Advertisement

Bureaucratic Order and Special Children: Urban Schools, 1950s–1960s

  • Joseph L. Tropea

Abstract

The character of the urban school has been shaped by the processes of democracy, law, bureaucracy, professionalism, and the market. These identify important but very different rule regimes, each with its own “action logic.”1 The concurrent exercise of these diverse regimes—not moderated by a common culture—implies conflict in the urban school’s organizational evolution. Other difficulties are implied by the heterogeneity of the common school and job market transformations as well as by political pluralism.

Keywords

Urban School Regular Classroom Special Child School Authority Basic Track 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Tom R. Burns and Helena Flam, The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System Theory with Applications (London, 1987).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Gerald R. Leslie, The Family in Social Context (New York, 1967), 586, 602;Google Scholar
  3. Paul H. and Lois N. Glasser, eds., Families in Crisis (New York, 1970), 35; “Teacher-Opinion Poll,” National Education Association Journal 53 (Sept. 1964): 25; “Major Problems of Teachers,” National Education Association Research Bulletin 49 (Dec. 1971): 105;Google Scholar
  4. Bennet Harrison, “Education and Underemployment in the Urban Ghetto,” in Problems in Political Economy: An Urban Perspective, ed. David M. Gordon (Lexington, Mass., 1971), 185;Google Scholar
  5. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Middle Atlantic Regional Office, The Working Age Population: Initial Findings (New York, 1969), 2.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Lawrence E. Vredevoe, “School Discipline, Third Report on a Study of Students and School Discipline in the United States and Other Countries,” National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 49 (Mar. 1965): 215–26, 218.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    William C. Kvaraceus, “The Urban Schools and Juvenile Delinquency,” in Social Maladjustment: Behavior Change and Education, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Invitational Conference on Urban Education (New York, 1966), 60.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    In many school systems the use of these procedures was consonant with professional and administrative goals; for example, see data reported in Mary Alice White and June Charry, eds., School Disorder, Intelligence, and Social Class (New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    Joseph L. Tropea, “Family, Productive Organization, Formal Authority, and the Generation of Deviant Youth: Toward a Social Structural Theory of Social Control and Socialization” (Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1973), 235.Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    Children’s Defense Fund, School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children? (Washington, D.C., 1975); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 D. Ct. 729 (1975). Goss v. Lopez established hearing procedures for public school discipline cases.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John L. Rury 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph L. Tropea

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations