ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:

SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION

Volume 30

THE SOCIOLOGY OF
SCHOOL ORGANIZATION
 THE SOCIOLOGY OF
SCHOOL ORGANIZATION
Contemporary Sociology
of the School

RONALD KING
First published in 1983 by Methuen & Co. Ltd
This edition first published in 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 1983 Ronald King
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British
Library

ISBN: 978-0-415-78834-2 (Set)

ISBN: 978-1-315-20949-4 (Set) (ebk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-79023-9 (Volume 30) (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-21009-4 (Volume 30) (ebk)

Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality
of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the
original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders
and would welcome correspondence from those they have been
unable to trace.
 RONALD KING

The
sociology
of
school
• •
organization

METHUEN

London and New York

 First published in 1983 by Methuen & Co. Ltd
11 New Feller Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Published in the USA by Methuen & Co.
in association with Methuen, Inc.
733 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

© 1983 Ronald King

Phototypeset by Tradespools Ltd, Frome, S01Mrset
Printed in Great Britain
by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd
Bungay, Suffolk
All rights reserved. No part of this book may
be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by aey electronic, mechanical or other
means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in
aey informatian storage or retrieval system,
without permissian in writing from the
publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
King, Ronald
The sociology of school organization.-
(Contemporary sociology of the school)
1. School management and organization
2. Educational sociology
I. Title II. Series
371 LB2806
ISBN 0-416-34220-5 Pbk

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

King, Ronald, 1934-
The sociology of school organization
(Contemporary sociology of the school)
Bibliography: p.
Includes mdex
1. Educational sociology-Addresses,
essays, lectures
2. School management and organization-
Addresses, essays, lectures
I. Title II. Series
LC191.2.K561983 370.19 83-11366
ISBN 0-416-34220-5 Pbk
 CONTENTS

Preface 10
1 Approaches to school organization 12
2 Bernstein's sociology of the school 36
3 Bureaucracy, schools and other organizations 56
4 Power, ideology and school organization 75
5 The organization of pupil behaviour 101
6 The organization of teaching and learning 121
7 Organizational change and efficiency 152
References and name index 173
Subject index 189
Preface

Most people have experienced being organized at school,

through rules, syllabuses and timetables controlling how they
behave and what they should learn as pupils. Teachers usually
implement this organization and are themselves organized;
completing reports, mark sheets and registers at regular
intervals. These repeated patterns of behaviour are the sub-
stance of the sociology of school organization.
In the mid-sixties the question was asked, 'Why no sociology
of schools?' (Shaw, 1965). There had indeed been few studies
in this broad field, but soon those of Hargreaves (1967) and
others indicated that there were at least three related aspects of
the sociology of schools: classrooms, curriculum and organiza-
tion. The 'new' sociology of education of the early 1970s drew
particular attention to the neglect of the first two, and in
consequence many studies have now been completed, but
'organization' has remained relatively neglected (although
studies of classrooms and curricula often refer to the organiza-
tional context). One reason for this is that the work of the
sociologist most associated with studies of the organization of
industry, commerce and government, Max Weber, has not
figured strongly in the sociology of education (see King,
10
1980a). My purpose in writing this book is to try to remedy
both of these conditions, going beyond the single chapter on
school organization found in most general textbooks and
relating it to other aspects of the subject, some covered in
companion volumes in this series.
In doing this I have not ignored the work of other
sociologists, and these are introduced in the first two chapters.
The core of the book draws upon research studies (not all
sociological) of school organization, mainly in contemporary
Britain but with some historical and overseas comparisons.
These studies, although quite extensive, do leave some aspects
unexplored and therefore unexplained. However, enough are
available to show many variations, so that this book could not
be called 'The sociology of the organization of the school'.
Davies (1981) has recently commented, 'The arrival of a
decent sociology of school organization has now been so long
delayed that we must begin to suspect either that it has come
already without our noticing it, or that there is something
wrong with the news delivery system'. I hope that this short
book may help deliver some of that 'news', even if, like all
news, it is of necessity - if not intention - incomplete.

11
1 Approaches
to school
organization

Despite the title of this book there are several sociologies of

school organization. This is because there are several perspec-
tives in the sociology of education and this chapter considers
some of them in relation to the organization of schools. These
could be called 'theories of school organization' but that phrase
does have a number of meanings. Some are examples of what
Hoyle (1965) calls 'a theory of approach'- a way of looking,
through research, and then explaining the ways schools are
organized. Others again are not so much theories to explain the
'how' and 'why' of organization, but prescriptions for how
schools should be organized.
I begin with a theory of approach that I have developed in
my own studies (King, 1982b). This is principally derived
from the sociology of Max Weber (1864-1920), but also draws
upon the work of a number of neo-Weberians, especially
Collins (1975). I use this approach to comment upon the other
sociological perspectives that follow. A brief reference to
psychological approaches is included because these, together
with sociological and other perspectives, have a place in
12
administration and management studies, outlined in the last
section.

A Weberian action approach to school organization

Unlike Durkheim or Marx, Weber did not construct models of
the nature of society; instead he provided ways of studying,
and thereby explaining, the nature of society. Hence we do not
have, and cannot have, a Weberian theory of organizations or
of school organization, but the possibility of explanations of
the organization of real schools based upon Weberian perspec-
tives. Sociological theory should consist of attempts to explain
real social events.
My starting-point is a definition of social structure made by
Collins (1975), 'structure in so far as it really occurs ... can be
found in the real behaviour of everyday life, primarily in
repetitive encounters'. This is not the image of people inside a
social structure; the pattern of their behaviour towards one
another,.their social relationships, is the structure. Individuals
may feel themselves to be 'inside' a social structure, such as a
family or nation-state, because the other individuals with
whom they relate, directly or indirectly, are physically external
to them. This, understandably, often leads to the reification of
social structures, where the set of social relationships between
people is regarded as a non- or extra-human thing.
From this it follows that the social structure of a school
consists of the patterns of social relationships occurring
between those defined as members of 'the school', that is,
principally, pupils and teachers. In social terms they are not
'inside' the structure of the school; what they repetitively do is
the structure of the school. Overnight, or at the weekend or
during the holidays, a 'school' does not exist in real social
terms, except as a construct held subjectively by the members
(and others). The bricks and mortar material reality of a
'school' is the context in which, weekend or holiday over,
pupils and teachers relate to reconstruct the social reality of the
'school'. In some areas of Africa the 'school' has no material
13
existence much beyond a large shady tree; there is no 'school'
visible in any sense when classes are over.
The organizational structure of a school consists of those social
relationships between the totality of members which are
arranged or allowed by those with the power to do so. In
English maintained schools, headteachers or their delegates
have legal power in this respect; in Weberian terms, bureaucra-
tic authority (Weber, 1948). In the Soviet Union such organized
behaviour as the wearing of school uniform and school rules
are under central political control (Grant, 1979). The extent to
which social relationships are formally organized must be
established empirically. Some of those between teacher and
pupils in a classroom may be 'school' organized, where, for
example, there is the standardization of work marks or
homework timetable. Some of the relationships between
teachers, for example in a staffroom, are not organized in the
sense used here, nor are most. of those between pupils in the
playground. Sometimes organized relationships, organization-
al structures, may have unintended consequences for other
relationships. Pupil learning groups are not usually organized
for the purpose of creating friendships between the group
members, but this is a common consequence (King and
Easthope, 1973).
When people relate to one another they are not just
behaving, they act - that is to say, they have a purpose or
purposes in so behaving. This concept of social action, the
subjectively intended meaning of behaviour, is fundamental to
Weber's sociology. 'Action is social in so far as, by virtueofthe
subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or
individuals), it takes into account the behaviour of others and
is thereby orientated in its course' (Weber, 1947). If we wish to
explain a given social· structure we must try to. establish the
subjective meanings of the acting individuals whose relation-
ships constitute the structure. Weber's is a humanistic soci-
ology; the · social behaviour of human beings should be
explained in human terms. To explain the organizational
structure of a school we must ·attempt to understand the
14
subjective meanings of the teachers and pupils in the social
construction of the 'organization'. What subjectively defined
interests are served in their entering into these relation-
ships?
Some possibilities, to be empirically demonstrated (as some
have been and will be described later), are: economic; teachers
are paid, pupils may hope for a job on the basis of passing
exams; and status, the distribution of social honour, respect
among friends and colleagues. Many organized relationships
are power relationships. Power is 'the chance of a man or
number of men to realize their own will in a communal action
even against the resistance of others who are participating in
the action' (Weber, 1948). Where children must attend school
the relationships between pupils and. teachers must involve an
element of power. Waller (1932) dramatically called teaching
'institutionalized domination and subordination'. Subordi-
nates in power may be in fear of coercion (caning is not
uncommon in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of
Ireland), but the exercise of power may be regarded by
subordinates to be legitimate, a right of those who wield it, and
their own obedience a duty. However, compliance with power
does not necessarily involve its being legitimized and Weber
considered that compliance may be defined by the subordinate
to be in his interests. Teachers may have career and preferment
interests in their compliance with headteachers' orders.
This analysis indicates that although the 'smooth running' of
the organization of a school may suggest consensus among its
members, conflict is likely to be an element in the relationships
constituting the organization. Conflict is also part of the
competition for scarce resources. Pupils may compete among
themselves for marks and examination success, which they
may hope not only will gain them high formal status at school,
but also success in the pursuit of economic and status interests
in the job market. The maintenance of the organizational
structure of a school is accomplished by the repeated social
behaviour of its members. Organizational structure is not static
but a process, a continual creation, and given the competition of
15
members for scarce resources (competition makes them scarce,
and scarcitymakes for competition) it is a conflict,process.
A humanistic explanation of why the relationships among
school members are organized as they are must- take into
account the plurality of subjective meanings and interests of
those whose behaviour is so· organized. It follows that any
explanation is likely to be multi~causal, that is, there are likely
to be several reasons why people relate to one another in .the
organized way they do. ·

