第四章

Focus Questions
What are the distinctive characteristics of the U.S. political system?
重點問題美國政治體制的特色是什麼？

How can school leaders work most effectively within this system?
學校領導者如何在這個系統中最有效地工作？
What is political culture?
什麼是政治文化？
Why should school leaders take into account the political culture of the geographical area in which they work?
為什麼學校領導人應該考慮他們工作所在地理區域的政治文化？

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LESS OBVIOUS
不那麼明顯的重要性

The importance of economic conditions and the demographic situation is relatively apparent. However, other aspects of the education policy environment are considerably less obvious to casual observers and may even seem insignificant at first glance. This chapter deals with two of these less obvious factors: the political system and political culture.
經濟條件和人口狀況的重要性相對明顯。然而，教育政策環境的其他方面對一般觀察者來說就沒那麼明顯了，甚至乍看之下似乎微不足道。本章將探討其中兩項較不明顯的因素：政治體制與政治文化。

The United States has a distinctive political system that was devised in the late eighteenth century by men who had a good knowledge of political theory but few contemporary working models available for study. Although many Americans idealize the system of separated powers that the Founding Fathers developed, many political scientists believe that, as the first modern attempt at representative government, it is clumsier than the parliamentary system that evolved in Great Britain during the nineteenth century. Indeed, today most democratic countries use the parliamentary system because it is considered more efficient and responsive than our system of separated powers (Coulter, 1984). Be that as it may, the United States is unlikely to change its political system in the foreseeable future. This means that school leaders must understand this system’s strengths and limitations in order to work intelligently within it. The first portion of this chapter, therefore, deals with the U.S. political system, describing how it constrains and shapes education policy and suggesting ways education leaders can function effectively within it.
美國有一套獨特的政治體制，它是在十八世紀後期由一些人設計出來的，這些人對政治理論有很好的認識，但卻沒有什麼當代的工作模式可供研究。儘管許多美國人將開國元勛發展的三權分立制度理想化，但許多政治科學家認為，作為代議政制的第一次現代嘗試，它比十九世紀在英國發展的議會制更笨拙。事實上，今天大多數民主國家都使用議會制，因為它被認為比我們的三權分立制度更有效率、反應更快（Coulter, 1984）。儘管如此，美國在可預見的未來不太可能改變其政治體制。這就意味著，學校領導者必須了解這種體制的優點和局限性，才能在其中明智地工作。因此，本章的第一部分將探討美國的政治體系，描述它是如何限制和塑造教育政策的，並建議教育領導者在其中有效運作的方法。

Even less obvious than the political system is political culture. Daniel Elazar (1984), well known for his research on U.S. political culture, defines political culture as “the particular pattern of orientation to political action in which [a] political system is embedded” (p. 109). He has identified three basic political cultures in the United States: individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic. Although on paper the formal political systems of the 50 states resemble each other greatly, in practice those structures operate somewhat differently in each of the three political cultures. This means that a school leader who moves from Pennsylvania (which has an individualistic culture) to Tennessee (which is traditionalistic) will need to relearn many of the principles of practical politics in order to work well in the new setting. These issues are discussed in the second part of chapter 4.
比政治體制更不顯眼的是政治文化。Daniel Elazar (1984)以其對美國政治文化的研究而聞名，他將政治文化定義為「[一個]政治體系所嵌入的政治行動取向的特殊模式」(p. 109)。他指出美國有三種基本的政治文化：個人主義、道德主義和傳統主義。雖然從紙面上看，50 個州的正式政治體系彼此非常相似，但實際上，這些結構在這三種政治文化中的每一種文化中的運作方式都有些不同。這意味著，從賓夕法尼亞州（擁有個人主義文化）轉移到田納西州（擁有傳統主義文化）的學校領導人需要重新學習許多實踐政治的原則，以便在新的環境中很好地工作。第四章第二部分將討論這些問題。

THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM
美國政治制度

FEDERALISM 聯邦制

Federalism Defined 聯邦制的定義

The fundamental characteristic of the U.S. political system is that it has a federal structure. The best way to define federalism is to contrast it with unitary government, the other major modern political structure. Under a unitary system, only one government in the country can exercise sovereign power by taking such actions as passing laws and levying taxes; this is the national government, headquartered in the country’s capital. Local governing bodies exist, but they are subordinate to the national government that created them and that can also overrule, or even abolish, them. Three major countries that use a unitary political structure are France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Unitary governments also exist in the United States; the relationship between the 50 state governments and their respective local governments is unitary (Coulter, 1984; Isaak, 1987).
美國政治體制的基本特征是它具有聯邦結構。定義聯邦制的最佳方式是將其與單一制政府（另一種主要的現代政治結構）進行對比。在單一制下，全國只有一個政府可以行使主權，採取通過法律和徵稅等行動；這個政府就是總部設在國家首都的全國政府。地方理事機構存在，但它們從屬於創建它們的國家政府，國家政府也可以否決甚至廢除它們。採用統一政治架構的三個主要國家是法國、日本和英國。單一制政府也存在於美國；50 個州政府與其各自的地方政府之間的關係是單一制的（Coulter, 1984; Isaak, 1987）。

