CHAPTER II

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND CULTURAL RELEVANCE
IN LATIN AMERICA

The analysis of the construction of knowledge in public administration and educational management, introduced in the previous chapter, and the evaluation of the results of recent research in the field of educational administration reveal that, at the end of this century, administrative theory faces difficult conceptual and praxeological challenges throughout the world. Latin America is no exception. This revelation suggests the need to renew efforts to construct and reconstruct scientific and technological knowledge in the field of educational management. Further justification for a renewed theory-building effort comes as a consequence of the increasing expansion and complexity of educational systems and as a result of current social awareness about the nature of education in modern society.

The first objective of this chapter is to review some historical efforts to construct scientific knowledge in the field of educational administration. Then, a heuristic multidisciplinary paradigm for the study of educational management in Latin America is put forward.1 The multidimensional paradigm of educational administration is based on the deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge developed historically and represents an attempt to arrive at a theoretical synthesis of Latin American educational management experience in the international context. In light of this historical view, the paradigm is, nevertheless, also developed to respond to current demands and needs of Latin American education. Finally, this intellectual effort turns on the thesis that educational management is a specific professional field of study and on an awareness of the need to construct a comprehensive theory of the professional practice of educational administration.

Historical Context

The history of educational administration in Latin America, reviewed in Chapter One, follows the steps, even though dephased in time, of the historical course of pedagogical and administrative theories developed in Europe and in the United States of America. Latin America initially subscribed to a juridical approach that was essentially normative and closely linked to the traditions of Roman administrative law which characterized educational management throughout all of colonial history. Beginning in the first decades of the twentieth century, Latin American countries adopted a technocratic approach, based on the tenets of the classical school of administration as defended by Taylor, Fayol and their followers and interpreters.2 In that period, scholars and practitioners of Latin American education, following the theoretical path established in Europe and the United States of America, emphasized economic productivity and efficiency, with a reduced concern for the human dimension and the cultural and political aspects of educational management.

After World War II, with the rising prestige of the behavioral sciences, Latin American educational administration was influenced by the functionalist ideas of the psycho-sociological school of North American administration. A behavioral approach3 was then adopted, giving primary attention to effectiveness in achieving educational objectives. According to the interpreters of the behavioral construction, the concept of economic efficiency is subsumed under institutional effectiveness as a guiding criterion of administrative performance.

Starting in the 1960’s, there is an increasing utilization of the social sciences in Latin American educational management in the theoretical tradition of the contemporary school of administration.4 Two theoretical constructions compete for academic space: the developmental approach of the foreign authors and the sociological perspective of Latin American scholars. In the contemporary school of administration, the technical and instrumental criteria of efficiency and effectiveness of traditional management are subsumed under the political concept of responsiveness. Scholars and practitioners are predominantly concerned about the social responsibility of educational management and its capacity to respond to the demands and needs of citizenry.

Finally, some of the recent vanguard theoretical developments adopt a cultural orientation, emphasizing relevance as its main guiding criterion in the study and practice of educational management. Consequently, the concepts of efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness adopted in Latin American educational administration are analyzed and used in light of the concept of relevance as a cultural criterion of educational management. The importance of the cultural approach to administration is accentuated today because of the need to recover, in light of human relevance, the real value of efficiency and effectiveness as defining instrumental criteria of the productivist and competitive logic that characterizes current society. The strategy for achieving high levels of relevance, capable of recovering the real value of the other criteria of administrative performance in educational management, is citizen participation in the context of democracy as a form of government.5

Four Constructions of Educational Administration

From this historical perspective on administrative theory and of its presence in Latin American education, it is possible to distill four different constructions of educational management: efficiency-based administration, effectiveness-based administration, responsiveness-based administration, and relevance-based administration. The four constructions are defined according to four corresponding criteria adopted to evaluate and guide administrative performance: efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and relevance. Therefore, to define the theoretical essence of each of the four constructions, it is necessary to define the nature of the respective criterion of administrative performance. This is a controversial subject, as revealed by general terminological and semantic confusion in the specialized literature. As a matter of fact, it is common to confuse efficiency with effectiveness, effectiveness with responsiveness, and responsiveness with relevance. Renowned dictionaries state that efficiency is a synonym of effectiveness. At the same time, they assure us that responsive is equivalent to effective. Translators of specialized books from English into Latin-origin languages translate effectiveness as efetividade in Portuguese and efectividad in Spanish, while others translate it as eficacia.6 Even the protagonists of administrative theories do not understand each other on this point. The meanings of efficiency and effectiveness differ among classical authors —such as Taylor, Emerson, and Callahan7— and among behaviorists —such as Barnard, Simon, and Getzels.8 For their own part, contemporary authors provide no clearer indications as to the differences between the concepts of responsiveness and relevance in their theories of administration.

These conceptual uncertainties demand more precise definitions of administrative criteria adopted in educational administration, in order to make them genuinely usefull as analytical and praxeological tools. Such definitions are particularly necessary to characterize the activities of educational administrators in daily practice. The following historical reading, which emphasizes the nature of the performance criteria in educational management efforts is a contribution in this sense.

Efficiency-Based Administration

As a heuristic construction of educational management, efficiency-based administration is conceptually derived from the classical school of administration and is analytically induced from the practice of school and university executives who behave according to the general organizational and administrative principles initially developed by Taylor, Fayol, Weber, and their associates. Historically, efficiency-based administration was developed at the beginning of the twentieth century, within the economic and rational context of the consolidation of the Industrial Revolution. From such a perspective, it is possible to view the organization as a closed, mechanical and rational system, in which administrative mediation is founded upon the concept of efficiency. Efficiency (from the Latin efficientia, meaning action, strength, virtue of producing) is the economic criterion which reveals the administrative capacity for producing maximum results with minimum resources, energy, and time. In the history of administrative thought, the idea of efficiency is associated with the concepts of economic rationality and material productivity, independently of their human and political content and of their ethical nature.

The supreme value of efficiency is productivity: “efficiency implies proven capability based on productiveness and especially stresses ability to perform well and economically.”9 Inherent to this performance is technical preparation as measured in terms of the mastery of know-how and maximization of the use of time, energy, material, and other resources. In this sense, the efficient worker is the one who produces maximum outcomes with minimum waste, cost, and effort, that is to say, the one who achieves a high input/output ratio in production activities.