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) on school organiza~on

It would be wrong to suggest that Durkheim wrote extensively
on school organization, but what he did write is worth noting.
Durkheim is not only one of the undisputed founding fathers
of sociology but perhaps also the founding father of the
sociology of education. In his collected, anthologized lectures
given to student teachers, published as Education and Sociology
(1956), he categorizes education as a 'social fact'- external to
the individual and constraining his behaviour. From this it
follows that 'the school organization' is a social fact -
effectively a social structure. The sociology of education deals
with observed,· selected verified social facts and, according to
Durkheim, is (or should be) concerned with 'disinterested
knowing' and should 'express reality not judge it'. This is very
much in accord with Weber's (1948) insistence on the import~
ance of value~freedom in sociology, the suspension of personal
views and political opinions. Durkheim contrasted the soci~
ology of education with pedagogie, usually translated as educa~
tiona! theory, which 'does .not study systems of education
scientifically but reflects on them in order to provide the
activity of the educator with ideas to guide it'. Some ap~
. proaches to the organization of schools, to be discussed later,
are closer to educational theory. than the sociology of educa~
tion, even when they purport to be part of the latter.
In this same·. volume Durkheim provides a ·number of
definitions of _education: 'Education is the means- by which
16
 society prepares within the children the essential conditions of
its existence'. There is a functionalist elementin this definition,
· in that education is explained in terms of its contribution to the
maintenance of society. If we substitute 'purpose' for 'func-
tion' then it would be hard to disagree witll the proposition
that in any state-provided mass education one official purpose
must be the maintainence of the existing social relationships
called society. The way schools are organized may seem rather
remote from this discussion, but as we shall see some
explanations of school organization are in terms of this societal
'function' of education.
Another of Durkheim's definitions takes us closer to the
school level:
Education is the influence exercised by the adult genera-
tions on those that are not yet ready for social life. Its object
is· to arouse and develop in the· child a certain number of
physical, intellectual and moral states which are demanded
by the political society as a whole and the special miliel!- for
which he is specifically destined.
The deterministic quality of 'special milieu for which he is
specifically intended' perhaps needs modifying in a period of
greater social mobility, but the origins of the concepts of the
allocation and selection 'functions' of education are quite clear,
and these form parts of theories of school organization to be
discussed later.
In the second volume of lectures, Moral Education (1961),
Durkheim makes the distinction between moral and intellectual
education, where the former refers to attempts to create
consensus, allegience to society and to 'appropriate sub-
groups'. To this end Durkheim (slipping towards educational
theory) expresses approval of disciplining pupils by detentions
(but not corporal punishment), orientating. them towards. the
moral authority of the. teacher and leading towards their
internalizing the morality: 'It is by respecting the school rules
that the child learns to respect the rules in general, that he
develops the habit of self~control and restraint simply because
17
 he should control and restrain himself'. He hoped that a
· secular, rational morality would enable what he saw to be the
disruptive consequences of industrialization, the increasing
division of labour, urbanization and social mobility, to be
better coped with.
The third volume of lectures, The Evolution of Educational
Thought (1977), is the most relevant here. Durkheim leaves
aside all the functionalist elements of his other work and
presents a conflict model of the struggle for the control of
French secondary education by competing groups in pursuit of
economic, social and religious interests. One interesting sec-
tion of this detailed analysis concerns the establishment of
Jesuit education as a response to religious competition from
Protestants. Here we see the origins (in France at least) of such
organizational elements as interpersonal academic competition
and the use of the emulation of teachers and high-status pupils,
all in the context of boarding. This study shows a remarkable
convergence with Weberian sociology. When sociologists make
detailed studies of real situations as Durkheim did with
secondary schooling, and where they take into account the
meanings and purposes of the people concerned, then they
tend to make explanations of a multi-causal kind about what
are viewed as conflict processes.

