Theory Movement, in Educational Administration

The theory movement in educational administration began shortly after World War II, with the emergence of educational administration as an established academic discipline. The creation of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) in 1947 and the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) in 1956, led by Daniel Griffiths, Jack Culbertson, and Paula Silver, spurred the emergence of the theory movement in educational administration. The theory movement reflected the belief that educational administration consisted of more than a loose collection of individual, anecdotal experiences—more than a mere collection of “war stories” told and retold by retired school administrators. Beginning in the 1950s, superintendents and other school leaders were being trained to be applied social scientists. Coursework in educational administration was thoroughly infused with theories and concepts borrowed from the social and behavioral sciences, reflecting the belief that the practice of administration was more than the execution of technical tasks. Through the lens of the theory movement, scholars began to view schools as complex sociopolitical systems and sought a way to explain and predict behavior in those systems.

The theory movement was founded on an intellectual paradigm borrowed from social psychology, management, and the behavioral sciences and emphasized empiricism, predictability, and scientific certainty. The movement reflected a determined effort to bring the social science disciplines (particularly psychology, sociology, and social psychology) to bear upon administrator preparation in education. Theories and conceptual tools borrowed from political science and economics were also used, allowing educational leaders to become schooled in the principles of resource allocation, motivation, individual and group interaction, and the nature and functioning of public bureaucracies.

Because of the theory movement, the focus of educational administration shifted from “how to do it” to an orientation based on inquiry, with the field itself a legitimate area of study. This shift is readily identifiable in texts on educational administration. The study of theory was necessary to deal effectively with the wide array of social issues facing school administrators.

As the theory movement became dominant, the field of educational administration emerged as a legitimate academic discipline, on par with business management and public administration. As the field matured, the study and practice of administration, which had historically faced inward upon relations within the school system, necessarily turned its focus outward to relations of the school system with other systems with which it was inextricably bound: political, legal, and economic systems, among others. School administrators were encouraged to adopt a holistic approach and to see how education fit within the larger social system—how education was related to the larger political, social, economic, and legal order—and, conversely, how other institutions and organizations impacted the educational system.

The rise of the theory movement in educational administration has not been without problems. As an applied, professional discipline, much like business or public administration, tension has always existed between the role and integration of theory into programs designed to prepare educational leaders. University-based administrator preparation programs have been criticized as being too theoretical and divorced from the actual practice of school administration. The knowledge base in educational administration has been questioned, and sharp disagreements have arisen over whether education schools are the best place to train and prepare school leaders. Because of this fundamental tension, efforts are being made to more effectively integrate the theory movement into the actual practice of educational administration.

...