In contrast, under a federal system several governments share sovereign powers among themselves; and the national government cannot abolish the subsidiary governments. In the United States, for example, the states actually founded the national government; and the federal constitution clearly delineates which sovereign powers belong to the states and which belong to the federal government. The federal government does not have the authority to overrule state governments when they are acting within their area of sovereignty, nor can it abolish them (Coulter, 1984; Hanson, 1996; Isaak, 1987). Federalism is often used by countries that have strong regional traditions. The young United States, for instance, consisted of 13 former British colonies with distinctive histories and cultures. Two centuries later, regional traditions are still strong, a fact school leaders should always bear in mind, especially if they are “transplants” to the region in which they work.
相比之下，在聯邦制度下，多個政府之間共享主權；而且國家政府不能廢除附屬政府。以美國為例，各州實際上建立了國家政府；聯邦憲法明確規定了哪些主權屬於各州，哪些屬於聯邦政府。當州政府在其主權範圍內行事時，聯邦政府無權推翻州政府，也不能取消州政府（Coulter, 1984; Hanson, 1996; Isaak, 1987）。聯邦制通常被具有強烈地區傳統的國家所使用。例如，年輕的美國由 13 個具有獨特歷史和文化的前英國殖民地組成。兩個世紀之後，區域傳統依然強烈，學校領導者應時刻牢記這一事實，特別是如果他們是「移植」到他們所工作的區域的話。

History of U.S. Federalism
美國聯邦制的歷史

The relationship between the federal and state governments is not fixed and unchanging, but dynamic. During the more than two centuries since the signing of
聯邦政府和州政府之間的關係不是固定不變的，而是動態的。自《聯邦法案》簽署以來的兩個多世紀中
the Declaration of Independence, U.S. federalism has gone through several distinctive phases. Because the Founding Fathers were suspicious of centralized political power, they established an extremely weak federal system under the Articles of Confederation. This structure was so glaringly inadequate that after just a few years the current constitution was written and ratified, establishing a stronger federal government. However, the new constitution was controversial from the start; several major leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, had serious reservations about it. For decades the amount of power appropriate for the federal government was a central issue in national politics. Indeed, one major party called itself the Federalists because strengthening the national government was one of its major policy objectives. The early arguments over federalism culminated in the Civil War, when the Southern states exercised what they considered their sovereign right to secede from the Union. The Northern victory in that war meant that the weakest interpretation of federalism was seriously discredited (Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Cohen & Spillane, 1993). However, other weak interpretations still flourish today alongside stronger ones.
自《獨立宣言》發表以來，美國聯邦制經歷了幾個獨特的階段。由於開國元勛懷疑中央集权，他們在《聯邦條約》中建立了一個極其薄弱的聯邦制度。這種結構明顯不足，因此僅過了幾年，就制定並批准了現行憲法，建立了一個更強大的聯邦政府。然而，新憲法從一開始就備受爭議；包括托馬斯-傑斐遜（Thomas Jefferson）在內的幾位主要領袖對其持嚴重保留態度。幾十年來，聯邦政府的權力大小一直是國家政治的核心問題。事實上，一個主要政黨自稱為聯邦黨，因為加強國家政府是其主要政策目標之一。早期有關聯邦制的爭論在南北戰爭中達到了高潮，當時南方各州行使了他們認為的主權脫離聯邦。北方在那場戰爭中的勝利意味著聯邦制的最弱詮釋被嚴重貶低（Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Cohen & Spillane, 1993）。然而，其他較弱的詮釋今天仍然與較強的詮釋並存。

During the 64 years between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Great Depression, the federal government enjoyed a new legitimacy that it used to promote the construction of the railroads, the settlement of the West, and the conquest of numerous Native American tribes. Even so, it was relatively weak by contemporary standards; it did not even begin to levy a federal income tax until 1916. The Great Depression, followed by World War II, led to the enormous increase in federal power. The economic collapse of 1929 caused bank failures as well as business and personal bankruptcies across the nation, leading to widespread unemployment. Because these economic problems were of such magnitude that state and local governments were unable to address them effectively, the federal government stepped in, assuming an enhanced role in economic and labor policy. This tendency to strengthen federal power at the expense of state and local governments was further accelerated by another crisis, World War II. For more than 20 years after the end of the war, Washington played an activist role, taking the lead in such areas as civil rights and urban policy. The tide began to turn in 1968, with the election of Richard Nixon to the White House. His successors, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, also sought to alter the federal relationship by empowering the states. However, under Ronald Reagan, elected president in 1980, the balance of power between the states and the federal government really shifted (Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Gray, 1996; Lewis & Maruna, 1996; Nathan, 1993; Van Horn, 1993).
從南北戰爭結束到大蕭條開始的 64 年間，聯邦政府享有新的合法性，並用於推動鐵路建設、西部定居以及征服眾多美洲原住民部落。即便如此，以當代的標準來看，聯邦政府還是相對弱小；它甚至直到 1916 年才開始徵收聯邦所得稅。大蕭條和隨後的第二次世界大戰導致聯邦權力的巨大增長。1929 年的經濟崩潰造成全國銀行倒閉、企業和個人破產，導致廣泛失業。由於這些經濟問題的嚴重性，州和地方政府無法有效解決，聯邦政府介入，在經濟和勞動政策方面擔當了更重要的角色。第二次世界大戰(World War II)進一步加速了這種以州和地方政府為代價加強聯邦權力的趨勢。戰爭結束後的 20 多年裡，華盛頓扮演了積極的角色，在民權和城市政策等領域發揮了領導作用。1968 年，隨著理查德-尼克松(Richard Nixon)當選白宮，勢頭開始轉變。他的繼任者傑拉德-福特（Gerald Ford）和吉米-卡特（Jimmy Carter）也試圖通過賦予各州權力來改變聯邦關係。然而，在 1980 年當選總統的羅納德‧雷根(Ronald Reagan)的領導下，州與聯邦政府之間的權力平衡真正發生了變化(Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Gray, 1996; Lewis & Maruna, 1996; Nathan, 1993; Van Horn, 1993)。