Talcott Parsons (1902-79): the structural-functional or

systems approach to school organization
Parsons's theory of school organization is a small part of his
writings and is best presented in the context of some of
his more general theorizing. An appropriate starting-point is
his definition of a social system as a 'plurality of individual ac-
tors interacting with one another' (Parsons et al., 1953). This
sounds like an acceptable definition of social structure but
Parsons's system is more than this; it is the association of the
structure of social relationships with the functions or outcomes
of those relationships - hence structural-functionalism. Every
social system must solve four basic 'problems' (or meet four
18
'functional imperatives') for its adequate maintenance. These
are:
1 The end (called 'instrumental') of adaptation to external
systems or the environment.
2 The means (called 'consummatory' or 'expressive') of
goal-attainment external to the system.
3 The means of internal integration.
4 The end of latency, the maintenance of internal patterns of
shared values (also called 'pattern maintenance' and
'tension-management').
These problems exist for all systems from the social system
(society) figuratively downwards, so that all structural forms
and their functions are basically alike. From this it follows that
there is a fundamental similarity between an educational
system, the individual schools, the classrooms, and-even the
individual teacher-pupil dyad.
We can see some of these abstract systems problems alluded
to in Parsons's (19Sla) essay on the American school class as a
social system. 'From the point of view of society [the school
class is] an agency of manpower.' This is the school class, and
therefore the school and the educational system, 'adapting' to
this 'need' of society. Education 'functions to internalize in its
pupils both the commitments and capacities of their future
adult roles and ... functions to allocate these human resources
within the role structure of society'. This perhaps is latency in
school leading to goal-attainment outside school. Parsons
(1956) makes specific reference to schools in his typology of
organizations based upon the primacy of function or goal,
which may be economic, as in businesses; political, as .the
government agencies; integrative, such as political parties; or
pattern maintenance, in which category he places schools with
universities and churches.
This is not the place to present an extended critique of
Parsonian structural-functionalism, particularly after so brief a
presentation. However a. number of points should be made
about its adequacy as a theory of school organization. First
19
there is the tendency towards reification. Systems, including
schools, can't have problems or goals- only people may have
problems or seek to fulfil goals. The 'pattern maintenance' and
'tension management', of pupils, that is controlling what they
do, may be a problem for their teachers but not necessarily for
them. This points to the implicit consensus that is part of
Parsons's analysis; conflict is absent or minimal because of the
assumption of patterns of shared values among teachers and
pupils. As lhave already suggested, conflict may be an element
in the process of the construction of school organization even
when apparently running smoothly. In Parsons's analysis the
meanings of the actions of pupils (and teachers) are of little
account as they are socialized, selected and allocated. to meet
the 'needs' of the higher-order occupational system, according
to their (largely) psychological properties of intelligence and
achievement motivation. They are in Garfinkel's (1967) phrase
'cultural dopes', filled up with consensual values which lead
them to regard the system as 'fair'. The stress on the external
relationships between systems neglects internal processes.
Education, school and classroom are explained in terms of
their societal functions. Children as the means of goal attain-
ment, in the adaptation to the external system, are processed in
the 'black box' ofthe school. If there is an echo of Durkheim in
Parsons's analysis it is the Durkheim of Education and
Sociology and Moral Education, not The Evolution of Education-
al Thought.
Parsonian concepts are seldom used in empirical studies of
the organization of schools. What we usually have are exercises
where- rather as I have done here- the attempt has been made
to fit what we know, or think we know, about school processes
into the Parsonian schema. Sugarman's (1969) analysis of 'the
school as the social system' describes a boundary between the
'school' and the 'environment or larger social system' across
which inputs of money, supplies, pupils and teachers flow in,
and outputs of 'all the changes the school has produced; all the
learning of skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour', flow
out. This physical model is posed to have potential for the
20
measurement of organizational efficiency. This kind of think-
ing is found in some of the studies discussed later. Shipman
(1975) takes the part of structural-functionalist:
A successful school has solved two sets of problems. First it
has achieved the goals for which it was set up, or which have
emerged since, and has continually adapted to extreme
demands as these have changed. Secondly, it has integrated
staff and pupils into a community in which there is
minimum tension. Goal achievement, adaptation to external
changes, tension management within, and integration
of its members, are all related fields, all necessary in this
success.
This idealized description contains the kind of tautology and
reification endemic in structural-functionalism. Tautological-
ly, a 'successful school' is never defined independently of the
conditions posed for success. 'Schools' can't have goals. There
is another absurd reification of 'the school' when 'it', which
consists of the relationships between staff and pupils, inte-
grates them into a community.
Despite its limitations structural-functionalism does .make at
least one important point about the organization of schools.
Schools are not 'closed' systems but 'open' ones. If we put
people back into this physical imagery we can say that the
relationships between teachers and pupils which constitute the
organization of a school are not the only relationships they have
or expect to have; that in explaining school-based relationships
we must take into account those that pupils have as friends in
and out of school, at home, and those that they anticipate at
work, in higher education, and in marriage in the future.
Teachers have similar out-of-school relationships and future
expectations. In addition, there are those 'external systems' of
education offices, examination boards and employment. In
Parsonian analysis (and in others too) the demands or 'needs'
of 'superordinate external systems', the 'economy' ·or even
'society', determine the nature of the school and classroom. It
is an empirical task to decide to what extent educational
21
relationships are 'closed' or autonomous with respect to
'external systems'.

Marxist approaches to school organization

Karl Marx (1818-83) did not regard himself as what we would
now call a sociologist. Unlike Durkheim or Weber, he did not
study society in order to explain it, but mainly to change it; his
main purpose was political. Nevertheless, his ideas have been
very influential in sociology, including the sociology of educa-
tion, as well as being evoked in the establishment of new forms
of political societies - all events after his death.
Marx wrote little about education. In his metaphor of
capitalist society, education is part of the 'superstructure'
reflecting the more important economic and material 'infra-
structure', the site of conflict basically between two antagon-
istic classes, the ruling-class owners of the means of pro-
duction, the bourgeoisie, and the wage-slave proletariat.
Education is therefore 'a tool of ruling-class interests'. This is a
great simplification of what is called the political economy
Marxian view, but it is a fair summary of the basic views of
some, but not all, modern Marxist sociologists of education.
This kind of view can be seen in Marx's comment, 'It is
better that working men and working women should not be
able to read and write and do sums than they should receive
education from a teacher in a school run by the state' (see Frith
and Corrigan, 1977). But he did have views about what should
be provided. 'The combination of paid productive labour,
mental education, bodily exercise and polytechnic training will
raise the working class far above the level of the higher and
middle classes' (see Castles and Wustenberg, 1979). In this
connection he admired the tightly organized school set up by
the socialist philanthropist Robert Owen in New Lanark, and
his own 'polytechnic' plan has been incorporated, at various
times, into the organization of education in the Soviet Union
(Grant, 1979).
This kind of Marxian analysis is developed by the French
22
Marxist Althusser (1972). In a capitalist state, not only are the
material conditions of production reproduced, but also the
social relations of production, that is, those of work. Both are
achieved through 'repressive state apparatuses', including the
army, police, law and government, and, increasingly in
'mature capitalist formations', through 'ideological state appar-
atuses' (ISAs), including the family, religion and, most impor-
tantly, education. Education takes children 'squeezed' be-
tween it and the family, imparts skills and the 'ruling-class
ideology', ejecting the mass into 'production' and others into
technical and managerial posts. As Erben and Gleeson (1975)
point out, this analysis is remarkably like Parsons's (1951a),
except that Althusser (a former chairman of the French
Communist .Party) clearly dislikes the capitalist system, whilst
Parsons certainly does not criticize that of America.
Although Bowles and Gintis (1976) do not refer to Althus-
ser, their analysis of Schooling in Capitalist America follows a
similar line, and makes specific reference to school organiza-
tion. The social relations of schooling in capitalist societies,
expressed in hierarchy, selection and ability specialization,
'correspond' to those of the hierarchy and specialization in the
production process. Frith and Corrigan (1977) extend this to
British schools in proposing that uniforms, assemblies and
games all have an 'ideological' function in the 'reproduction of
the relations of production'. This is the view of the organiza-
tion of a school as part of the 'hidden curriculum' (Dale, 1977).
The organization controls pupils and teachers in the here and
now, but its hidden (to them, not to Marxists) prime function
is to serve capitalism.
This Marxist theory of school organization is a structuralist
theory, that is, it deals only with the structure of social
relationships and ignores the meanings of those whose repeated
behaviour is the structure. What teachers and pupils think or
feel about what they do is of little account. As workers and
potential workers they are not aware of their 'true interests',
which in the Marxist view can only be realized by the
overthrow of capitalism. There is little to choose between this
23
'false consciousness' and being the cultural dope of structural-
functionalism. Like Parsons's (1951a) theory it too is func-
tionalist, in that an outcome of education, children leave school
to go to work, is used to explain the previous processes, includ-
ing school organization. It is also a hypostatic explanation, in
that education is not explained in terms of the relationships of
the people concerned, but by something 'underneath' or
'behind it all' - the determining economic infrastructure. It is
therefore also a basically mono-causal explanation.
Weber (1968) considered that one of the basic methods
available to sociologists to test theoretical propositions was the
use of comparative analysis. Bowles and Gintis (1976) and
Frith and Corrigan (1977) propose that certain organizational
forms are characteristic of capitalist societies because of the
nature ofthe capitalist economy. However, school children in
the non-capitalist Soviet Union wear uniforms and play games
(Grant, 1979) and are effectively streamed by ability in the
higher grades (Zajada, 1980). Such organized behaviour is
clearly not a characteristic of a particular kind of economic
base. This is sometimes recognized by western Marxists:
Countries of the Soviet bloc have either (like the USSR)
imported or (like Eastern Europe) inherited a distinct
preference for Western models of industrial technology,
organization and management, and for rewarding workers
according to their position in a social hierarchy of occupa-
tions, rather than according to 'need' or 'work done'. It
follows ... that the Soviet bloc schooling will be shaped in
ways not dissimilar to Western schooling by similar in-
equalities in the system of production. (Bellaby, 1977).
This modifies the Bowles and Gintis thesis. Correspondence
still exists between the social relations of school and of work,
but the nature of the economy does not determine the latter. If
the form of the social relations of work is relatively indepen-
dent of the form of the economy, then the possibility may be
posed that the social relations of education, including school
organization, may have a similar autonomy. This is the view of
24
at least one Soviet commentator (Fillipov, 1977): 'the relative
autonomy of the system of education, its relative independence
from production - and socio-economic factors - is either
overlooked or rendered absolute'. Willis (1977), in his study of
the education of the 'lads', lower working-class boys who take
up unskilled manual occupations, although following a Marxist
perspective is critical of the structuralist approaches of Althus-
ser and others, and he also grants some autonomy to the
'educational paradigm'.
Other Marxists are willing to grant some importance to the
'overt' curriculum in contrast to the structuralist emphasis on
the 'hidden'. The Italian Communist leader Gramsci (1891-
1937) considered that a humanistic education may lead to the
formation of a 'counter-hegemony' to the prevailing 'bourgeois
hegemony' which controls the 'common-sense' 'world view' in
capitalist societies (see Entwistle, 1978). Friere (1972), a
Christian Marxist, was obliged to leave Brazil for helping
peasants to achieve literacy which would have enabled them to
vote. The content of the reading programme (as well as the
relationships between teacher and taught) was intended to
arouse 'revolutionary futurity' and 'conscientization' - the end
of false consciousness.
Many Marxist studies of capitalist education seem to be
based upon comparisons between the present system and a
distant, for some remote, future alternative in a new, as yet
non-existent, communist society. Within their political aims
they therefore, in Durkheim's sense, have an educational
theory about the way things should be.