The concept of efficiency is the touchstone of the classical school of administration represented by Fayol, Weber, Taylor, and their associates.10 Fayol’s efficiency is reflected in the functionalism of his universalistic model. Weber conceived rational bureaucracy as an ideal model to achieve technical efficiency. Taylor’s notions on efficiency are reflected in the mechanomorphic orientations adopted in his “task management” and “time studies.” His concepts were later reinterpreted and improved by Emerson, whose work, The Twelve Principles of Efficiency, is a classic in the history of administrative thought.11 Strongly influenced by the Protestant ethic, Emerson’s approach is clearly economic, claiming that productivity and prosperity are not consequences of abundance, but rather the result of “...ambition, the desire for success and wealth.”12

Classical administration provided the frame of reference for the development of industrial psychology. According to Wundt, industrial psychology studies the psychological person alongside Taylor’s concern for the economic person. Allied to the mechanical efficiency of the engineers of scientific management, industrial psychology, founded at the beginning of the twentieth century by Münsterberg, would pay attention to human efficiency, with the same objective of increasing general productivity.13 During the early decades of the twentieth century, the influence of psychology was to increase in organizational theory to the point that it became the prevailing discipline of the human relations movement of the psycho-sociological school of administration.

The concerns about productivity and rationality in the use of operational instruments are assential to defining efficiency as a criterion of economic performance in educational management. Measured in terms of administrative capacity to reach a high degree of productivity, the concept of efficiency is closely related to the extrinsic and instrumental dimensions of educational management. In this sense, the interpreters of a model of efficient administration guide their conceptual and praxeological orientations according to economic logic, instrumental rationality, and material productivity, independent of the human content and the political nature of educational practice. But a comprehensive paradigm of educational management needs to recover the value of efficiency in light of the ethical definitions and the pedagogical requirements of the educational system of current society.

Effectiveness-Based Administration

As a heuristic construction of educational management, effectiveness-based administration is conceptually derived from the psycho-sociological school of administration and is analytically induced from evaluating school and university executives who adopt the functionalist principles and practices of the behavioral approach to administration originally rooted in the human relations movement. Historically, effectiveness-based administration was conceived from time of the Great Depression, at the end of the 1920s. The interpreters of the behavioral school, such as Mayo, Barnard, Simon, and their followers,14 view the organization as a partially-open, organic, and natural system, in which administrative mediation is concerned with the functional integration of its component elements, in light of the concept of effectiveness. After World War II, effectiveness became the basic criterion of the neoclassicist scholars, who, under the leadership of Drucker, Odiorne and Humble,15 conceived the approach of management by objectives. Effectiveness (from the Latin efficax, meaning efficacious, having the power to produce the desired effect) is the institutional criterion which reveals the administrative capacity to attain established goals or proposed results. In the case of education, administrative effectiveness is essentially concerned with achieving of educational objectives. It is closely linked to the pedagogical aspects of schools, universities, and educational systems.

Expounding on his concept of organization as a “cooperative system,” Barnard distinguished effectiveness and efficiency.16 To Barnard, efficiency is defined in terms of the degree of satisfaction of personal motivations. Effectiveness refers to the level of administrative performance in attaining institutional objectives. In this sense, cooperative efforts are effective if proposed objectives are reached. To Barnard, effectiveness is the major administrative criterion, to such an extent that individual efficiency is fostered only on the basis of the effective attainment of institutional objectives. Therefore, for the adepts of the psycho-sociological school of administration, the concept of effectiveness takes precedence over efficiency.

Some authors distinguish between internal effectiveness and external effectiveness, depending on the intrinsic or extrinsic nature of the desired objectives. In this study, the concept of effectiveness of educational administration is limited to the intrinsic aspects of the educational system. Therefore it is concerned with attaining the specific pedagogical objectives of schools, universities, and other educational institutions. The concern for strategic actions to attain extrinsic objectives of the educational system that are of a political nature follows the criterion of responsiveness, as will be developed next.

The effectiveness of educational management is, therefore, conceived as a criterion of pedagogical performance of an intrinsic and instrumental nature, measured in terms of administrative capacity to reach the objectives of educational practice. Based on the traditional assumption of school practitioners that attaining educational objectives takes precedence over the utilitarian and extrinsic aspects of an economic nature, effectiveness reigns over efficiency in educational administration. Along these lines, the interpreters of effective administration adopt an essentially pedagogical orientation in their conceptual and analytical efforts. In light of this predominant pedagogical orientation, economic efficiency is only fostered to achieve the specific objectives of educational institutions.

Responsiveness-Based Administration

As a heuristic construction of educational management, responsiveness- based administration is conceptually derived from an array of contemporary management theories, and analytically originates from a variety of practical experiences in public administration and educational management during the decades following World War II. Its major theoretical contributions come from development administration, administrative ecology, contingency theory, institutional development, and other alternative perspectives.17 The protagonists of these contemporary movements conceive the organization as an open and adaptative system, in which administrative mediation emphasizes the variables of the external environment in light of the concept of responsiveness. The Portuguese and Spanish terms for responsiveness, respectively efetividade and efectividad (from the Latin verb efficere, to fulfill, to carry out, to materialize), mean something real, something true, something that causes a concrete effect. Responsiveness is thus the political criterion which reflects the administrative capacity to satisfy the concrete demands of the community. The English term responsiveness (from the Latin respondere, to answer, to respond, to correspond), as it arose in the contemporary theory of administration, reflects the capacity to respond to the demands raised by society. In other words, as a criterion of administrative performance, responsiveness measures the capacity to produce the answers or solutions to the problems politically raised by the participants of the larger community. In certain aspects, the concept of responsiveness is associated with that of social responsibility —accountability18according to which administration should be accountable for its acts in light of community needs and priorities.

As a measure of administrative performance, responsiveness is the key-criterion of development administration, a theoretical construction associated with comparative public administration, which prospered in the United States following World War II, in the broader context of political theory. Its fundamental concern was to promote socioeconomic development and to improve standards of living. It is in this sense that, in effforts to go beyond the technical criteria of efficiency and effectiveness, the concept of responsiveness refers to “broader objectives of equity and of economic and social development.”19

Applying the concepts of effectiveness and responsiveness to educational administration, it is possible to associate effectiveness with the achievement of the specific educational objectives and responsiveness with the attainment of broader social goals. The traditional emphasis on the technical criteria of efficiency and effectiveness is associated with the intended neutrality of organizational and administrative theory. Such neutrality, however, is incompatible with a management paradigm founded on the concept of political responsiveness. In effect, the concept of responsiveness implies a genuine commitment to achieving the social objectives and political demands of a given community. The materialization of this commitment requires from the administration an actual involvement with the community, based on solidarity and participation.20 The greater the degree of participation of the members of the community directly or indirectly committed to educational management, the greater will be the political capacity to respond concretely and immediately to community needs and aspirations. To describe the degree of political commitment on the part of educational management, some authors adopt the concept of relevance instead of responsiveness.21 In this study, nevertheless, responsiveness is conceived within a political standpoint and relevance is defined within a cultural perspective, as will be developed in the next section.