Federalism Today 今日聯邦制

In his 1982 State of the Union address, Ronald Reagan called for a “New Federalism,” which involved giving the states more power in several policy areas and more discretion over the use of federal funds (Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Mazzoni, 1995). Because education is a major function of state government, the New Federalism had a great impact on education policy. At the most tangible level, it meant decreased federal funding. In 1978, just before the beginning of the Reagan Administration, the federal government provided 8.1% of
在 1982 年的國情咨文中，Ronald Reagan 呼籲實行「新聯邦主義」(New Federalism)，其中包括在多個政策領域賦予各州更多的權力，以及在聯邦資金的使用上給予各州更多的決定權(Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Mazzoni, 1995)。由於教育是州政府的主要職能，新聯邦主義對教育政策有很大的影響。在最明顯的層面上，它意味著聯邦經費的減少。1978 年，就在里根政府開始之前，聯邦政府提供了 8.1%的教育經費。
all money for U.S. schools; under Reagan this percentage dropped to

6 %

, a decline of more than 25% (Sroufe, 1995). Moreover, under Reagan, the federal government streamlined the administration of education funds by consolidating 37 programs into a single block grant entitled Elementary and Secondary Education. Under this new approach, federal guidelines for spending education funds were relaxed, empowering state governments to make decisions about the direction of education policy in several new areas (Kaplan & O’Brien, 1991). The overall effect of the New Federalism was to reduce the relative importance of the federal government in education policy making while increasing the relative importance of the states.

6 %

，降幅超過 25% (Sroufe, 1995)。此外，在里根統治下，聯邦政府簡化了教育經費的管理，將 37 個計畫合併為一個名為「初級與中級教育」（Elementary and Secondary Education）的單一整批撥款。在這個新方法下，聯邦的教育經費支出準則被放寬，賦予州政府在幾個新領域決定教育政策方向的權力（Kaplan & O'Brien，1991）。新聯邦制的整體效果是降低聯邦政府在教育政策制定中的相對重要性，同時增加各州的相對重要性。

However, Reagan’s New Federalism was not the only factor that led to increased state power over education policy. Starting in the mid-1960s, several changes had strengthened state governments, giving them more capacity for exercising political leadership. Baker v. Carr, a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision, was an important first step in this process. By reaffirming the one per-son-one vote principle, it required the reapportionment of state legislative districts, making state legislatures more representative of the general population. As these bodies became more representative, they also began to attract young, well-educated people. This new breed of state officials worked hard during the 1970s and 1980s to professionalize state government; today, therefore, most states have more efficient and modern governments than they had 25 years ago. The professionalization of state government occurred simultaneously with the growth of intergovernmental lobbies such as the National Governors’ Association (NGA) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Such organizations facilitate communication among state officials and provide a forum in which information about policy can be disseminated and discussed.
然而，里根的「新聯邦主義」並非導致州對教育政策權力增加的唯一因素。從 1960 年代中期開始，有幾項改變強化了州政府，賦予它們更多行使政治領導的能力。1962 年美國最高法院對 Baker v. Carr 案的判決，是這個過程中重要的第一步。通過重申一人一票的原則，它要求重新分配州立法選區，使州立法機關更能代表一般人口。隨著這些機構變得更具代表性，它們也開始吸引年輕、受過良好教育的人。這批新型態的州政府官員在 1970 和 1980 年代努力使州政府專業化；因此，今天大多數州的政府比 25 年前更有效率、更現代化。州政府專業化的同時，全國州長協會 (NGA) 和全國州議會會議 (NCSL) 等政府間游說組織也在成長。這些組織促進了州政府官員之間的溝通，並提供了一個可以傳播和討論政策資訊的論壇。