Social phenomenology, symbolic interaction and school

organization
Social phenomenology and its near relative symbolic interac-
tion are particularly associated with one variety of the 'new'
sociology of education. The long neglect of the sociology of
classrooms has been partly remedied by research, drawing
mainly upon these perspectives (see Delamont's (1976) con-
25
tribution to this series). It has been proposed that these may
also be used in the study of school organization (Dale, 1974;
Greenfield, 1980).
Social phenomenology is mainly derived from the writings of
Alfred Schutz (1899-1959). One of his starting-points was
Weber's (1948) view of sociology as the study of social action,
and the importance of taking into account the subjectively
intended meanings of those whose social behaviour we wish to
explain. In Schutz's (1972) development, social worlds are
based upon 'inter-subjectiviry' - mutually understood, 'nego-
tiated', shared definitions. The 'everyday' or 'common-sense
world' is 'taken for granted' ('what everyone knows'), experi-
enced as organized, pre-existent and non-problematic. Individ-
uals make sense of their experiences through rypifications or
constructs, which are learnt and to some extent pre-existent.
From this perspective Dale (1974) points out that 'the
school' is a social construct, and by implication, such organiza-
tional elements as 'ability groups' and 'pastoral care'. 'Schools
. . . are consciously seen by those acting within them as
constructed, as different and temporary worlds.' Teachers and
pupils do not necessarily hold the same constructs about 'the
school'. In my research most headteachers of secondary
schools defined the activities constituting a school assembly as
promoting consensual, community sentiments; but pupils
commonly defined it as a waste of time (King, 1973).
At least two important implications for the study of school
organization follow from this approach. Although such ac-
tivities as 'streaming' and 'assembly' may be given a 'taken for
granted', non-problematic status by teachers and pupils, the
nature of their constructs presents a problem to be explained.
Since 'organizations are definitions of reality' (Greenfield,
1980), they do not exist 'out there'. Teachers and pupils are
not inside the school organization - constructs of school
organization exist inside them.
The phenomenological approach to the study of education
has been criticized, mainly from a Marxist perspective:
The overemphasis on the notion that reality is socially
26
 constructed seems to have lead to a neglect of the considera-
tion of how and why reality comes to be constructed in
particular ways, and how and why particular constructions
of reality seem to have the power to resist subversion.
(Whitty, 1974)
This important point does indicate the principal weakness of
social phenomenology- the neglect of structure. Organizations
are not just 'definitions of reality' held subjectively by individ-
ual members and shared between them. Organizations are also
their repeated patterns of behaviour, that is social structures. ·
Weber (1948) was well aware that the establishment of
subjective meanings (typifications or constructs) does not in
itself explain social action, which must be made with reference
to the social context of action. Thus headteachers' definitions
of the school assembly as a consensual activity must be
understood in the context of the various ceremonials which
constitute an assembly (King, 1973).
This neglect of structure probably explains why, despite
the advocacy of Dale (1974) and Greenfield (1980), the
phenomenological approach does not seem to have been used
in the empirical study of the organization of real schools.
However, in his case study of a mixed secondary modern
school, Woods (1979) does make primary use of symbolic
interaction. This approach, which was incorporated by Schutz
(1972) in his social phenomenology, was developed (but not so
named) by G. H. Mead (1863-1931). In Mead's perspective we
live not only in a physical environment but also a symbolic one.
Each thing ·in the environment has a learned definition or
'meaning' and a learned emotional response or 'value' (Mead,
1934). Thus schools, teachers and pupils have a physical
existence, but also meanings and values to teachers, pupils and
others.
Woods ( 1979) studied the meanings and values of pupils and
teachers in relation to a number of aspects of school, including
pupils' 'adaptations' to school. His main method was to record
discussions with small groups of pupils about their experiences
of 'school'. These lead to a classification of adaptations,
27
References
Albrow, M. C. (1970) Bureaucracy. London: Pall Mall. 57
Albrow, M. C. (1973) The study of organisations – objectively or bias? In G.
Salaman and K. Thompson (eds) People and Organisations. London:
Longman. 157
Althusser, L. (1972) Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In B. R.
Cosin (ed.) Education, Structure and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 23,
25, 53, 162
Anderson, B. D. (1974) An application of the bureaucratic model to the study
of school administration. Journal of Educational Administration 22, 1. 154
Anderson, J. D. (1968) Bureaucracy in Education. Washington: Johns
Hopkins University Press. 95, 98, 127, 153
Apple, M. and Wexler, P. (1978) Cultural capital and educational
transmissions. Educational Theory 28. 51
Aries, P. (1962) Centuries of Childhood. London: Cape. 50
Auld, R. (1976) William Tyndale Junior and Infants’ Schools. London: Inner
London Education Authority. 77, 122
Bacon, W. (1978) Public Accountability and the Schooling System. London:
Harper & Row. 78
Ball, S.J. (1980) Beachside Comprehensive. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 95, 132, 134, 140–1, 142, 143
Banks, O. (1955) Parity and Prestige in English Secondary Education.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 82, 124–5
Baron, G. (1955) The English notion of the school. Unpublished paper.
University of London, Institute of Education. 80, 85
Baron, G. (1956) Some aspects of the headmaster tradition. Researches
and Studies. Leeds: University of Leeds, Institute of Education. 82, 83, 93
Baron, G. (1980) Research in educational administration in Britain. In Bush .
(eds). 31, 32
Baron, G. and Tropp, A. (1961) Teachers in England and America. In A. H.
Halsey , J.E. Floud and C. A. Anderson (eds) Education, Economy and
Society. New York: Free Press. 83
Barrington, J. M. and Marshall, G.N. (1975) School administration and
educational rituals. Journal of Educational Administration 13, 1. 100, 114
Bates, A. W. (1970) The administration of comprehensive schools. In T. W.
Monks (ed.) Comprehensive Education in Action. Slough: NFER. 88, 95–6
Becher, T. , Eraut, M. and Knight, J. (1981) Policies for Educational
Accountability. London: Heinemann. 127
Bell, C. and Newby, H. (1971) Community Studies. London: Allen & Unwin.
81
Bellaby, P. (1977) The Sociology of Comprehensive Schooling. London:
Methuen. 24
Bellaby, P. (1979) Towards a political economy of decision making in the
classroom. In J. Eggleston (ed.) Teacher Decision Making in the Classroom.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 132
Bennett, N. , Andreae, J. , Hegarty, P. and Wade, B. (1980) Open Plan
Schools. Slough: NFER. 90
Bennett, S. and Wilkie, R. (1973) Structural conflict in school organisation. In
G. Fowler , V. Morris and J. Ozga (eds) Decision making in British
Education. London: Heinemann. 120, 156
Berg, I. (1973) Education and Jobs. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 171
Berg, L. (1968) Risinghill: The Death of a Comprehensive School.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. 77
Berger, P.L. and Berger, B. (1976) Sociology: A Biographical Approach.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. 91
Bernbaum, G. (1971) Heads see themselves as leaders. The Times
Educational Supplement. 1 August. 86
Bernbaum, G. (1973) Counteshorpe College. In Case Studies of Educational
Innovation. Vol. 3. Paris: OECD. 164–5
Bernstein, B. B. (1973) A brief account of the theory of codes. In V. Lee (ed.)
Social Relationships and Language. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
43, 47
Bernstein, B.B. (1975, 1977) Class Codes and Control. Vol. 3. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 36–55, 101, 163–4, 170
Bernstein, B.B. and Davies, W.B. (1969) Some sociological comments on
Plowden. In R. S. Peters (ed.) Perspectives on Plowden. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul. 145
Best, R. , Jarvis, C. and Ribbens, P. (eds) (1980) Perspectives on Pastoral
Care. London: Heinemann. 120
Best, R. , Ribbins, P. , Jarvis, C. and Oddy, D. (1980) Interpretations:
teachers’ views on pastoral care. In Best . (eds). 120
Bidwell, C. E. (1965) The school as a formal organisation. In J. G. March
(ed.) Handbook of Organisations. Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally. 92
Bird, C. , Chessum, R. , Furlong, J. and Johnson, D. (eds) (1980)
Disaffected Pupils. Uxbridge: Brunel University. 89–90
Blakemore, K. and Cooksey, B. (1981) A Sociology of Education for Africa.
London: Allen & Unwin. 91, 123
Blau, P.M. (1955) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. 65–6
Blau, P. M. and Scott, W. R. (1963) Formal Organisations. New York:
Chandler. 68, 97, 100, 153
Bourdieu, P. (1974) The school as a conservative force. In J. Eggleston (ed.)
Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education. London: Methuen.
136
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 23, 24, 52, 64, 65, 102, 110
Brameld, T. (1968) Japan – Culture, Education and Change. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston. 76
Burnett, J.H. (1969) Ceremony rites and economy in the student system of
an American high school. Human Organisation 28, 1.117
Burnham, P. (1968) The deputy head. In B. Allen (ed.) Headship in the
Seventies. Oxford: Blackwell. 29, 96
Burnham, P. (1969) Role theory and educational administration. In G. Baron
and W. Taylor (eds) Educational Administration and the Social Sciences.
London: Athlone Press. 29, 30
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London:
Tavistock. 66
Bush, T. , Glatter, R. , Goodey, J. and Riches, C. (eds) (1980) Approaches
to School Management. London: Harper & Row. 32
Calahan, R. E. (1962) Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 83
Campbell, W.J. (1965) School size: its influence on pupils. Journal of
Education Administration 3, 1. 153
Carlson, R.O. (1961) Succession and performance among school
administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly 6. 77
Carnoy, M. and Werthein, J. (1977) Socialist ideology and the transformation
of Cuban education. In Karabel and Halsey (eds). 113
Castles, S. and Wustenberg, W. (1979) The Education of the Future.
London: Pluto Press. 22, 76
Cherkaoui, M. (1977) Bernstein and Durkheim. Harvard Educational Review
47. 44, 51
Cicourel, A. V. and Kitsuse, J. I. (1963) The Educational Decision Makers.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. 143–4
Clark, B. R. (1960) The Open Door College. New York: McGraw-Hill. 143
Coard. B. (1971) How the West Indian Child is made Educationally Sub-
normal. London: New Beacon. 150
Cohen, A. K. (1955) Delinquent Boys. New York: Free Press. 115, 135
Cohen, L. (1970) School size and headteachers’ bureaucratic role
conceptions. Educational Review 23, 1.155
Coleman, J. S. (1961) The Adolescent Society. New York: Free Press. 117,
129
Collins, R. (1975) Conflict Sociology. London: Academic Press. 12, 13, 57,
64, 97
Collins, R. (1977) Some comparative principles of educational stratification.
Harvard Educational Review 47. 63–64
Collins, R. (1978) The Credential Society. New York: Academic Press. 171
Corwin, R. G. (1965) A Sociology of Education. New York: Apple-Century-
Crofts. 97, 98
Corwin, R. G. (1969) Patterns of organisational conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly 14. 95, 128, 155
Crowther Report (1959, 1960) 15–19. London: HMSO. 73
Cusick, P. A. (1973) Inside High School. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston. 87, 100
Daft, R. L. and Becker, S.W. (1978) The Innovative Organisation. Oxford:
Elsevier. 165
Dale, R. (1974) Phenomenological perspectives and the sociology of the
school. Educational Review 25. 26, 27
Dale, R. (1977) The hidden curriculum of teaching. In D. Gleeson (ed.)
Identity and Structure. Driffield: Nafferton. 23, 162
Dale, R. R. and Griffiths, S. (1965) Downstream. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul. 132–3
David, M. (1973) Approaches to organisational change in LEAs. Educational
Administration Bulletin 1. 77, 165
Davies, B. (1976) Social Control and Education. London: Methuen. 47, 54
Davies, B. (1977) Meanings and motives in ‘going mixed ability’. In B. Davies
and R. G. Cave (eds) Mixed Ability Teaching in the Secondary School.
London: Ward Lock. 139
Davies, B. (1981) Schools as organizations and the organization of
schooling. Educational Analysis 3, 1. 10
Davis, K. and Moore, W. E. (1945) Some principles of stratification.
American Sociological Review 10. 123, 124
Deem R. (1978) Women and Schooling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
163
Delamont, S. (1976) Interaction in the Classroom. (2nd edn 1983) London:
Methuen. 25
Delamont, S. (1980) Sex Roles and the School. London: Methuen. 147, 148
Derr, C.B. and Gabarro, J. J. (1972) An organisational contingency theory
for education. Education Administrative Quarterly 8. 103
Dore, R. (1976) The Diploma Disease. London: Allen & Unwin. 171
Douglas, J. W. B. (1964) The Home and the School. London: MacGibbon &
Kee. 126, 132, 136, 137, 138
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 43
Driver, G. (1981) Classroom stress and school achievement. In A. James
and R. Jeffcoate (eds) The School in the Multicultural Society. London:
Harper & Row. 150, 151
Duke, D.L. (1978) Looking at the school as a rule-governed organisation.
Journal of Research and Development in Education 11, 4. 102–103, 120
Durkheim, E. (1951) Suicide. New York: Free Press. 67
Durkheim, E. (1956) Education and Sociology. New York: Free Press. 16,
20, 25
Durkheim, E. (1961) Moral Education. New York: Free Press. 17, 20, 37, 44,
101, 103
Durkheim, E. (1964) The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Free
Press. 42, 43, 44, 49, 81, 82
Durkheim, E. (1968) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: Allen
& Unwin. 40–1
Durkheim, E. (1977) The Evolution of Educational Thought. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 18, 20, 44