Responsiveness manifested through a participatory methodology has the potential to uncouple otherwise tight organizations. Open organizations, characterized as loosely coupled systems,22 in reality contain elements that range from interrelated to reasonably autonomous components. Weick, and Pfeiffer and Salancik view open systems with loose coupling as adaptive, facilitating enactment, and responsive.23 This means that open educational institutions tend to adopt democratic management practices, based on a committed participation of civil society.

These conceptual contributions allow one to define responsiveness as a criterion of political performance of educational management. As such, the degree of responsiveness of educational administration is measured in terms of its real and true capacity to respond to social requirements and political demands of the community. Based on the inherent importance of the social requirements and the political demands of the community, the concept of responsiveness was developed as an alternative to the instrumental criteria of effectiveness and efficiency. Primarily concerned with the politico-ideological requirements of society, the interpreters of a construction of responsive administration adopt an essentially political orientation. In light of this dominant political orientation, they encourage the use of the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency as dependent criteria of educational management.

Relevance-Based Administration

As a heuristic construction of educational management, relevance-based administration is conceptually derived from recent and current interactionist formulations concerned with the cultural characteristics and the ethical values which define human development and the quality of life in education and society. These interactionist formulations are founded on phenomenology, existentialism, the dialectical method, critical theory, and the human action approach. The adherents of these conceptual and analytical formulations conceive the organization as a global, interactional, and multicultural system, in which administrative mediation emphasizes the principles of consciousness, collective human action, contradiction, and totality in light of the concept of relevance. Relevance (from the Latin verb relevare, to raise, to emphasize, to give value to) is the cultural criterion which measures administrative performance in terms of importance, significance, pertinence, and value. Value and relevance are synonyms which make up “...the criteria employed in selecting the goals of behavior”24 and in defining the nature of human development and the quality of life. In this sense, a relevant educational administration is evaluated in terms of how its performance affects the improvement of human development and the quality of life in education and society. Such an evaluation is made possible only by means of an organizational and administrative theory conceived on the basis of real experience. But this theoretical formulation is feasible only if it is supported by a participatory attitude of scholars and practitioners of educational management. The more participative and democratic the administrative process, the greater its chances of being relevant to individuals and groups, and the greater its potential for explaining and furthering the quality of human life in school and in society.25 It is important to point out that relevance concerns the individuals and groups who participate in the educational system and in the community as a whole. Their main interest is human development and the improving quality of life in education and in society through citizen participation.

The concept of the quality of human life is culturally specific. That is to say, the definition of the nature of the quality of human life of a community is the result of the perceptions and interpretations of its participants. It is precisely culture, as the historical and ecological construction of a community —such as being it a tribe or an industrialized nation—, that should provide the organizational framework for citizens to participate in defining relevance and promoting the quality of human life. Relevance suggests the idea of pertinence and value or the bond with something or someone. In the specific case of this study, “relevance implies a traceable, significant, logical connection”26 between two realities: on the one hand, administration, and on the other, the quality of life historically constructed by the citizens according to their own cultural values. It is in this sense that one can define relevance as a criterion of cultural performance in educational administration.

The distinction between relevance and responsiveness is not always clear in specialized literature. For example, Wittmann’s concept of relevance overlaps with the previously defined concept of responsiveness. Based on the assumption that “educational administration is essentially a political act,”27 Wittmann adopts an approach that is more political than cultural and, thus, he is primarily concerned with the meaning and the impact of the activities of educational management in society. The concept of relevance, as set forth in this study, gives primacy to the cultural considerations of educational administration and to the quality of life as the guiding value of political action of such administration in school and society. This orientation tends to warn the educational administrator against the dangers of an activism deprived of cultural values and intrinsic considerations about the human being living in society. Nevertheless, one should emphasize that the cultural dimension is also present in Wittmann’s work, notably when he refers to the commitment of educational administration to Brazilian culture and to the “construction of a more just, more solidary, and more human Brazilian society.”28 While this study associates the concept of responsiveness with the political dimension of educational administration, and the concept of relevance with the cultural dimension, Wittmann unifies the concepts of responsiveness and relevance into a single and more encompassing political dimension.

This discussion reveals the close substantive complementarity of the concepts of relevance and responsiveness in the practice of educational administration since, in reality, the anthropological person and the political person are one and the same being. The anthropological person becomes a political being when he or she becomes actively engaged in constructing an actual society. This means that the mediation between responsiveness and relevance implies a political perspective of educational management that is culturally pertinent and ethically significant to the participants of the educational system and its larger community.

These conceptual elements allow the definition of relevance in educational management to be a criterion of cultural performance, both substantive and intrinsic in nature, measured in terms of the significance and pertinence of administrative acts to sustained human development and the quality of life. Based on the fundamental importance of the quality of life and of education for the citizens in their cultural context, the concept of the relevance of educational management was developed as an alternative to the concepts of responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency. Along this line, the interpreters of a construction of relevant administration adopt an essentially cultural orientation, and guide their administrative action in light of its pertinence and significance for human development and for the promotion of the quality of life in education and society.

A Multidimensional Paradigm of Educational Administration

Even though in the above reading of the evolution of management thought the four specific constructions of educational administration correspond to four different historical periods, they can overlap in a practical sense. In Latin America, this hypothesis is confirmed by professional literature on the matter. For example, specialized bibliographies describe the current existence of schools and universities in which administration is guided according to economic efficiency as its dominant criterion. It is in this sense that Brito, when referring to university management, proposes a business solution based on economic efficiency.29 Other educational institutions are concerned about their political role in the larger community and, for this reason, their administrative performance is based primarily upon the criterion of political responsiveness. From this perspective one can highlight the work of Arroyo and Wittmann who conceive of educational administration as a political act.30 Likewise, educational institutions and school systems exist in which administration is guided principally according to pedagogical effectiveness in attaining institutional objectives. Yet other schools and universities are fundamentally concerned with the human being as individual and social subject, and thus they adopt cultural relevance as the dominant criterion of administrative performance. An important academic contribution in the last decades, which investigates the anthropological and pedagogical grounds of educational administration, from the phenomenological perspective authored by Muniz de Rezende and his associates.31

The diversity of these orientations suggests a complex educational reality, which demands a constant reappraisal of administrative solutions in the context of a rapidly changing national and international economic and political order. Not surprisingly, the designing of appropriate paradigms for the study and practice of educational administration within the context of the changing educational needs and aspirations of Latin American society is an intellectual task of enormous proportions. In methodological terms, it is possible to conceptualize at least three different solutions.