As a result of these changes in state government, state leaders were able to spearhead the national education reform movement, which began in 1983. Although the federal government played an important role-notably by sponsoring the 1983 commission report A Nation at Rish-primarily the governors, such as Lamar Alexander and Bill Clinton, worked through the NGA to push steadily for the reform of public education. In many states their efforts led to the adoption of such policies as increased graduation requirements, proficiency tests, career ladders, and school choice. Such an intense and coordinated level of activity in education policy on the part of state governments was unprecedented in U.S. history (Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Mazzoni, 1995; Nathan, 1993).
由於州政府的這些改變，州領導人得以帶頭推動 1983 年開始的全國教育改革運動。儘管聯邦政府扮演了重要的角色，尤其是贊助了 1983 年的委員會報告《國家危機》，但主要是州長，如拉马尔-亞歷山大（Lamar Alexander）和比爾-克林頓（Bill Clinton），透過 NGA 穩步推動公共教育的改革。在許多州，他們的努力促成了一些政策的採納，例如提高畢業要求、能力測驗、職業階梯和選校等。州政府在教育政策上如此密集且協調的活動，在美國歷史上是前所未有的(Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Mazzoni, 1995; Nathan, 1993)。

Historically in the United States, states have delegated much of their authority over education policy to local school districts. However, since about 1980 this traditional allocation of power has progressively shifted. The major reason is that local government generally is in crisis. Economic stagnation and the widespread adoption of tax and expenditure limitations during the 1970s have reduced tax revenues, and many local governments find continuing to provide high-quality public services difficult. This crisis is particularly severe in large cities, where the loss of tax revenues, deterioration of infrastructure and housing stock, and growing impoverishment of the population combine
在美國歷史上，各州將教育政策的大部分權力下放給地方學區。然而，自 1980 年以來，這種傳統的權力分配已逐漸轉移。主要原因是地方政府普遍面臨危機。1970 年代的經濟停滯和廣泛採用的稅收與支出限制減少了稅收，許多地方政府發現難以繼續提供高品質的公共服務。這種危機在大城市尤為嚴重，稅收的減少、基礎設施和住房的惡化，以及人口的日益貧困化，共同導致了地方政府的滅亡。
to create problems so overwhelming that few municipal governments have the capacity to address them successfully. However, the crisis has also hit poor rural areas hard; many small town and suburban communities that were selfsufficient a generation ago find themselves struggling today.
所造成的問題勢不可擋，幾乎沒有市政府有能力成功解決這些問題。然而，這場危機也重創了貧困的農村地區；許多小城鎮和郊外社區在一代人之前還能自給自足，但如今卻陷入困境。

As one type of local government, school districts represent an important dimension of this crisis. Indeed, some big city school districts have collapsed under the weight of financial and social problems; many rural districts are in ongoing bankruptcy. In a crisis of such proportions, state governments have been obliged to take unprecedented steps. In some cases state departments of education have literally taken over the daily administration of floundering school districts. In far more instances, they have provided emergency loans or assigned state consultants to work with troubled districts. But, of course, when one government gives resources to another, it also expects to have some say about how those resources are used. As a result, state governments are playing a more active role than ever in spelling out how districts should educate children and in monitoring their activities (Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Mazzoni, 1995).
作為地方政府的一種，學區代表了這場危機的一個重要層面。事實上，一些大城市的學區已經在財政和社會問題的重壓下崩潰；許多農村學區也正處於破產狀態。在這種程度的危機中，州政府不得不採取前所未有的措施。在某些情況下，州教育廳實際上接管了陷入困境的學區的日常管理。在更多的情況下，州政府提供緊急貸款或指派州政府顧問與陷入困境的學區合作。當然，當一國政府提供資源給另一國政府時，它也期望對如何使用這些資源有一定的發言權。因此，州政府在說明地區應該如何教育兒童以及監督它們的活動方面，扮演著比以往更積極的角色（Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Mazzoni, 1995）。

SEPARATION OF POWERS 三權分立

Another important characteristic of U.S. government is the use of a separation of powers rather than a structure of fused powers. Ever fearful of powerful government, the Founding Fathers constitutionally delegated the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of government to separate branches that could check, or restrain each other. Moreover, although the states were free to adopt any form of republican government they pleased, all 50 wrote constitutions that separated government functions into three branches. This pattern is also imitated to a certain degree at the local level. For example, school boards and superintendents sometimes work at cross purposes because of a formal or informal separation of powers. The Founding Fathers thus succeeded admirably in establishing a “political system . . . designed to frustrate central power” (Cohen & Spillane, 1993, p. 38). However, they also raised an interesting question for the public leaders who must work within the system: How does one build coalitions across the system in order to bring about needed change? Cohen and Spillane (1993) observe that the greatest challenge in developing education policy in the United States is “bridging vast political chasms artfully designed to frustrate central power” (p. 43).
美國政府的另一個重要特徵是使用三權分立，而非融合權力的結構。由於害怕強大的政府，開國元勛們根據憲法將政府的行政、立法和司法職能下放給不同的部門，這些部門可以相互制衡或約束。此外，儘管各州可隨意採用任何形式的共和國政府，但所有 50 個州都寫了憲法，將政府職能分為三個分支。這種模式在地方層面也有一定程度的模仿。例如，由於正式或非正式的三權分立，學校董事會和校監有時會交叉工作。因此，開國元勛成功地建立了一個「旨在挫敗中央權力的政治體系」（Cohen & Spillane, 1993, p.38）。然而，他們也為必須在這個體系中工作的公共領導人提出了一個有趣的問題：如何在整個體系中建立聯盟，以實現所需的改變？Cohen and Spillane (1993)指出，在美國，發展教育政策的最大挑戰是「彌溝巨大的政治鴻溝，巧妙地設計來阻撓中央權力」(p. 43)。

