Reconciling the theory and practice schism in educational administration through practitioner‐developed theories in practice

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to the international debate over the university as the service provider for school administrator preparation programs from the United States perspective.Design/methodology/approachThe author's approach is that of using historical analysis in developing a conceptual position: the author argues that the university professoriate in the United States now has little choice but to heal the historic rift between theory and practice if it wants to survive this current ideological era characterized by accountability for public schools to improve student outcomes and by the competitive marketplace.FindingsThe author's analysis consists of four separate explications. He first explains the genesis of the schism between theory and practice endemic to all professional schools: 19th century Positivism and early 20th century Technical Rationality. Second, he points out that the university, which traditionally protected education administration programs from constituency attacks, can no longer do so in large part because the field's weak knowledge base is perceived by many reformers and practitioners alike as counter‐productive to improving schooling's core technology: teaching and learning. Third, based primarily upon the work of Culbertson, Willower, and Schon, the author draws on over a century's rich counter tradition to the forces of Positivism and Technical Rationality in advocating that practitioners should develop and test their own theories of practice.Practical implicationsThe last explication infers the practical value to this concept paper.Originality/valueThe author suggests how professors can exploit the university's institutional advantages in adopting practitioner‐developed theories in practice as a curricular centerpiece.

Principal theories of practice : mapping the cognitive structure and effects of instructional leadership

“…98-99) If educators engaged in such approaches to learning about learning, Sirotnik argued, schools would soon become centers of inquiry, and by extension centers of change. Keedy (2005) confirmed Sirotnik's argument that a deep schism existed between theory and practice in the professional work of educators, and traced its historical roots. Keedy (2005) outlined how this historic lack of reflection among educators emerged as a result of the Positivist and Technical-Rationality movements in the late 19 th and early 20 th century and documented how these philosophies contributed to an ever-deepening schism between theory and practice, both in the training of education administrators and also in the schools where they serve.…”

“…Keedy (2005) confirmed Sirotnik's argument that a deep schism existed between theory and practice in the professional work of educators, and traced its historical roots. Keedy (2005) outlined how this historic lack of reflection among educators emerged as a result of the Positivist and Technical-Rationality movements in the late 19 th and early 20 th century and documented how these philosophies contributed to an ever-deepening schism between theory and practice, both in the training of education administrators and also in the schools where they serve. That schools are not places of critical self-reflection is therefore not a new problem, nor are some of the possible solutions to the theory-practice schism new.…”

“…That schools remain the targets of change rather than centers of inquiry is not surprising given the orientation toward control, isolation and autonomy described by Cusick (1992) and the historical schism between theory and practice described by Keedy (2005).…”

“…"Operationalized, school administration is the taking of one of the innumerable elements that is or threatens to be out of kilter with the others and putting it teacher and teacher-principal relationships described by Cusick (1992), which are focused on isolation and could be described as "you do your job and I'll do mine." Keedy (2005) outlined how this historic lack of reflection among educators emerged from the Positivist and Technical-Rationality movements in the late 19 th and early 20 th century and documents how these philosophies contributed to an everdeepening schism between theory and practice, both in the training of education administrators and in the schools where they serve. That schools are not places of critical self-reflection is therefore not a new problem, nor are some of the possible solutions to the theory-practice schism new.…”

“…The explanations for change-resistance and low achievement are many, but several authors indicate that there is an abiding schism between theory and practice on the part of teachers and principals (Keedy, 2005;Keedy & Achilles, 1997). Educators themselves remain cut off from the reflection, research, collaboration and experimentation describing schools that have become the centers of change, rather than targets of change (Sirotnik, 1989).…”