The first solution consists in conceiving the four specific constructions set forth earlier as four excluding alternatives used by scholars and practitioners in school and university management.32 Choosing one of the vaious options depends on the nature of the institution or the perceptions and interpretations of the educational reality and administrative phenomena on the part of the citizens who participate in the educational system. This solution is possible in open societies where theoretical pluralism encourages scientific and technological progress through the development of competitive paradigms, converging or opposing, that tend to supersede one another.33

However, the four paradigms are heuristic conceptualizations and, as such, they do not exist in real life. From this context, a second solution arises, according to which researchers and managers adopt a multiparadigmatic approach to the study and practice of educational administration. The multiparadigmatic approach explores the heuristic and praxeological potential of different paradigms or models for solving specific problems of educational management. This second solution emerges from the idea, controversial to many scholars, that the different paradigms are not exclusive or incommensurable, but can join or interact together in the theory and practice of educational administration. Multiparadigmatic theory-building efforts in American education within the post-structuralist framework represent an important development. It is precisely in the course of theorical developments of post-modern society that Gioia and Pitre34 present their multiparadigmatic approach to the study of human organizations. Likewise, Hassard35 demonstrates how to use contributions of different conceptual and analytical paradigms in organizational research and management. Relying on Freire’s work, Sirotnik and Oakes36 selectively combine contributions of structural functionalism, interpretivism, and critical theory in the study of educational management. Capper37 presents a very comprehensive and provocative effort in her multiparadigmatic perspective of educational management for oppressed and discriminated groups in ccontemporary society, combining conceptual elements from functionalism, interpretivism, and critical inquiry informed by feminist post-structuralist theories.

The third solution is a historical-structural construction that takes the form of a global paradigm, based on the analysis of the confluences and contradictions among the four constructions of educational management presented in the first part of this chapter. It is an all-encompassing perspective, resulting from a new theoretical synthesis of the practice of educational administration throughout the pedagogical history of the twentieth century. According to this reconstructionist effort, administration is conceived of as a global phenomenon with multiple analytical and praxeological orientations or dimensions. In this sense, the four specific constructions are reconstructed into a global paradigm, which I have named the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration.38 Such a global paradigm is composed of four dialectically articulated dimensions: the economic dimension, the pedagogical dimension, the political dimension, and the cultural dimension. To each of these dimensions corresponds a respective dominant criterion of administrative performance: efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and relevance.

FIGURE 2.1

A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PARADIGM OF
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

Analytical Dimensions Substantive Dimensions Instrumental Dimensions
Instrinsic Dimensions Cultural Dimensions
(Criterion of Relevance)
Pedagogical Dimensions
(Criterion ofEffectiveness)
Extrinsic Dimensions Political Dimensions
(Criterion of Responsiveness)
Economic Dimensions
(Criterion of Efficiency)

The conceptualization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration is based on four basic assumptions. First, education and administration are conceived of as global realities that, for analytical purposes, consist of multiple dimensions dialectically articulated among them. Second, in the educational system there are substantive or ideological concerns of a cultural and political nature, as well as instrumental or technical concerns of a pedagogical and economic character. Third, in the educational system there are internal concerns of an anthropological and pedagogical character, as well as external concerns related to the economy and society at large. Fourth, the human being, as an individual and social subject historically responsible for the construction of society constitutes the raison d’etre of the educational system. It is this anthroposociopolitical concept of the human being that defines the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration as a heuristic and praxeological instrument. These concepts, shown in Figure 2.1, are translated into a multicentric system in which two substantive and two instrumental dimensions are dialectically articulated with two intrinsic and two extrinsic dimensions.The conceptualization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration stems from a comprehensive definition of educational management according to which the extrinsic dimensions are subsumed by the respective intrinsic dimensions, and the instrumental dimensions are subsumed by the substantive dimensions. The latter are directly related, at the intrinsic level, to the fundamental values and aspirations of the human being historically inserted in his or her culture and, at the extrinsic level, to the attainment of the political aims of society. This epistemological orientation contrasts with the behavioral and individualistic orientations, which lack the elements of social commitment in society and in education. From the perspective of the multidimensional paradigm, freedom of choice and behavior on the part of the human being implies social adhesion and responsibility in education and in society as a whole. Just as the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration rejects a behavioral and functionalist system of educational management, based on utilitarian and functional competitiveness devoid of interpersonal substantive transactions, this same paradigm also dismisses the political and educational solutions inspired by statism, which inhibits freedom of choice and human action and limits the creation of diversified spaces in which the human being can be fulfilled as an individual and a social actor. In the terms of the multidimensional paradigm, educational administration is guided by substantive contents and ethical values collectively constructed, such as freedom and equity that, in turn, provide the organizational framework in which citizens actively promote a qualitative form of collective human life in school and in society.39

The construction and utilization of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration requires a broad interdisciplinary approach. In fact, one can select an array of specific disciplines to study each one of the analytical categories of the multidimensional paradigm. In any case, and based on the concept of totality of educational phenomena, the first precaution is not to separate the levels or dimensions of reality as if they could exist autonomously. Nevertheless, totality is not equivalent to unidimensionality. On the contrary, the concept of totality is closely associated with the concept of multidimensionality, based on the multiplicity of perceptions and interpretations of educational phenomena, which implies a broad interdisciplinary perspective capable of explaining such phenomena in global terms. Following is an initial definition of the nature of the four dimensions of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration, and an introduction to the disciplinary contributions used to study the various dimensions of the paradigm.

