Search

This paper offers a framework for the sociological study of formal education, with particular reference to the social history of the United States. After a brief discussion of American interpretations of the role of education in society, the paper focuses on how groups and individuals have shaped and used formal education as part of their efforts to achieve social mobility or maintain positions on the social scene. The social groups which sponsor educational programs, the professional groups which do the teaching, and the students who constitute their clienteles are explored in turn, with special attention to the educational consequences of conflicting social interests. To THE GREAT disadvantage of those working in the sociology of education, the problem of the relation of education to the society as a whole has been out of fashion for about fifty years. Since the period when many social theorists abandoned their strong and explicit interest in social reform, the social analysis of education has appeared as either a marginal topic in the work of general sociologists or a vital but narrowed problem in research (by sociologists of education and others) on public schooling, higher education, and the few other educational areas to which public concern has directed attention.' In the spirit of broadening argument and research, this paper offers a framework or series of questions for the sociological study of education-a way of analyzing how new kinds of formal education arise and how they acquire their particular characteristics. My approach is socio-historic, focusing on how long-term American social patterns have helped to shape American education. The notion of education which I employ is purposefully broad, although this particular discussion concentrates on formal education. I have not attempted a "complete" interpretation of American education. Rather, I have tried to point out crucial questions which

This paper provides an overview of policy issues regarding staff development programs and incentives in order to increase motivation and productivity in educational programs.

∗ This lecture was originally given as a paper at a Symposium on Curriculum planning and development for upper secondary education, held at Karlskrona, Sweden, in May 1972, and organised by the Council of Europe.

*Paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the National Council for Jewish Education, May, 1960. It is an evaluation of the section on Teacher Education in the Reports of the National Study of Jewish Education by A. M. Dushkin and U. Z. Engleman, published by the American Association for Jewish Education.

THIS paper was prepared for educators primarily concerned with the development of an informal adult educational program in public policy. The framework is designed from an educational operations point of view: What do you teach, who do you teach, how do you teach, and how well do you teach? I have tried to erect a sort of categorical scaffolding that makes it easier to pinpoint some of the elements that might well be included. I have tried to put these into nice, neat, little boxes. In actual practice, things are not that simple. The framework submitted for your consideration, should be looked upon as an alternative framework. You well know that an educator tends to employ methods that fit his endowments. This framework reflects my observations and experiences over a period of years. The biases and prejudices that have crept in are those of an educator who has enjoyed operating in the public policy making arena for a number of years.

Policy Sciences are making challenging “revolutionary” claims, and these are critically reviewed. Note is taken of the limited domain of the field, to public policy making, and the advisability for such a basis for differentiating this professional subgroup is questioned. There is an attempt to distinguish between the various schools and antecedents of Policy Sciences. In this paper a technological perspective is taken. What are the differentiating skills and technologies Policy Sciences promises to bring to its clients? Is intersector awareness, interdisciplinarity, and the application of the behavioral sciences a Policy Sciences monopoly or the natural development of systems technologies in a changing environment? The negative mode of comparison of Policy Sciences with Systems Analysis and Systems Engineering as a basis for building this new profession is criticized as inadequate and misleading. An analogy is made, between the checkered history of Operations Research, and Policy Sciences, with the implication that many of the same mistakes are being made. Policy Science perspectives that exclusively emphasize public top level policy making are criticized as too limited. The lack of and need for Policy Science analysis of the strategies for attempting to introduce and integrate Policy Sciences into institutions is pointed out. The potential contributions and role of Policy Sciences are analyzed and related to existing and developing Management Science perspectives. A plea is made for unity in place of competition.