FRAGMENTATION OF GOVERNANCE
治理分散

Fragmentation of Local Government
地方政府分化

Public leadership in the United States is further complicated by fragmentation, both the fragmentation of local government and the proliferation of governance structures. Units of local government are established by law in the state in which they are located, and usually their powers and responsibilities are spelled out either in a charter or in a special act of the legislature. (Figure 4.1 lists the five types of local government.) Most U.S. school districts are special districts, which are governed by an elected school board. Other types of special
美國的公共領導因分散而更加複雜，既包括地方政府的分散，也包括治理結構的激增。地方政府單位是根據所在州的法律建立的，其權責通常在憲章或立法機關的特別法案中明確規定。(圖 4.1 列出了五種地方政府類型。）大多數美國學區都是特別學區，由選舉產生的學校董事會管理。其他類型的特殊

Counties
Municipalities
Towns
Townships
Special Districts

Figure 4.1 Five types of local government. Note. Based on Bowman and Kearney (1986).
圖 4.1 地方政府的五種類型。註。根據 Bowman and Kearney (1986)。
districts include park districts, water districts, and sewer districts; they, too, are often governed by elected or appointed boards. Although some states do not use all five types of local government, many do. As a result, school leaders must deal not only with the different branches of government at the state and federal levels, but also with numerous local governments whose geographic borders may overlap those of the school district and whose officials may perceive the school district as a competitor rather than an ally (Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Fuhrman, 1993; Hanson, 1996).
這些區域包括公園區、水區和下水道區；這些區域也經常由民選或委任的委員會管理。雖然有些州不使用所有五種類型的地方政府，但許多州都使用。因此，學校領導者不僅必須與州和聯邦政府的不同部門打交道，而且還必須與眾多地方政府打交道，這些地方政府的地理邊界可能與校區的邊界重疊，而且其官員可能將校區視為競爭者而非盟友（Bowman & Kearney, 1986; Fuhrman, 1993; Hanson, 1996）。

The relationship between a school system and local government can take one of two general forms: independence or dependence. Ninety-two percent of U.S. school districts are independent. This means they are completely autonomous in relationship to other local governments; in particular, it means they are financially autonomous, or fiscally independent. They have the power to levy school taxes within a regulatory framework established by their state legislature. The school board of an independent district also develops its own budget and is not required to submit it to any other unit of local government for approval. Although fiscal independence has some advantages, it also has drawbacks. One of the most important is that an independent school district lacks a natural ally at the local level. Leaders in independent districts must work especially hard to build positive relationships with other units of local government; not infrequently they find themselves alone when the time comes to increase school taxes (Bowman & Kearney, 1986).
學校系統與地方政府之間的關係有兩種一般形式：獨立或依賴。百分之九十二的美國學區是獨立的。這意味著它們與其他地方政府的關係是完全自主的；特別是，這意味著它們在財政上是自主的，或財政獨立的。它們有權在州立法機關制定的規範框架內徵收學校稅金。獨立學區的學校董事會也制定自己的預算，且無需提交給任何其他地方政府單位核准。雖然財政獨立有一些優點，但也有缺點。其中最重要的一點是，獨立學區在地方層級缺乏天然盟友。獨立學區的領導者必須特別努力地與其他地方政府單位建立正面的關係；在增加學校稅收的時候，他們往往發現自己孤軍作戰（Bowman & Kearney, 1986）。

Only

8 %

of school districts are dependent; however, this pattern is more important than the percentages suggest because many of the largest districts in the nation are dependent. In five states (Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia), all school districts are dependent; in 13 other states many districts, although not all, are dependent. Fiscal dependency is especially common in the South. A fiscally dependent school district is actually an education agency operated by a unit of local government, usually a city or county. Its school board does not have the power either to raise taxes or to approve its own budget; instead, it depends on the controlling unit of government to play these roles. Although this approach has obvious drawbacks, it also has one great advantage: the school system has a natural ally among local governments. For example, if the Virginia House of Delegates is considering legislation that would negatively affect the Fairfax County schools, leaders of the school system will probably work side by side with Fairfax County leaders to lobby the legislature (Bowman & Kearney, 1986):
只有

8 %

的學區是依賴型；但是，這種模式比百分比顯示的更重要，因為全國許多最大的學區都是依賴型。在五個州 (阿拉斯加州、夏威夷州、馬里蘭州、北卡羅來納州和維吉尼亞州)，所有學區都有依賴性；在另外 13 個州，許多學區 (雖然不是全部) 都有依賴性。財政依賴在南方特別普遍。財政依賴學區實際上是由地方政府單位 (通常是市或縣) 營運的教育機構。其學校董事會既無權加稅，也無權批准自己的預算；相反，它依賴控制單位的政府來扮演這些角色。雖然這種方法有明顯的缺點，但它也有一個很大的優點：學校系統在地方政府中擁有天然的盟友。例如，如果弗吉尼亞州眾議院正在考慮會對費爾法克斯縣學校產生負面影響的立法，學校系統的領導者很可能會與費爾法克斯縣的領導者並肩工作，游說立法機關(Bowman & Kearney, 1986)：