Economic Dimension

The economic dimension of educational systems involves financial and material resources, structures, bureaucratic norms, and mechanisms of coordination and communication. In this dimension, educational administration is concerned with: (a) the distribution and control of resources, (b) the structural organization of the institution, (c) the definition of roles and responsibilities, (d) the distribution of work, (e) the determination of how work is to be carried out and by what type of incumbents, and (f) the establishment of norms of action. The defining criterion of the economic dimension is efficiency in the utilization of financial and material resources and instruments, under the rule of economic logic. Under this logic, the concepts of efficiency and rationality preside over the organizational and administrative activities in education, such as budgetary preparation and implementation, planning and assignment of physical facilities, preparation of timetables according to the curricular organization, staffing, and the supply of equipment and technological materials. Administration is efficient to the extent that it is capable of optimizing the inflow and utilization of the financial resources and material and technological instruments of the educational system, its schools and universities.

The study of the economic dimension is based on economics, business administration, organization and methods, accounting, and technology. All these disciplines, fundamentally concerned with efficiency and productivity, bear the influence of the rational and utilitarian logic of the world of business. For this reason, observations are basically restricted to economics, which commands the other related disciplinary contributions.

There is a vast bibliography on the economic context in which the educational system works and on its implications for the study and practice of educational administration. The economics of education developed rapidly following World War II, concentrating on the analysis of the “economic value of education”40 and on the study of the economic aspects of educational systems, such as their external productivity and institutional effectiveness. Traditionally, the economics of education has viewed education as an economic practice. As a consequence, economic logic has often been the modelling paradigm of the academic process and of human life itself. It was in this context that educational administration incorporated many elements from development administration, in which government planning was particularly emphasized. Even though economists of many different orientations have conceptualized education as consumption, the emphasis assigned to “the investment in the human being”41 since the 1950s, in many cases expresses a distorted philosophy of the comprehensive value of education and of human life itself. Recent decades, however, have witnessed a redefinition of the economic value of education and of educational planning and administration through an increasing incorporation of social and political considerations into the practice of education.42 Such a redefinition is accentuated today in light of current international economic and technological conditions, which require new educational strategies based on a new relationship among education, technological progress, and economic development.43

Pedagogical Dimension

The pedagogical dimension of educational administration refers to the educational principles, scenarios and techniques that are intrinsically committed to the effective achievement of the objectives of the educational system, of its schools and its universities. The defining criterion of the pedagogical dimension of educational management is effectiveness in attaining educational aims and goals.

In recent decades, the pedagogical dimension of educational management begun to atrophy as a consequence of the general tendency to consider education in terms of economic and technological development. The dominantly economic role assigned to education has determined the orientation of educational management which, under the pervasive influence of economic logic, has frequently been considered a business act. In a reaction to this orientation, interest has increased in administration as a pedagogical act.44 Defenders of the pedagogical dimension do not pretend to deny the importance to the economic dimension of educational management, nor do they try to isolate education from technological development. On the contrary, their concern is to ascribe to administration the responsibility for coordinating the creation and utilization of educational scenarios, methods and techniques capable of achieving the aims and objectives of education in its efforts to fulfill its economic, political, and cultural role in society. In fact, the pedagogical dimension of educational administration is related to all the aspects of the educational system. It is the pedagogical dimension that defines the specificity of educational management. Based on such conceptual and praxeological specificity, educational management should avoid situations where, in the words of Chagas, “ the instrumental absorbs the essential and, in this way, the act of administering tends to overshadow or eliminate the act of educating.”45 The pedagogical dimension is closely linked to all the dimensions of the paradigm, offering the necessary elements and instruments for the effective attainment of educational objectives. In this sense, educational management will be effective to the extent that it successfully achieves the aims of the educational system, and the objectives of its schools and universities.

The study of the pedagogical dimension of educational administration is based upon a wide array of disciplines, ranging from philosophy to cybernetics. Philosophy and political science are central, since the educational system, more than a pedagogical plan, should be founded upon a philosophy and a political strategy which reflect the historical moment and social reality. Only an alliance among philosophy, political science, and pedagogy can coherently explain educational theory and practice in a given society. On the other hand, pedagogy is supported by other disciplines, such as sociology, psychology and anthropology. Finally, in using educational technology for learning purposes, pedagogy resorts to the information sciences, cybernetics, and other technological disciplines.

Political Dimension

The political dimension involves the strategies of concrete action of those who participate in the educational system and in its community. The importance of the political dimension is rooted in the specific responsibilities of the educational system, and of its schools and universities with respect to the community and society at large. Likewise, its importance resides in the fact that the educational system evolves in the context of varied conditioning circumstances of the environment. This importance is further accentuated to the extent that the aspects of educational management associated with the cultural and pedagogical dimensions are influenced by powerful external variables. In this way, if educational administration is not capable of balancing the powerful relationship of the cultural and pedagogical elements with the external environment, the educational system runs the risk of closing in on itself. The result of such an isolationist attitude is the loss of political power in the community. Within the political dimension, educational administration seeks responsiveness, a criterion that is essentially political and which calls upon the educational system to meet the social needs and demands of the community and society at large. In this sense, the greater the capacity to meet the social needs and political demands of the community in which the educational system functions, the greater the effectiveness of educational management.

The bases on which to study and understand the political dimension of educational administration can be found in political science and political sociology, as well as in the contributions of administrative law, public administration, and political and cultural anthropology. The perception and interpretation of the political scenario of education is of fundamental importance to educational management. Traditionally, educational administration, due to its assumed instrumental character, was believed to be ideologically neutral and, as a consequence, isolated from politics. Nevertheless, the classical postulate of the dichotomy between politics and administration has proven inadequate in Latin American public administration. In reality, administration is called upon to perform an essentially political role. As a consequence, it is to political science that the administrator will turn for insights into the multiple external elements that act on the educational system, on its schools and its universities.

Political sociology, which is concerned with analyzing the social bases of power in all the sectors of society, is fundamental to the study and practice of educational administration. The fact is that, if educational management is a political process and if political sociology concentrates on the study of the social conditions of the political process, educational administrators will find in political sociology valuable elements for their professional practice.46

Alongside political science and political sociology, public administration offers a particularly important contribution to educational management, since educational practice is inserted in the political and organizational context of the public sector. Latin American education, both governmental and private, is directly or indirectly linked to the powers of the State; as such, educational management will find adecuate expression only in the context of public administration.