Durojaiye, S.M. (1971) Social context of immigrant pupils learning English.
Educational Research 13. 151
Easthope, G. (1975) Community, Hierarchy and Open Education. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 67, 83, 86, 90, 95, 99, 119, 153, 155–6
Easthope, G. , Bell, A. and Wilkes, J. (1976) Bernstein’s sociology of the
school. Research Intelligence 1. 44, 47
Easton, W. A. G. (1969) Analysis of a college. Technical Journal 7. 86
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1953) Bureaucracy, bureaucratization,
debureaucratization. Administrative Science Quarterly 4. 79
Elliott, K. (1970) An African School. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 106
Entwistle, H. (1978) Antonio Gramsci. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 25
Equal Opportunities Commission (1982) Gender and the secondary school
curriculum. Bulletin No. 6. 148, 149
Erben M. and Gleeson, D. (1975) Education as reproduction. Educational
Studies 1, 2. 23
Esland, G.M. (1971) Teaching and learning as the organisation of
knowledge. In M.F.D. Young (ed.) Knowledge and Control. London:
Macmillan. 123
Etzioni, A. (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations. New
York: Free Press. 68–71, 104
Etzioni, A. (ed.) (1969) The Semi-Professions and their Organisation. New
York: Free Press. 98
Fillipov, F. R. (1977) Social structure and systems of education. In A.
Kloskowska and G. Martinotti (eds) Education in a Changing Society.
London: Sage Publications. 25
Finlayson, D. (1975) Organisation climate. Research Intelligence 1, 1. 31
Fitton, P. (1974) School Does Matter. London: Right to Learn Group. 120,
128
Floud, J. E. and Halsey, A. H. (1961) English secondary schools and the
supply of labour. In A. H. Halsey , J.E. Floud and C. A. Anderson (eds)
Education, Economy and Society. New York: Free Press. 125
Floud, J.E. and Scott, W. (1961) Recruitment to teaching in England and
Wales. In A. H. Halsey , J.E. Floud and C. A. Anderson (eds) Education,
Economy and Society. New York: Free Press. 124
Ford, J. (1970) Social Class and the Comprehensive School. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 119
Friere, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 25
Frith, S. and Corrigan, P. (1977) The politics of education. In M. F. D. Young
and G. Whitty (eds) Society, State and Schooling. London: Falmer Press.
22, 23, 24, 115, 162
Gaertner, K. (1980) The structure of organisational careers. Sociology of
Education 53, 1. 98
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
20
Getzels, J. and Guba, E. G. (1957) Social behaviour and the administrative
process. School Review 65. 33–34
Gibson, R. (1977) Bernstein’s classification and framing. Higher Education
Review 9. 45, 46, 47
Glatter, R. (1972) Management Development for the Education Profession.
London: Harrap . 34
Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums. New York: Doubleday. 104–10
Goffman, E. (1969) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Harmondsworth: Penguin . 30–8
Gorbutt, D. (1972) The new sociology of education. Education for Teaching
89. 55
Gordon, W. C. (1957) The Social System of the High School. New York:
Free Press. 66, 128
Gouldner, A. W. (1954) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York:
Antioch. 66, 98
Gouldner, A. W. (1959) Organisational analysis. In R. K. Merton , L. Broom
and L. S. Cottrell , Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books. 147
Grant, N. (1979) Soviet Education (4th edn) Harmondsworth: Penguin. 14,
22, 24, 76, 102, 113, 118, 123, 130, 131, 141
Gray, J. (1981) School effectiveness research. Educational Research 24, 1.
159
Greenfield, T. B. (1980) Theory about organisation. In Bush . (eds). 26, 27
Gross, N. , Giacquinta, J.B. and Bernstein, M. (1971) Implementing
Organisational Innovations. New York: Basic Books. 165
Gross, N. and Herriott, R. E. (1965) Staff Leadership in Public Schools. New
York: John Wiley. 88–9, 157
Gross, N. , Mason, W. S. and McEachern, A. W. (1958) Explorations in Role
Analysis. New York: John Wiley. 77
Gross, N. and Trask, A. E. (1976) The Sex Factor and the Management of
Schools. New York: John Wiley. 99
Halpin, A. W. (1966) Theory and Research in Administration. London:
Macmillan . 30–1, 161
Hargreaves, A. (1977) Progressivism and pupil autonomy. Sociological
Review 25. 54
Hargreaves, D.H. (1967) Social Relations in a Secondary School. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 10, 39, 73, 134, 141, 144
Hargreaves, D. H. , Hestor, S. K. and Mellor, F. J. (1975) Deviancy in
Classrooms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 102
Harker, R. K. (1970) Social class factors in a New Zealand comprehensive
school. Educational Research 13. 132
Henry, J. (1966) Culture Against Man. London: Tavistock. 93, 129
Hicks, H. G. (1967) The Management of Organisations. London: McGraw-
Hill. 34
Hilsum, S. and Start, K. B. (1974) Promotion and Careers in Teaching.
Slough: NFER. 59, 94, 99
Himmelweit, H. T. (1966) Social background, intelligence and school
structure. In J. E. Meade and A. S. Parkes (eds) Genetic and Environmental
Factors in Human Ability. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 117, 132
Hodges, L. (1981) Out in the Open? The School Records Debate.
London: Writers and Readers . 127
Hollingshead, A. B. (1949) Elmtown’s Youth. London: John Wiley. 79
Hollister, D.C. (1979) School bureaucratisation as a response to parents’
demands. Urban Education 14, 2. 79
Holly, D.N. (1965) Profiting from a comprehensive. British Journal of
Sociology 16. 132, 135
Horobin, G. . (1967) The social differentiation of ability. Sociology 1. 138
Hoyle, E. (1965) Organisational analysis in the field of education.
Educational Research 7. 12, 29
Hoyle, E. (1970) Planned organisational change. Research in Education 3.
165
Hughes, P. M. (1980) Pastoral care: the historical context. In Best . (eds).
119
Illich, I. (1972) Deschooling Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 65
Jackson, B. (1964) Streaming: An Education System in Miniature.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul . 132, 134, 146
Jackson, L. A. (1977) The myth of elaborated and restricted codes. In B.R.
Cosin . (eds) School and Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 54
Jackson, P. W. (1968) Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston. 101
Jencks, C. . (1973) Inequality. London: Allen Lane. 158
Kahl, J. (1953) ‘Common man’ boys. Harvard Educational Review 23, 3. 143
Kalton, G. (1966) The Public Schools – A Factual Survey. London: Longman
. 107, 110
Karabel, J. and Halsey. A. H. (eds) (1977) Power and Ideology in Education.
New York: Oxford University Press. 51, 55
Katz, F. E. (1965) The school as a complex social organisation. Harvard
Educational Review 34. 92
Katz, M.B. (1971) Class, Bureaucracy and Schools. New York: Praeger. 64,
83
Keddie, N. (1971) Classroom knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (ed.) Knowledge
and Control. London: Macmillan. 133
Keddie, N. (ed.) (1973) Tinker, Tailor – The Myth of Cultural Deprivation.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. 123
Khan, V. S. (1977) The Pakistanis. In J.L. Watson (ed.) Between Two
Cultures. London: Blackwell. 151
King, R. A. (1969) Values and Involvement in a Grammar School. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 38, 39, 83, 119, 132, 134, 135, 146