A second aspect of the fragmentation of U.S. school governance is the splitting of responsibility among various official or semiofficial boards and agencies. In part, this fragmentation can be attributed to the reforms put in place during the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s. In an attempt to depoliticize school governance, Progressive reformers established separate boards, especially at the state level. State boards of education, for instance, are largely a legacy of the Progressive period. However, scholars have also identified a more general tendency in the United States to establish separate governance structures, both in education and in other policy domains. What happens is that leaders, working within an already fragmented system, become frustrated with its unresponsiveness, so they establish new structures. For a time the new structures are relatively responsive; as time passes, however, they too become unresponsive. The result is a proliferation of boards, agencies, and commissions. In education these structures often cluster around specific policy areas or professional interests. For example, a variety of structures have arisen around P.L. 94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act), around the compensatory programs established by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and around vocational education and high school athletics. Moreover, in the United States several areas of education policy, which in most countries would be departments of a ministry of education, have been turned over to private agencies. Probably, the most important of these arcas is evaluation. A large percentage of the tests used to make major decisions about students and teachers is developed by private organizations such as the major textbook companies and the Educational Testing Service (ETS). Another area of evaluation that has been largely given over to private groups is school and district accreditation (Cohen & Spillane; 1993; Fuhrman, 1993; Iannaccone & Lutz, 1995).
美國學校管理分散的第二個方面，是各種官方或半官方的委員會和機構之間的責任分割。在某種程度上，這種分割可歸因於 20 世紀初進步運動期間所實施的改革。為了試圖使學校治理非政治化，進步改革者成立了不同的委員會，特別是在州的層面。例如，州教育委員會主要是進步時期的遺產。然而，學者們也發現美國有一種更普遍的趨勢，就是在教育和其他政策領域建立獨立的治理結構。發生的情況是，領導者在一個已經支離破碎的體系中工作，對於它的無反應感到沮喪，因此他們建立了新的結構。在一段時間內，新架構的反應相對較快；然而，隨著時間的流逝，這些新架構也變得反應緩慢。結果就是委員會、機構和委員會的激增。在教育領域，這些架構通常圍繞著特定的政策領域或專業利益。例如，圍繞著 P.L. 94-142 (所有殘障兒童教育法案)、圍繞著 1965 年初等與中等教育法案所建立的補償計畫，以及圍繞著職業教育和高中運動，出現了各種不同的架構。此外，在美國，有幾個教育政策的領域，在大多數國家都是教育部的部門，但現在已轉交給私人機構。其中最重要的可能是評估。用來對學生和教師做重大決定的測驗，有很大一部分是由私人組織開發的，例如主要的教科書公司和教育測驗服務(ETS)。另一個主要交給私人團體的評估領域是學校和地區認證（Cohen & Spillane; 1993; Fuhrman, 1993; Iannaccone & Lutz, 1995）。

FOCUS ON ELECTIONS 專注於選舉

Another unusual characteristic of our political system is its focus on elections rather than on governing, a phenomenon that has been nicknamed “the permanent campaign” (Fuhrman, 1993, p. 9). This preoccupation with elections results from two structural factors. First, U.S. elections occur at fixed time intervals established by law. No matter how high a president’s or state legislator’s public approval ratings are with the public, he must run for reelection when the fixed election date comes around. In contrast, under the parliamentary system of government, most elected officials serve as long as their party has public support and is able to govern effectively. Elections are held when a “crisis of confidence” occurs. Although parliamentary systems can experience periods of instability during which several short-lived governments replace each other in rapid succession, they do focus attention on maintaining public support and governing well rather than on elections. The U.S. system, however, encourages everyone-politicians, the mass media, and the general public-to concentrate on elections and campaigns. Another structural factor that focuses at-
我們政治體制的另一個異乎尋常的特點是，它專注於選舉而非執政，這種現象被暱稱為「永久的競選」(Fuhrman, 1993, p.9)。這種對選舉的專注源自兩個結構性因素。首先，美國選舉在法律規定的固定時間間隔內舉行。無論總統或州議員在公眾中的支持率有多高，他都必須在固定的選舉日參選連任。相反，在議會制政府下，大多數民選官員只要他們的政黨獲得公眾支持並能有效執政，他們就會一直在任。當發生「信任危機」時就會舉行選舉。儘管議會制會經歷不穩定時期，在此期間，幾個短命的政府會接二連三地更替，但它們確實將注意力集中在維持公眾支持和良好治理上，而不是選舉上。然而，美國的制度鼓勵每個人--政治家、大眾媒體和一般大眾--把注意力集中在選舉和競選上。另一個結構性因素是
tention on elections is short terms of office. Members of Congress and of the lower house in state legislatures have two-year terms; quite literally, they are always campaigning for office. Governors, who usually serve four year terms, and U.S. senators, who serve six, feel somewhat less electoral pressure. Judgessome of whom are appointed for long terms and some of whom are elected in low-key, infrequent elections-feel the least electoral pressure (Coulter, 1984; Fuhrman, 1993).
對選舉的關注是任期短。國會議員和州議會下議院議員的任期為兩年；簡單來說，他們總是在為競選而競選。州長的任期通常為四年，美國參議員的任期為六年，他們感受到的選舉壓力要小一些。法官有些是長期任命的，有些是在低調、不頻繁的選舉中當選的，他們感受到的選舉壓力最小(Coulter, 1984; Fuhrman, 1993)。