Administrative law studies the juridical aspects of the organization and the functioning of political society through its own juridical institutes which rule the rights and duties of public and private institutions. Thus it is closely associated with government administration and offers valuable elements to those professionals dedicated to the study and practice of educational administration. In fact, educational legislation and its jurisprudence look for subsidies in the field of administrative law, from both the doctrinal point of view and the purely legal standpoint.

Many issues of educational management transcend the frontiers of political science, political sociology, public administration, and administrative law, involving culture and society as a whole. In this sense, cultural analysis takes on greater importance. Educational administration turns, then, towards cultural and political anthropology, disciplines which study the cultural traits and the political aspects of society, without loosing sight of the global view that characterizes the studies of general anthropology.This global vision of the human being and of his or her cultural context offers a valuable parameter within which to conceive a comprehensive paradigm of educational management, one able to deal correctly with the complex matrix of social relations of a given society, according to a code of social norms and cultural values. These considerations introduce the debate over the importance of the cultural dimension of educational management, as will be developed next.

Cultural Dimension

The cultural dimension covers the philosophical, anthropological, biological, psychological, and sociological values and characteristics of the participants in the educational system and its community. Although culture is sometimes examined from a rather specific perspective, its all-encompassing concept allows a comprehensive study of the most diversified aspects of human life. The role of educational administration is to coordinate the action and interaction of persons and groups who participate directly or indirectly in the educational process in the community. Educational administration will be relevant and meaningful to people as long as it is capable of reflecting their beliefs and values, their philosophical orientations and political traits. From this perspective, cultural relevance is the basic concept underlying educational administration. Its central objective is to promote human development and the quality of life. Therefore, educational administration will be relevant as long as it offers the appropriate means to promote the quality of human life in the educational system, in its schools and universities, and in society as a whole.

Besides anthropology itself, philosophy and philosophical anthropology, psychology and physical anthropology, sociology and social anthropology also offer theoretical bases on which to study and understand the cultural aspects of educational administration. Philosophy, as the general science of principles, causes, and human values, as well as anthropology, as a comprehensive discipline which studies the nature of human beings with their biological and cultural characteristics, are permanent resources for educational administration.

In the vast field of psychology, social psychology assumes special importance as the discipline that studies the individual and the social situation simultaneously, using models that reflect the complexity of social stimuli as well as individual differences. Social psychological studies on the creative capacity of the human being to live in community, together with scientific efforts to solve personal and social problems in education and society are particularly important to educational administration. In reality, educational administration is a process led by and for human beings acting and interacting in a complex educational system. In this context, educational administration has the role of creating institutional conditions that allow the fulfillment of the human being engaged in the construction and distribution of knowledge.

Sociology, as a discipline which studies the models of action and interaction of persons, groups, and organizations in society, is also closely associated with the study and practice of educational administration. The study of bureaucratic organizations, of the relationship between individuals and organizations and between organizations and society, as well as many other sociological subjects, has implications for the study and practice of educational administration.

Administration of Multiple Confluences and Contradictions

After defining the nature of the four dimensions of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration, it is important to define the relations of mutual and multiple articulation among the different dimensions. This importance lies in the fact that educational administration plays a mediating role between the confluences and contradictions that characterize educational phenomena.

The nature of the interactions among the different dimensions of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration can be defined operationally in terms of the relations among the corresponding criteria of administrative performance. The different dimensions, and their respective administrative criteria, are not exclusive or incommensurable. Although distinguishable, they are dialectically articulated dimensions of a comprehensive paradigm of educational management. This means that, in the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration, effectiveness includes efficiency; responsiveness contains effectiveness and efficiency; and relevance comprises responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency. This encompassing orientation of the mediating role of educational management allows a permanent reconstructionist recovery of the value of each dimension of the paradigm, and of its respective criterion of administrative performance, based on the ethical and pedagogical demands of current society. In this sense, it is important to recover the correct value of economic efficiency in the administrative decisions related to the effective achievement of pedagogical objectives. Likewise, it is necessary to redefine the role of economic efficiency and pedagogical effectiveness of educational management in its efforts to promote cultural relevance and political responsiveness in education.

These relations of multiple articulation among the different dimensions of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration reveal that the vital importance of administrative mediation47 cannot be underestimated. In reality, management plays an essential mediating role that significantly determines the nature of the interactions which take place in the educational system, and in its schools and universities.

Conclusion:
Implications for the Education of Educators

The multidimensional paradigm of educational administration presents an effort to reach a theoretical synthesis of Latin American experience in the field of educational management. The historical construction of knowledge in the field of educational management described in the four models, sometimes opposing and sometimes complementary, when not overlapping, takes the form of a multidimensional synthetic paradigm. It is necessary to state again that the division of knowledge into dimensions responds exclusively to analytical purposes, strictly subordinated to the concept of totality. The relative emphasis given to any one or more of the different dimensions is ultimately based on the philosophical orientation adopted, on the nature of the phenomena at hand, and/or on the historical situation in which they occur.

Because the multidimensional paradigm is only an initial enunciation, it is necessary to deconstruct it and reconstruct it continually, in light of the specificity of educational management as a professional field of study. Nevertheless, it is important not to forget that the construction of theories and paradigms in education and the social sciences is a task performed by human beings acting and interacting within a set of historical circumstances and opportunities. The conceptual and analytical perspectives of educational management can not supersede those of the scholars and practitioners who are responsible for constructing and using such perspectives in the context of the referred historical opportunities. This statement suggests a renewed effort to educate the scholars and practitioners called upon to study and administer education in Latin America.

In the terms of the multidimensional paradigm of educational administration, the selection and preparation of educational administrators should reflect four types of competence: economic, pedagogical, political, and cultural. The economic competence of the educational administrator is defined in terms of efficiency in optimizing the inflow and use of economic and financial resources and the technical and material elements for achieving educational objectives. The pedagogical competence of the educational administrator reflects effectiveness in formulating educational objectives and preparing pedagogical scenarios and instruments for their achievement. The political competence defines the talent of the educational administrator as perceiving and interpreting the external environment and its influence over the educational system, and reveals the degree of political responsiveness in meeting the social demands of the community. Finally, the cultural competence of the educational administrator reveals capacity to conceive solutions and leadership in implementing them in light of the concept of relevance to promote human development and the quality of life in education and society.

The preparation of scholars and practitioners of educational management according to this array of basic competences presents both a necessity and a challenge for Latin American educational systems. It presents a challenge, since it is an enormous academic task, given the importance and the complexity of current educational systems. It presents a necessity, because educational administrators are called upon to perform a central task in the organization and management of educational institutions in Latin America.

