9

SchoolE

School6

School7

SchoolD

Shape

Constructionof

managem

ent’sinstructional

roles

C+

C–

C–

C++

C–

C+

Constructionof

teachers’

instructionalroles

C++

C+

C–

C++

C–

C+

Constructionof

learners’

academ

icidentity

C–

C–

C–

C–

C–

C–

Schoolacadem

icidentity

C++

C+

C–

C++

C+

C–

Basisof

authority

ofmanagem

ent

Official

and

Com

munitarian

Official

Com

munitarian

Epistem

icOfficial

Official

StabilityDom

inantform

sof

solid

arity

Professional

Bureaucratic

Com

munitarian

ProfessionalBureaucratic

Com

munitarian

Bureaucratic

Instructionalorderand

control

Fe++

Fe–

Fe–

Fe++

Fe++

Fe++


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

Firstly, we extract from Table 5 the top performer in the sample drawnfor this paper (School 6) and the lowest performer (School E) in order toshow relations between dimensions more clearly.

There is a discernible relationship between the division of labour andbases for authority in shape, and instructional order and control and formsof solidarity in stability. Strong classification at the level of the shape of theinstitution (complex division of labour) is related to strong framing ofinstructional order and control. Weak classification at the level of the shapeof the institution (simple division of labour) is related to weak framing ofthe instructional order. Epistemic authority in this case is related to profes-sional forms of solidarity, while a communitarian basis of authority isassociated with communitarian forms of solidarity.

The contrast between the highest and lowest performers used to generateFigure 3 presents the neatest fit between dimensions, and draws out twocontrasting school types – the professionally oriented school and the com-munitarian school. However, results across the six schools present a moremixed picture. In a comparison of School 7 (higher performer) and SchoolD (low performer), for example, both schools have strong control overinstructional order (Fe++). Strict bureaucratic compliance is found across thetwo schools. What differs in these cases is the strength of the academicidentity of the schools and the forms of solidarity. From this example itappears that bureaucratic forms of solidarity coupled with communitarianforms and a stronger academic identity facilitate more optimal performancein the higher performing School 7. In School D, bureaucratic solidarity anda weaker academic identity are evident. This comparison raises a number ofpossibilities. One is that certain dimensions of pedagogic culture may bemore significant in some settings than in others. A second possibility is thatindividualizing forms of solidarity coupled with collective (communitarian)forms, providing both specialization and cohesion, may be needed inschools working in difficult circumstances.

Along with the epistemic and the communitarian, a third school type –‘the bureaucratic school’ – emerges from the data, combining bureaucraticforms of solidarity and official authority (Schools 9, 7 and D). In these

Figure 3. Comparison of the top and bottom performers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

schools the academic identity, specialization of teachers and managers’ rolesare neither very strong nor very weak. The basis of authority is official andthe dominant form of solidarity is bureaucratic (the predominant concernbeing getting the job done and meeting administrative demands). In Schools9 and 7, better outcomes may be a function of greater compliance to bureau-cratic demands as opposed to substantively different instructional cultures inthe school. The bureaucratic school may represent a step towards better per-formance. Or surface compliance with bureaucratic demands may hinder thedevelopment of expertise and a more professional culture in the school.

Two further patterns discerned in Table 5 merit comment. The first isthat there is a clear relationship in the higher performing schools betweenthe schools’ academic identity and teachers’ instructional roles. The twoaspects may be mutually constitutive. A stronger academic identity maydrive a stronger classification of teachers’ roles with respect to instructionalpractice. Also, stronger specialization and expertise amongst teachers mayforge a more strongly classified school academic identity.

Finally, across the sample the academic identity of learners is weaklyclassified. All interviewees across the schools indicated limited aspirationsaround the academic achievement of their learners. The press of the socialdeterminants of students’ lives was foregrounded across the schools. So, indescribing learners, aspects of their home circumstances and the lack ofeducational support and possibilities was emphasized.10

These points are purely illustrative of the possibilities for discerninglinks between different dimensions of pedagogic culture in the frameworkpresented. We make no claims to generalizability of these empirical patterns.It would, however, be interesting to investigate further some of the emerg-ing patterns, such as whether the bureaucratic tendency of HOR schoolsand the communitarian orientation of DET schools hold in a larger sample.Some current research does suggest more communalizing orientations in for-mer black schools, and stronger bureaucratic cultures in former colouredschools (see, for example, Hoadley 2005).