King, R. A. (1971) Unequal access in education – sex and social class.
Social and Economic Administration 5. 148
King, R. A. (1973) School Organisation and Pupil Involvement. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul . 26, 27, 37, 40, 41, 53, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 70, 72,
80, 85, 86, 87, 89, 100, 102, 103, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137,
139, 140, 142, 144, 146, 147–8, 149, 153, 154, 156, 157
King, R. A. (1976a) Bernstein’s sociology of the school: some propositions
tested. British Journal of Sociology 27, 4. 48–49
King, R. A. (1976b) School and College: Studies of Post-sixteen Education.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 84, 85, 86, 91, 97, 112, 120, 126, 168,
170
King, R. A. (1978) All Things Bright and Beautiful? A Sociological Study of
Infants’ Classrooms. Chichester: John Wiley. 51, 73, 79, 92, 93, 111, 115,
127, 128, 145, 146, 148
King, R.A. (1979) The search for the ‘invisible’ pedagogy. Sociology 13, 3.
51–2
King, R. A. (1980a) Weberian perspectives and the study of education.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 1, 1. 10
King, R. A. (1980b) Real groups and false aggregates in educational
research. Educational Studies 6, 3. 137, 138, 140, 159
King, R. A. (1981a) Secondary schools: some changes of a decade.
Educational Research 23, 3. 99
King, R. A. (1981b) Bernstein’s sociology of the school: a further testing.
British Journal of Sociology 2, 2. 163
King, R. A. (1982a) Sex composition of staff, authority and collegiality in
secondary schools. Research in Education 26. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 155
King, R. A. (1982b) Organisation change in secondary schools: an action
approach. British Journal of Sociology of Education 3, 1. 12, 72, 78, 90, 126,
127, 129, 139, 142, 146, 149, 156, 163, 166–71, 172
King, R. A. and Easthope, G. (1973) Social class and friendship choice in
school. Research in Education 4. 14, 135
Klein, J. (1965) Samples from English Cultures. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul. 39
Kluckholn, C. (1964) Mirror for Man. New York: Premier. 37
Lacey, C. (1970) Hightown Grammar. Manchester: Manchester University
Press. 37, 39, 73, 132, 134, 136, 141
Lacey, C. (1974) Destreaming in a ‘pressured’ academic environment. In J.
Eggleston (ed.) Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education.
London: Methuen. 139
Lambart, A. M. (1976) The sisterhood. In M. Hammersley and P. Woods
(eds) The Process of Schooling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 142, 149
Lambert, R. (1966) Sociological introduction to Kalton (1966). 105
Lambert, R. , Bullock, R. and Millham, S. (1973) The informal social system.
In R. Brown (ed.) Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change. London:
Tavistock. 70
Lambert, R. with Bullock, R. and Millham, S. (1975) The Chance of a
Lifetime? London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 107, 108, 109, 110
Lambert, R. , Hipkin, J. and Stagg, S. (1968) New Wine in Old Bottles.
Occasional Paper on Social Administration No. 28. London: Bell. 104, 105,
107, 108
Lander, T. and Meyers, J. (1977) Essentials of School Management.
London: Saunders. 65
Leat, D. (1972) Misunderstanding Verstehen. Sociological Review 20. 161
Leiter, J. (1981) Perceived teacher autonomy and the meaning of
organisational control. Sociological Quarterly 22. 156
Levinson, D. J. (1959) Role, personality and social structure. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 58. 28
Linton, R. (1936) The Study of Man. New York: Appleton. 28
Little, A.N. (1978) Schools and race. In Five Views of Multi-racial Britain.
London: Commission for Racial Equality. 150
Lortie, D.C. (1975) School-teacher – A Sociological Analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 91, 130
Lunn, J. C. B. (1970) Streaming in the Primary School. Slough: NFER. 132,
139–40, 148
Lunn, J. B. (1982) Junior schools and their organizational policies.
Educational Research 24, 4. 24, 4
McCall, C. (1980) Ways of providing for the low achiever in secondary
school. In E.C. Raybould , B. Roberts and K. Wedell (eds) Helping the Low
Achiever in the Secondary School. Educational Review Occasional
Publications No. 7. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. 144
Mack, E.C. (1938) Public Schools and British Opinion, 1780–1860. London:
Methuen . 81, 105, 116
Makins, V. (1975) The story of Countesthorpe College. The Times
Educational Supplement, 16 and 23 June. 165
Mardle, G. and Walker, M. (1979) Autonomy and organisation: a theoretical
perspective on teacher decisions. In J. Eggleston (ed.) Teacher Decision-
making in the Classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 103
Marsden, D. (1969) Which comprehensive principle? Comprehensive
Education 13. 113
Marshall, T.H. (1963) Sociology at the Crossroads. London: Heinemann. 124
Marson, D. (1973) Children’s Strikes in 1911. History Workshop Pamphlet
No. 9. Oxford: Ruskin College. 114
Mays, J.B. , Quine, W. and Pickett, K. (1968) School of Tomorrow. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 95, 97, 142
Mead, G. H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. 27
Mennell, S. (1980) Sociological Theory. London: Nelson. 30, 66
Mercurio, J. A. (1974) Caning: an educational ritual. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Sociology 10, 1. 66, 70, 112, 115
Merton, R. K. (1957) The role-set. Problems in sociological theory. British
Journal of Sociology 8. 29
Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul. 65, 109, 136, 137
Mitchell, G. D. (1964) Education, ideology and social change in England. In
G. K. Zollschan and W. Hursch (eds) Explorations in Social Change.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 82
Moeller, G. H. and Charters, W. W. (1966) Relation of bureaucratisation to
sense of power among teachers. Administrative Science Quarterly 10. 156
Newbold, D. (1977) Ability Grouping. The Banbury Enquiry. Slough: NFER.
140
Newcombe, N. (1977) Europe at School. London: Methuen. 76, 86
Newell, P. (ed.) (1972) A Last Resort? Corporal Punishment in Schools.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. 114
Newson, J. and Newson, E. (1976) Seven Years Old in the Home
Environment. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 117
Norwood, C. and Hope, A. H. (1909) The Higher Education of Boys in
England. London: Murray. 81
Parkin, F. (1979) Marxism and Class Theory – a Bourgeois Critique. London:
Tavistock. 171
Parsons, T. (1951a) The school class as a social system: some of its
functions in American society. Harvard Educational Review 29. 19, 23, 24,
28, 44, 128, 162
Parsons, T. (1951b) The Social System. New York: Free Press. 33
Parsons T. (1956) A sociological approach to the theory of organisations.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1 and 2. 19, 69
Parsons, T. , Bales, R. F. and Shils, E. A. (eds) (1953) Working Papers on
the Theory of Action. New York: Free Press. 18
Plowden Report (1967) Children and their Primary Schools. London: HMSO.
78, 138, 145
Preece, P. F. W. (1980) Some problems in the analysis of observational
data. In Perspectives 1. Exeter: University of Exeter. 158
Pring, R. (1975) Bernstein’s classification and framing of educational