JUDICIAL REVIEW 司法審查

A final characteristic of the U.S. political system is that courts have the power of judicial review, meaning that they can declare legislation unconstitutional. Although most democratic countries have procedures for evaluating the constitutionality of legislation, because of their power of judicial review, courts in the United States are unusually influential in the policy-making process. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has been called the most powerful court in the world (Isaak, 1987). Nor should the power of the 50 state court systems be overlooked. “State supreme courts are policy makers of considerable and wideranging importance,” insists political scientist Lawrence Baum (1993, p. 149), identifying education policy as a domain in which state courts are particularly active. Indeed, in many states, education interest groups consider the court system and the state legislature alternative routes to achieving policy goals. State courts have played an especially important role in school finance policy, having declared the finance systems of several states unconstitutional. Frequently, legislators are more than willing to let judges make unpopular decisions, for in their ever-recurring electoral campaigns they can blame the black-robed justices. Because judges are subject to less electoral pressure than legislatures, they are often willing to take some political heat for them (Baum, 1993).
美國政治體制的最後一個特點是法院擁有司法審查權，這意味著法院可以宣佈立法違憲。雖然大多數民主國家都有評估立法是否符合憲法的程序，但由於擁有司法審查權，美國的法院在決策過程中具有異乎尋常的影響力。事實上，美國最高法院被稱為世界上最有權力的法院（Isaak, 1987）。50 個州法院系統的力量也不容忽視。政治學家 Lawrence Baum (1993, p. 149)堅持認為，「州最高法院是具有相當廣泛重要性的政策制定者」，他指出教育政策是州法院特別活躍的領域。事實上，在許多州，教育利益團體認為法院系統和州立法機關是實現政策目標的替代途徑。州法院在學校財務政策中扮演了特別重要的角色，曾宣佈多個州的財務制度違憲。通常，立法者更願意讓法官做出不受歡迎的決定，因為在他們不斷進行的競選活動中，他們可以指責穿黑袍的法官。由於法官受到的選舉壓力比立法機關小，他們往往願意為法官承受一些政治壓力(Baum, 1993)。

IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR SCHOOL LEADERS
政治體制對學校領導者的影響

COMPETITION AMONG GOVERNANCE BODIES
治理機構之間的競爭

Nature of the Competition
比賽性質

Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede (1987) conducted a cross-cultural study of organizational behavior in IBM offices in 67 countries, finding that Americans prefer an organizational structure that he described metaphorically as a “village market.” In a village market, numerous vendors compete for customers and sales by shouting loudly, bargaining to make attractive deals, and inventing creative ways to display their goods. The structure of the U.S. political system establishes a sort of “village market” among the various components of government, leading to competition among the three levels (federal, state, and local), the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), the many local governments, and various quasi-independent governance bodies.
荷蘭社會學家 Geert Hofstede (1987) 在 67 個國家的 IBM 辦公室進行了一項組織行為的跨文化研究，發現美國人偏好他比喻為「鄉村市場」的組織架構。在鄉村市場中，眾多的販商為了爭取顧客和銷售額，會大聲叫喊、討價還價以達成吸引人的交易，以及發明有創意的方式來展示他們的商品。美國政治體系的結構在政府的各個組成部分之間建立了一種「村莊市場」，導致三級（聯邦、州和地方）、三個分支（行政、立法和司法）、許多地方政府以及各種半獨立治理機構之間的競爭。

These political entities primarily compete for two things: resources and power. One major resource for which competition is especially keen is, of course, money, which may take the form of a generous line in a budget proposal, a grant, or approval of a tax increase. Nevertheless, readers should remember that other resources can spark competition. Agencies and branches of the government frequently jockey for desirable perquisites such as office space in a prestigious or convenient location, new equipment, and skilled personnel. Power is the second major stake in this competition. Governance bodies and government agencies often struggle with each other for jurisdiction over specific policy areas or for the right to representation on a board or committee. Sometimes policy decisions that make little sense from a purely rational perspective make a great deal of sense when interpreted as the outcome of a competition among a set of specific government actors striving for resources and power.
這些政治實體主要競爭兩樣東西：資源和權力。競爭特別激烈的一個主要資源當然是金錢，其形式可能是預算提案中的慷慨項目、補助金或批准增稅。然而，讀者應該記住，其他資源也會引發競爭。政府各機構和部門經常爭奪令人嚮往的優待，例如位於著名或便利地點的辦公空間、新設備和熟練的人員。權力是這種競爭的第二大利害關係。管理組織和政府機構經常為了特定政策領域的管轄權或在董事會或委員會中的代表權而互相爭奪。有時候，從純粹理性的角度來看沒有多大意義的政策決定，在被解釋為一系列爭取資源和權力的特定政府參與者之間競爭的結果時，就顯得非常有道理。