 

NOTES

1. An earlier English version of this essay was prepared in cooperation with Thomas Wiggins and published in 1985 by UCEA. See Benno Sander and Thomas Wiggins, “Cultural Context of Administrtive Theory: In Consideration of a Multidimensional Paradigm,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, winter 1985, pp. 49-69. Full credit is hereby given to Thomas Wiggins for co-authoring the 1985 English version and to UCEA for its publication.

This essay incorporates revisions and reinterpretations of concepts and paradigms published earlier in: Benno Sander, Administração da Educação no Brasil: Evolução do Conhecimento, Fortaleza, Edições Universidade Federal do Ceará/ANPAE, 1982; B. Sander, “Administração da Educação no Brasil: É Hora da Relevância,” Educação Brasileira, Brasilia, DF, year 4, nº 9, second semester, 1982; B. Sander, “Administración de la Educación: El Concepto de Relevancia Cultural,” La Educación, Washington, DC, year 28, no. 96, december 1984, pp. 49-69; B. Sander, “Administración de la Educación en América Latina: El Concepto de Relevancia Cultural," Revista Argentina de Educación, Buenos Aires, year 8, nº 14, november 1990, pp. 25-49; B. Sander, “Gestion et Administration des Systèmes Éducatifs: Problématique et Tendances,” Perspectives, Paris, vol. 9, no. 2, 1989, pp. 250-266; B. Sander, “Educational Administration and Developing Countries,” in Colleen Capper, ed., Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society, Albany, NY, The State University of New York Press, 1993, pp. 238-266.

2. See Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1911; Henri Fayol, Administration Industrielle et Générale, Paris, Dunod, 1916.

3. See Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, New York, McMillan Book Company, 1933; Fritz J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1939; Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1938; Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, New York, McMillan Book Company, 1945.

4. The contemporary school of management includes a variety of movements and approaches and is based on an extensive bibliography. See, for example, Ferrel Heady and Sybil Stokes, Comparative Public Administration: An Annotated Bibliography, Ann Arbor, Michigan, The University of Michigan Institute of Public Administration, 1960; Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, New York, Marcel Dekker, 1979; Fred W. Riggs, Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964; Milton J. Esman and Hans C. Blaise, Institution Building Research: The Guiding Concepts, Pittsburgh, The University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, 1966; Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment, Homewood, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968; Peter F. Drucker, Management, New York, Harpers College, 1977.

5. Statements on the anthropological construction of administration can be found in the following publications: Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg, L’Acteur et le Système: Les Contraintes de l’Action Collective, Paris, Ed. du Seuil, 1977; Allain Touraine, Sociologie de l’Action, Paris, Ed. du Seuil, 1965; Jack A. Culbertson, “Three Epistemologies and the Study of Educational Administration,” UCEA Review, vol. 22, nº 1, 1981, pp. 1-6; Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London, Heineman, 1980; Richard J. Bates, “Toward a Critical Practice of Educational Administration,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1982, mimeo; Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, A Nova Ciência das Organizações, Rio de Janeiro, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1981.

6. See, for example, the Brazilian translation of the book by Chester I. Barnard, As Funções do Executivo, São Paulo, Atlas, 1971.

7. Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1911; Harrington Emerson, The Twelve Principles of Efficiency, New York, Engineering Magazine Co., 1913; Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

8. Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1938; Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, New York, McMillan Book, 1945; Jacob A. Getzels, James L. Lipham, and Roald F. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1968.

9. American Heritage Dictionary, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975, p. 416.

10. See Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1911; Henri Fayol, Administration Industrielle et Générale, Paris, Dunod, 1916; Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York, The Free Press, 1964.

11. Harrington Emerson, The Twelve Principles of Efficiency, New York, Engineering Magazine Co., 1913.

12. Harrington Emerson, Efficiency as Basis for Operations and Wages, New York, Engineering Magazine Co., 1911, p. 37.

13. Hugo Münsterberg, Psychology and Industrial Engineering, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913.

14. Elton Mayo, The Human Problem of Industrial Civilization, New York, McMillan Book Company, 1933; Fritz J. Roesthlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Unversity Press, 1939; Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1938; Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, New York, McMillan Book Company, 1945.

15. Peter F. Drucker, Practice of Management, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1954; George S. Odiorne, Management by Objectives, New York, Pitman Publishers, 1965; J. W. Humble, Management by Objectives, London, Industrial Education and Research Foundation, 1967.

16. Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1938, p. 44.

17. See Ferrel Heady and Sybil Stokes, Comparative Public Administration: An Annotated Bibliography, Ann Arbor, Michigan, The University of Michigan Institute of Public Administration, 1960; Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, New York, Marcel Dekker, 1979; Fred W. Riggs, Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Book Company, 1964; Milton J. Esman and Hans C. Blaise, Institution Building Research: The Guiding Concepts, Pittsburgh, The University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, 1966; Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment, Homewood, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.

18. The concept of accountability is deeply rooted in the classical school of management. It is translated in terms of social responsibility and administrative reliability in an attempt to relate the classical principles of effciency and precision in the utilization of resources with substantive measurable results. See L. J. Browder, ed., Emerging Patterns of Accountability, Berkeley, California, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1971.

19. Paulo Roberto Motta, “Administração para o Desenvolvimento: A Disciplina em Busca de Relevância,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 6, no. 3, july/september, 1972, p. 42.

20. For a discussion of the concept of solidarity in education, see Juracy C. Marques, “Administração Solidária: Proposta ou Desafio,” Revista Brasileira de Administração da Educação, Porto Alegre, vol. I, no. 1, january/june, 1983, pp. 79-88.

21. See, for example, Lauro Carlos Wittmann, “Habilitação em Administração da Educação: Pressupostos e Perspectivas,” Informativo ANPAE, no. 3, july/september, 1981, pp. 7-9.

22. K. E. Weick, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 21, 1976, pp. 1-19.

23. The relationship between these constructions is extensively addressed by Weick, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 21, 1976, pp. 1-19; and by J. Pfeffer and G. R. Salancik, The External Control of Organizations, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1978.

24. W. R. Scott, Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1981, p.14.

25. A discussion of the concept of relevance in public administration is found in Paulo Reis Vieira and Anna Maria Campos, “Em Busca de uma Metodologia Relevante para a Administração Pública,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 16, no. 3, july/september, 1980, pp. 101-110.

26. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, G & G, Merrian Publisher, 1965, p. 727.