knowledge. Scottish Educational Studies 7. 46, 47
Public Schools’ Commission (1968) First Report. London: HMSO. 110
Pugh, D. S. , Hickson, D.J. , Hinings, C. R. and Turner, C. (1968)
Dimensions of organisational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 13.
67, 112, 126
Punch, M. (1974) The sociology of an anti-institution. British Journal of
Sociology 25. 60
Punch, M. (1977) Progressive Retreat. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 39, 60, 100, 111
Pusey, M. R. (1976) Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Sydney: John Wiley. 77–8,
122
Quine, W.G. (1974) Polarised cultures in comprehensive schools. Research
in Education 12. 134, 135
Radical Statistics Group (1982) Reading Between Numbers. London:
BSSRS Publications. 162
Reid, M. , Barnett, B.R. and Rosenberg, H. A. (1974) A Matter of Choice.
Slough: NFER. 142
Reid, M.I. , Clunies-Ross, L.R. , Goacher, B. and Vile, C. (1981) Mixed
ability teaching. Educational Research 24, 1. 139
Reynolds, D. (1978) When pupils and teachers refuse a truce. In G.
Murghan and G. Pearson (eds) Working Class Youth Culture. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 116, 156–7
Richardson, E. (1973) The Teacher, the School and the Task of
Management. London: Heinemann. 30, 34
Rist, R. C. (1973) The Urban School: A Factory for Failure. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press. 103
Ross, J.M. , Burton, W. J. , Evison, P. and Robertson, T. S. (1972) A Critical
Appraisal of Comprehensive Education. Slough: NFER. 117, 134, 153
Rutter, M. , Maughan, B. , Mortimore, P. and Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen
Thousand Hours. Secondary Schools and their Effects on Pupils. London:
Open Books. 158–62
Sarah, E. , Scott, M. and Spender, D. (1980) The education of feminists –
the case for single sex schools. In D. Spender and E. Sarah (eds) Learning
to Lose: Sexism and Education. London: The Women’s Press. 149
Schutz, A. (1972) The Phenomenology of the Social World. London:
Heinemann . 26, 27, 57, 66, 71
Shartle, C. L. (1967) A theoretical framework for the study of behaviour in
organisations. In A.W. Halpin (ed) Administrative Theory in Education.
London: Collier-Macmillan. 153
Shaw, K. E. (1966) Why no sociology of schools? Education for Teaching
69. 10, 65
Shipman, M. (1975) The Sociology of the School. London: Longman. 21
Simon, B. (1966) Education and the Labour Movement. Vol. 2. London:
Lawrence & Wishart. 131
Simpson, R. L. and Simpson, I. H. (1969) Women and bureaucracy in the
semi-professions. In A. Etzioni (ed.) The Semi-Professions and their
Organisation. New York: Free Press. 98, 99
Skinner, D. (1973) Streaming in a Communist country. Scottish Educational
Studies 5, 2. 131
Smith, L.M. and Keith, P.R. (1971) Anatomy of Educational Innovation. New
York: John Wiley. 165
Spender, D. and Sarah, E. (eds) (1980) Learning to Lose: Sexism and
Education. London: The Women’s Press. 99
Squibb, P. G. (1973) The concept of intelligence. Sociological Review 21.
123
Start, K. B. (1961) Games performance of a grammar school boy. British
Journal of Educational Psychology 31. 117
Stone, M. (1981) Education of the Black Child in Britain. London: Fontana .
151
Stubbs, M. (1976) Language, Schools and Classrooms. (2nd edn 1983)
London: Methuen. 36
Sugarman, B.N. (1969) The school as a social system. Moral Education 1, 2.
20
Swidler A. (1979) Organisation Without Authority. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. 100, 103, 122
Taylor, F. (1974) Race, School and Community. Slough: NFER. 150
Taylor, W. (1969) Issues and problems in training the school administrator.
In G. Baron and W. Taylor (eds) Educational Administration and the Social
Sciences. London: Athlone Press. 32
Thomas, W. I. (1928) The Child in America. New York: Knopf. 138, 145
Tibbenham, A. , Essen, J. and Fogelman, K. (1978) Ability grouping and
school characteristics. British Journal of Educational Studies 26, 1. 139
Tipton, B. F. (1973) Conflict and Change in a Technical College. London:
Hutchinson . 85
Todd, R. and Dennison, W. F. (1978) The changing role of the deputy
headteacher. Educational Review 30, 3. 96
Tonnies, F. (1955) Community and Association. New York: Harper & Row.
81, 84
Troyna, B. S. (1978) Race and streaming. Educational Review 30. 150
Turner, C.H. (1969) An organisational analysis of a secondary modern
school. Sociological Review 17. 68
Vaughan, M. and Archer, M. S. (1971) Social Conflict and Educational
Change in England and France. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 63
Wakeford, J. (1969) The Cloistered Elite. London: Macmillan. 73, 107, 108,
109
Waller, W. (1932) The Sociology of Teaching. New York: John Wiley. 15, 40,
42, 100, 114
Webb, J. (1962) The sociology of a school. British Journal of Sociology 13,
3. 115
Weber, M. (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London:
Allen & Unwin. 63, 115
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation.
Translated by A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons . New York: Free Press. 14,
97
Weber, M. (1948) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Translated by H.
Garth and C. W. Mills. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 14, 15, 16, 26, 27,
34, 57–62, 68, 79, 81, 82, 86, 93, 98, 103, 112, 126, 127, 154
Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive
Sociology. New York: Bedminster . 24, 155, 157, 160, 164, 166
Weinberg, I. (1967) The English Public Schools. London: Atherton . 81, 105,
106, 116, 117
Wellish, J.B. , MacQueen, A. H., Carriere, R. A. and Duck, G. A. (1978)
School management and organisation in successful schools. Sociology of
Education 51, 3. 158
Welton, J. (1979) Comprehensive education and the egalitarian dream.
Educational Administration 7, 2. 132, 135, 142
Werthman, C. (1963) Delinquents in schools. Berkeley Journal of Sociology
8. 129
Whitbread, N. (1972) The Evolution of the Nursery-Infant School. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 50
White, J. (1968) Instruction for obedience? New Society 292. 53
Whitty, G. (1974) Sociology and the problem of radical educational change.
In M. Flude and J. Ahier (eds) Educability, Schools and Ideology. London:
Croom Helm. 27
Wilkinson, R. H. (1963) The gentlemanly ideal and the maintenance of a
political élite. Sociology of Education 37. 82
Wilkinson, R. H. (1966) The Prefects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 63
Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labour. London: Saxon House. 25, 53, 73, 123,
129, 170
Willis, Q. (1980) The work activity of school principals. Journal of
Educational Administration 18, 1. 18, 1
Wilson, B. R. (1962) The teacher’s role: a sociological analysis. British
Journal of Sociology 13. 91
Wober, M. (1971) English Girls’ Boarding Schools. London: Allen Lane. 110
Woods, P. (1979) The Divided School. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
27–8, 127–8, 142
Yates, A. (ed.) (1966) Grouping in Education. London: John Wiley. 130–1
Young, M. F. D. (1971) An approach to the study of curricula as socially
organised knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (ed.) Knowledge and Control.
London: Macmillan. 44, 125
Zajada, J. (1980) Educational and social stratification in the Soviet Union.
Comparative Education 16, 1. 16, 1