The analyses in this paper show that several aspects prominent in thebroader management and school effectiveness literature are a feature of thehigher performing schools in this study (e.g. routine grade-level and con-tent-focused discussions of instructional practice [Elmore 2003], and clarityof roles). There are two important points of difference, however. One is thatin outlier studies the importance of high academic expectations of studentsis emphasized (Townsend 2007). In our sample, high teacher and principaleffort were coupled with relatively low expectations of students acrossschools. The second is that while the school effectiveness and outlier litera-ture emphasizes the importance of cohesion for good performance, we finda form of cohesion – communitarian – which may work against the aca-demic orientation of the school. The strong communal spirit in School E,where staff described themselves as a ‘family’, jeopardized the instructional


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

programme of the school (through practices like extended communallunches shared by teachers in their classes reaching into class time).

Again, these differences have no empirical weight. What the analysisdoes theoretically is draw attention to the schools’ instructional regimebeing embedded within a particular regulative order. The frameworkattempts to provide an account of the ordering principles, in relation topower and control, that underlie the more obvious and discrete characteris-tics cited above which may lead to better prediction of a school’s effective-ness. Shape and stability, read as the division of labour, academic identity,basis of authority, forms of solidarity and instructional order and control,describe the pedagogic culture of the school, drawing a focus on the regula-tion of the instructional order and ordering principle of the school. Reveal-ing these dimensions shifts away from the atomized rendering of schoolorganization in the school effectiveness literature. It also attempts to put afiner point on how more vague school ‘culture’ and ‘ethos’ notions can bediscerned in the structures, functions, roles, forms of authority and socialrelations that constitute school organization. General school types or orienta-tions, such as epistemic, bureaucratic and communitarian, can thus beidentified, generated by a framework that elaborates how these come to be.

Conclusion

All contexts of the reproduction of educational knowledge entail an institu-tional base. It is through the specialized nature of the institution, its struc-tures, and agents’ roles and functions that curriculum in pedagogy isfiltered. The paper offers a novel framework for the analysis of this institu-tional base. Initial concepts provided by Bernstein’s work on pedagogic cul-ture were elaborated and extended through engagement with empirical data.The theory points towards a consideration of the complexity of schoolorganization, in its instructional and regulative dimensions. Grounded inDurkheim, the theory also focuses the analysis in relation to specialization.The analysis of the six schools shows a relationship between specializationat the level of school organization and better student outcomes. The paperexplores the ways in which specialization is inscribed in the structures andprocesses of the school, working qualitatively from rich interview data.

An understanding of the ordering principles of the school emerges fromthe analysis. Higher performing schools are associated with a more complexdivision of labour and stronger classification of roles, professional forms ofsolidarity, epistemic authority and strong framing over order and reproduc-tion. In the low-performing schools a simpler division of labour and com-munitarian and bureaucratic forms of solidarity and authority predominate.These relational characteristics uncover different organizing principles in thedifferently performing schools. The logic of the organizational structure andfunctioning of the ‘epistemic’, the ‘bureaucratic’ and the ‘communitarian’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

school thus becomes visible. These different logics are potentially instructivefor intervening in different kinds of schools to cultivate expertise and enhancespecialization. Recent policy interventions in the local context have been topush particular instructional regimes and to shift relations of control. Theseare often incorporated into a particular regulative arrangement at the level ofthe school that undermines the intention of the reform. The Bernsteinianframe draws attention to the instructional as embedded in particular authorityrelations, roles, functions and forms of solidarity. This would usefully informhow we intervene to change the basic classifications of our schools in waysthat promote their specializing function.

AcknowledgementsThis paper is based on work conducted within the SPADE research project, whichwas sponsored by the Department of Higher Education and Training and theDepartment of Basic Education through the European Union Primary EducationSector Policy Support Programme from 2011 to 2014. Any opinion, findings, con-clusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes1. Anderson argues: ‘The field of climate research in many ways is reminiscent

of the seven blind men who gave seven different descriptions of the elephantbased on the one part each could touch, and who each claimed to possess thedefinitive image of an elephant’ (1982, 376).

2. There is another body of work that explores the relationship between schoolorganization, leadership and learner performance that draws on integratingsocial theoretical frames (especially Bourdieu; for example, Lingard et al.2003). These studies, like the present one, also aim to give coherence to theunderstanding of the relation between organization and performance with afocus on leadership and management specifically.

3. Some of the more prominent features include professional leadership; sharedvision and goals; a learning environment; time on task; high expectations;positive reinforcement; monitoring progress; home–school partnership; fre-quency and use of assessment; curriculum coverage and planning; attendanceand punctuality.

4. These are the former race-based education departments of the apartheid regime.In this case, DET refers to former black schools and HOR to former colouredschools. The DET schools remain largely racially and linguistically homoge-neous, whilst the HOR schools are in the process of changing in relation toboth characteristics, increasingly multilingual and black. The classificationswere used for sampling because these former apartheid designations remain thecentral predictor of schooling outcomes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

5. Starting in 2002 the test was administered every two years, and annually from2011. We used the results from 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011.

6. Although the contrasts between former DET and HOR schools are interesting,this is not the focus of our analysis. We are primarily interested in compar-isons within sets, not across sets.

7. This basis of authority was found to be dominant at School 7 (not one of thediscussed case-study schools). At School 7, for example, the principal assertshis authority as manager and leader of the school on the basis of his knowledgeof education and teaching and learning. He invokes literature on philosophy ofeducation and teaching and learning to support the interventions he initiates inthe school. He says, for example: ‘I gave teachers articles, and sketched scenar-ios and had workshops for teachers on how to respond to learners reading atext. Reading is the underlying thing’ (principal interview, School 7).

8. Weber argues that bureaucratic authority is derived from both office and exper-tise. Authority vested in office can take two forms. One is vested in the posi-tion (‘I have authority because I am a principal/member of SMT’), the other infunction (‘I have authority because I carry out these regulations’).

9. In the broader leadership literature this would refer to the ‘great man’ thesis ortrait theory in considering principals in school management. This basis ofauthority was not dominant in any of the sample schools analysed in thispaper, although some principals incorporated aspects of it.

10. Given that of a particular grade cohort only approximately 40% will pass theschool-leaving examination, and that schooling outcomes remain dismally lowfor students in 75% of the schools in South Africa, this is a depressing butnot unrealistic characterization of learners’ academic identities and educationalpossibilities.

ReferencesAnderson, C. 1982. “The Search for School Climate: A Review of the Research.”

Review of Educational Research 52 (3): 368–420.Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, Codes and Control Volume 1: Theoretical Studies

towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Bernstein, B. 1975. Class, Codes and Control Volume 3: Towards a Theory of

Educational Transmissions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research,

Critique. Revised ed. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield.Elmore, R. F. 2003. Agency, Reciprocity, and Accountability in Democratic Educa-

tion. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. http://dnowlan.ca/professional/elmore/elmore_agency_democratic_education.pdf

Gamble, J. 2014. “Approaching the Sacred: Directionality in the Relation betweenCurriculum and Knowledge Structure.” British Journal of Sociology of Educa-tion 1 (17): 1–17.

Gerth, H. H., and C. W. Mills. 1948. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hallinger, P., and R. H. Heck. 1998. “Exploring the Principal’s Contribution toSchool Effectiveness: 1980–1995.” School Effectiveness and School Improve-ment 9 (2): 157–191.

Hoadley, U. K. 2005. “Social Class, Pedagogy and the Specialization of Voice inFour South African Primary Schools.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University ofCape Town.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

http://dnowlan.ca/professional/elmore/elmore_agency_democratic_education.pdf

http://dnowlan.ca/professional/elmore/elmore_agency_democratic_education.pdf

Hoadley, U. 2008. “Pedagogy and Social Class: A Model for the Analysis of Peda-gogic Variation.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 (1): 63–78.

Ingersoll, R. M. 1993. “Loosely Coupled Organisations Revisited.” Research in theSociology of Organizations 11: 81–112.

Leithwood, K., K. S. Louis, S. Anderson, and K. Wahlstrom. 2004. How Leader-ship Influences Student Learning: Review of Research. New York: The WallaceFoundation. www.wallacefoundation.org.

Lingard, B., D. Hayes, M. Mills, and P. Christie. 2003. Leading Learning. Philadelphia,PA: Open University Press.

Moore, R., and M. Young. 2010. “Reconceptualizing Knowledge and the Curricu-lum in the Sociology of Education.” In Social Realism, Knowledge and theSociology of Education: Coalitions of the Mind, edited by K. Maton and R.Moore, 14–34. London: Continuum.

Morais, A., I. Neves, and D. Pires. 2004. “The What and the How of Teaching andLearning.” In Reading Bernstein Researching Bernstein, edited by J. Muller,B. Davies, and A. Morais, 75–90. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Muller, J. 2000. Reclaiming Knowledge: Social Theory, Curriculum and EducationPolicy. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Taylor, N. 2007. “Equity, Efficiency and the Development of South AfricanSchools.” In International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement,edited by T. Townsend, 523–540. Springer International Handbook of Education17. Dordrecht: Springer.

Townsend, T., ed. 2007. International Handbook of School Effectiveness andImprovement. Dordrecht: Springer.

Young, M. 2012. “Social Realism and Critical Realism.” Unpublished Paper. Basedon a talk given at the International Centre for Critical Realism. Institute ofEducation. University of London.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jaam

ia G

alan

t] a

t 10:

27 0

9 Ju

ne 2

015

http://www.wallacefoundation.org

specialization and school organization: investigating pedagogic culture

Documents