Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 335–352 | Cite as

Educational reform as a dynamic system of problems and solutions: Towards an analytic instrument

  • Johan Luttenberg
  • Thérèse Carpay
  • Wiel Veugelers
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Large-scale educational reforms are difficult to realize and often fail. In the literature, the course of reform and problems associated with this are frequently discussed. The explanations and recommendations then provided are so diverse that it is difficult to gain a comprehensive overview of what factors are at play and how to take them into consideration. In this article, a model to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis of educational reforms is presented. Education is conceptualized as a social system and educational reform thus as the manner in which this social system adapts to a changing context. The upper secondary education reforms undertaken in the 1990s in the Netherlands are adopted as a test case to evaluate the utility of the model. The results of the study paint a picture of educational reform as a loosely organized system of problems and solutions. The possibilities and potential limitations of the model are discussed in closing.

Keywords

Educational reform Classification and framing Parsons's system theory Education in the Netherlands  Educational policy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baum, R. C. (1976). Communication and media. In J. J. Loubser, R. C. Baum, A. Effrat, & V. M. Lidz (Eds.), Explorations in general theory in social science: Essays in honor of Talcott Parsons (Vol. 2, pp. 533–556). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control, new directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47–69). London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Broadfood, P. (2009). The future of educational change. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capra, F. (1996). Het levensweb. [The Web of Life]. Utrecht: Kosmos-Z&K Uitgevers B.V.Google Scholar
  5. Carpay, T. (2010). Anders kijken naar het studiehuis. Een analysemodel voor onderwijsvernieuwing [A different look at the study house: An analytic model for educational reform]. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.Google Scholar
  6. Carpay, T., & Luttenberg, J. (2010). Anders kijken naar het studiehuis. Een analysemodel voor onderwijsvernieuwing. [A different look at the study house: An analytic model for educational reform]. Paper presented at Educational Research Days Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting work, lives and effectiveness. Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Ellemers, J. E. (1977). Functionele analyse [Functional analysis]. In Sociologische stromingen [Sociological schools] (pp. 27–54). Utrecht: Het Spectrum/Intermediair.Google Scholar
  10. Fernandez, T., Ritchie, T., & Barker, M. (2008). A sociocultural analysis of mandated curriculum change: The implementation of new senior physics curriculum in New Zealand schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(2), 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fink, D. (2003). The law of unintended consequences: The ‘real’ cost of top-down reform. Journal of Educational Change, 4, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gellert, U. (2005). Parents: Support or obstacle for curriculum innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gitlin, A., & Margonis, R. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103, 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). The Scope of the curriculum field. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), Curriculum inquiry (pp. 17–42). New York, N.Y.: Mc Graw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Goodson, I. F. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodson, I. (2005). Change processes and historical periods: An international perspective. In W. Veugelers & R. Bosman (Eds.), De strijd om het curriculum: Onderwijssociologische perspectieven op inhoud, vorm en zeggenschap (pp. 19–30). Garant: AntwerpenApeldoorn.Google Scholar
  19. Goodson, I. (2008). Schooling, curriculum, narrative and the social future. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), The future of educational change: International perspectives (pp. 123–135). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from Successful and unsuccessful implementations of school reform programs. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (Eds.). (2009). Change wars. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (Eds.). (2009). Fourth way. The inspiring future for educational change. Thoasand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, A. (2009). Does politics help or hinder educational change? Journal of Educational Change, 10, 63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Knoppert, R., & Cornelisse, W. (2000). Van metafoor naar werkelijkheid: voorbereiding en invoering van de nieuwe tweede fase van havo en vwo [From metaphor to reality: Preparation and implementation of the new second phase for upper secondary education]. Den Haag: PMVO.Google Scholar
  26. Levin, B. (2009). Does politics help or hinder educational change? Journal of Educational Change, 10, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lodge, C., & Reed, J. (2003). Transforming school improvement now and for the future. Journal of Educational Change, 4, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luhmann, N. (1985). Sociale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. [Social systems. outline of a general theory]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Matthijssen, M. A. J. M. (1982). De elite en de mythe, Een sociologische analyse van strijd om onderwijsverandering [The elite and the myth: A sociological analysis of the fight for educational change]. Deventer: van Loghum Slaterus.Google Scholar
  31. Nespor, J. (2002). Networks and contexts of reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parliamentary Research Commission Educational Reform. (2008a). Tijd voor Onderwijs [Time for Education—Final Report] Eindrapport. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  33. Parliamentary Research Commission Educational Reform. (2008b). Verslagen van openbare hoorzittingen van 21–28 November 2007, In Deel A [Reports of Public Hearings on 21-28 November 2007, Part A]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  34. Parliamentary Research Commission Educational Reform. (2008c). Verslagen van openbare hoorzittingen van 1, 3 en 4 oktober 2007, In Deel B [Reports of Public Hearings on 1, 3, and 4 October 2007, Part B]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  35. Parsons, T. (1959). General theory in sociology. In K. Merton (Ed.), Sociology today: Problems and prospects (pp. 3–38). New York: Basic books inc.Google Scholar
  36. Pleijter, A. R. J. P. (2006). Typen en logica van kwalitatieve inhoudsanalyse in de communicatiewetenschap [Types and logic of qualitative content analysis in communication science]. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix.Google Scholar
  37. Priestley, M. (2010). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Educational Change. Google Scholar
  38. Rowan, B. (2008). Does the school improvement “industry” (organizations providing schools and governing agencies with information, training, materials, and programmatic resources relevant to instructional improvement problems) help or prevent deep and sound change? Journal of Educational Change, 9, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (2006). Curriculum coherence and national control of education: Issue or non-issue. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(6), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schrats, M., & Blossing, U. (2005). Should pupils be able to make decisions about school change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seller, W. (2005). Schools and school districts in educational reform: Examining the space in-between. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoll, L. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action: Response to Michael Fullan. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.Google Scholar
  46. Teodoro, A., & Estrella, E. (2010). Curriculum policy in Portugal (1995–2007): Global agendas and regional and national reconfigurations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(5), 621–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Townsend, T., & Bates, R. (2007). Teacher education in times of change: Globalization, standards and professionalism. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Tyler, W. (1995). Decoding school reform: Bernstein’s market-oriented pedagogy and postmodern power. In A. R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Knowledge and pedagogy, the sociology of Basil Bernstein (pp. 237–258). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  50. Tyler, W. (1999). Pedagogic identities and educational reform in the 1990s: The cultural dynamics of national curricula. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp. 262–289). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  51. van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veugelers, W. (2004). Between control and autonomy: Restructuring secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Luttenberg
    • 1
  • Thérèse Carpay
    • 1
  • Wiel Veugelers
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of Teaching, ILSRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of Humanistic StudiesUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options