27. Lauro Carlos Wittmann, Op. Cit., 1981, pp. 7-9.

28. Lauro Carlos Wittmann, Op. Cit., 1981, pp.7-9.

29. Jorge Honório Brito, “Administração Universitária: Alternativa Empresarial ou Acadêmica,” Informativo ANPAE, no.3, 1980, pp.5-8.

30. Miguel González Arroyo, “Administração da Educação, Poder e Participação,” Educação e Sociedade, no. 2, january, 1979, pp. 34-36; Lauro Carlos Wittmann, “Habilitação em Administração da Educação: Pressupostos e Perspectivas,” Informativo ANPAE, no. 3, july/september, 1981, pp. 7-9.

31. Antonio Muniz de Rezende, José Camilo dos Santos Filho, and Maria Lúcia Rocha Duarte Carvalho, “Administração da Educação como Ato Pedagógico,” Educação Brasileira, Brasilia, DF, vol. I, no. 12, 1978, pp. 15-58; A. M. Rezende, “Administrar é Educar ou Deseducar?” Educação e Sociedade, São Paulo, vol. I, no. 2, 1979, pp. 25-35; A. M. Rezende, “Administração Universitária: Alternativa Empresarial ou Acadêmica,” Informativo ANPAE, no. 1, 1980, pp. 6-8.

32. Based on the argument that each paradigm is founded on a specific epistemology and pursues specific objectives, influential scholars argue that it is impossible to combine conceptual and analytical elements from different paradigms in the study of social and educational situations. See, for example, Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London,Heinemann, 1982; W. P. Foster, Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational Administration, Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 1986; N. Jackson and P. Carter, “In defense of  Paradigm  Incommensurability,” Organization Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 1991, pp. 109- 127.

33. This perspective is founded on the concepts advanced by Kuhn and Popper on the construction of scientific knowledge. See T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980; K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, New York, Basic Books, 1962.

34. D. A. Gioia and E. Pitre, “Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 584-602.

35. J. Hassard, “Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: A Case Study,” Organization Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, 1991, pp. 275-299.

36. K. Sirotnik and J. Oakes, eds., Critical Perspectives on the Organization and Improvement of Schooling, Boston, Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1986.

37. Colleen A. Capper, ed., Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society, Albany, NY, The State University of New York Press, 1993, chapters 1 and 10.

38. The multidimensional paradigm of educational administration was conceived in the early eighties and was first published in 1982 by Benno Sander, “Administração da Educação no Brasil: É Hora da Relevância,” Educação Brasileira, Brasilia, DF, year 4, no. 9, second semester, 1982, pp. 08-27. Different versions of the multidimensional paradigm were published later in different languages throughout the world.

39. This essay brings together various theoretical elements found in modern social science, particularly in the work of Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, A Nova Ciência das Organizações: Uma Reconceituação da Riqueza das Nações, Rio de Janeiro, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1981. In this work, Guerreiro Ramos presents a lucid critical analysis of social science and organizational theory of the twentieth century centered on “market logic.” He counters it with the conceptual framework of a new science of organizations which he makes operational in his “paraeconomic paradigm,” defined as a new multicentric model of analysis and planning in social systems. It is possible to draw valuable conceptual derivations from his work for the definition of educational policy and the study of educational administration.

40. Theodore W. Schultz, The Economic Value of Education, New York, Columbia University Press, 1964.

41. “Investment in Human Beings,” Suplement of the Journal of Political Economy, part 2, vol. 70, no. 5, october, 1962.

42. See, for example, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, A Construção da Democracia: Estudos sobre Política, São Paulo, Editora Siciliano, 1993, pp. 143-154; Gaudêncio Frigotto, A Produtividade da Escola Improdutiva, São Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1984; Enrique Rattner, Planejamento e Bem-Estar Social, São Paulo, Perspectiva, 1979, chapters 3 and 4, pp. 125-164; Divonzir Gusso, “Planejamento Educacional: Aspectos Básicos de uma Transição de Métodos e Conceitos, Subsídios ao Planejamento Participativo, Brasília, DF, Ministry of Education, 1980, pp. 101-117; Jacques Rocha Velloso, Educational Planning and Decision-Making Models in Brazil , Paris, UNESCO, Report C 77, 1978; Anna Maria Campos, “Um Novo Modelo de Planejamento para uma Nova Estratégia de Desenvolvimento,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 14, no. 3, july/september,1980, pp. 27-45; Carlos Pallán Figueroa, “La Administración y la Planeación de la Educación Superior frente al Requerimiento del Desarrollo Social,” Planeación de la Educación Superior, Mexico, ANUIES/SEP, 1981; Acacia Kuenzer, M. Julieta Calazans, and Walter Garcia, Planejamento e Educação no Brasil, São Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1990; Juan Casassus, “La Profesionalización: Eficacia Política ou Eficiencia técnica,” Paper presented at the National Conference on Education for All, in Brasilia, DF, july, 1994.

43. For a comprehensive review of literature on recent theoretical and empirical work on the current relationship between education, economic development, and technology, see Thomas Baily and Theo Eicher, “Education, Technological Change and Economic Growth,” in Jeffrey M. Puryear and José Joaquín Brunner, eds., Education, Equity and Economic Competitiveness in the Americas, Washington, DC, OAS, INTERAMER 37, Education Series, 1994, pp. 103-120.

44. See Antonio Muniz de Rezende, José Camilo dos Santos Filho, and Maria Lúcia Rocha Duarte Carvalho, “Administração da Educação como Ato Pedagógico,” Educação Brasileira, Brasilia, DF, vol. I, no. 2, 1970, pp. 15-58.

45. Valnir Chagas, Educação Brasileira: O Ensino de 1o. e 2o. Graus, São Paulo, Edições Saraiva, 1978, p. 303.

46. For a discussion on the nature of political sociology in the study of the relations between social power and political authority and its implications for educational practice, see Carlos Alberto Torres, Sociologia Política da Educação, São Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1993, pp. 41-53.

47. The concept of mediation as a formal and concrete category in education is discussed by Guiomar Namo de Mello, Magistério de 1o. Grau: Da Competência Técnica ao Compromisso Político, São Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1982, pp. 22-34; Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury, Educação e Contradição: Elementos Metodológicos para uma Teoria Crítica do Fenômeno Educativo, São Paulo, Cortez Editora, 1985; Benno Sander, Educación, Administración y Calidad de Vida, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Santillana, 1990, pp. 143-145.