Identifying and Monitoring Competitors
識別和監控競爭對手

Clear-headed thinking by school leaders thus depends on accurately identifying actual and potential competitors. One way to identify them is to ask, “If our district (or school) wanted a budget increase (or to submit a grant proposal, or to hold a referendum to raise school taxes), what government bodies or officials might openly or covertly oppose us?” Figure 4.2 lists possible competitors who should be considered in developing a detailed answer to this question. Simply identifying one’s competitors is not enough, however, monitoring them is also important. One way to do this is to regularly read local newspapers, including weeklies, because they are often the only media outlets that consistently cover local government. In reading newspapers as part of a monitoring effort, school leaders should be sure to pay particular attention to reports of local government meetings and to public notices that announce upcoming bids for construction projects because these items frequently contain important information about competitors’ goals. Another way to monitor competitors is to establish a good network of local contacts and maintain positive relations with them. Developing friendships in the community and participating in organizations such as Kiwanis, Rotary, or Soroptimist are good ways to ensure that one is involved in “grapevine” communication. Sometimes information is available through these channels weeks or months before it is discussed in a public meeting or becomes the subject of a newspaper article. School leaders’ general goal should be a sensitive awareness of all the local demands on public resources most likely to be made in the near future. Such an awareness can facilitate their intelligent planning in a number of areas and help them avoid making mistakes. For example, a superintendent who knows the city police department is cooperating with police departments throughout the region to lobby the legislature for funds to purchase new computer equipment may decide this is not the best time to lobby for increased spending on school libraries. Instead, she may conclude that her district’s energies would be better applied to writing a grant proposal to a private corporation to obtain financial support.
因此，學校領導人的清醒思考取決於準確識別實際和潛在的競爭者。識別他們的一種方法是問："如果我們的學區（或學校）想要增加預算（或提交一份補助提案，或舉行一次全民投票來提高學校稅收），哪些政府機構或官員可能會公開或隱蔽地反對我們？圖 4.2 列出了在詳細回答此問題時應該考慮的可能競爭對手。然而，僅僅識別自己的競爭對手是不夠的，監控他們也很重要。一種方法是定期閱讀當地報紙，包括周刊，因為它們通常是唯一持續報導當地政府的媒體。在閱讀報紙作為監督工作的一部分時，學校領導者應確保特別注意當地政府會議的報導，以及宣佈即將進行建築專案投標的公告，因為這些項目經常包含有關競爭者目標的重要資訊。監視競爭對手的另一種方法是建立良好的當地聯繫網絡，並與他們保持良好關係。在社區中發展友誼以及參加 Kiwanis、Rotary 或 Soroptimist 等組織，都是確保自己參與「小道消息」溝通的好方法。有時候，在公開會議討論或成為報紙文章的主題之前幾週或幾個月，就可以透過這些管道獲得資訊。學校領導者的總體目標應該是敏銳的意識到在不久的將來最有可能對公共資源提出的所有當地需求。這樣的意識可以促進他們在許多領域的智慧規劃，並幫助他們避免犯錯。舉例來說，一位知道市警察局正與整個地區的警察局合作，游說立法機關撥款購買新的電腦設備的校長，可能會決定現在不是游說增加學校圖書館支出的最佳時機。相反地，她可能會得出結論，她的學區的精力最好用於向私人公司撰寫撥款提案，以取得財務支援。

City governments
County governments
Fire departments
Health departments
Human services departments
Infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers)
Institutions of higher education
Justice system
Museums
Other schools
Other school districts
Park systems
Police departments
Prisons
Public hospitals
Public libraries
Recreation programs
Senior citizen programs

Figure 4.2 Government entities that often compete with public schools.
圖 4.2 常與公立學校競爭的政府實體。

MULTIPLE VETO POINTS 多個否決點

The complex, multitiered structure of the U.S. political system establishes numerous sites in which a policy proposal can be sidetracked or defeated. As a result, moving an idea from the proposal stage to the official policy stage can take years. For a proposal to be introduced several times before it finally passes a major legislative committee is not unusual; indeed, the large majority of bills introduced in a U.S. legislature not only never become laws, but they are never even voted on by the full legislature. They “die” in one of the many committees through which they must pass (Ohio State University [OSU], 1991). Outside the formal legislative process, various additional veto points exist. Strong opposition to a proposed policy change by a powerful interest group or by the agency that will have to implement it can slow down the process as much as any legislative committee can. Similarly, opposition by a teachers’ union or an accrediting association can also present roadblocks.
美國政治體系結構複雜、層次眾多，政策提案在其中可能會被牽制或挫敗。因此，一個想法從提案階段進入正式政策階段可能需要數年時間。一項提案在最終通過主要立法委員會之前要經過多次提交，這並非罕見；事實上，在美國立法機關中提交的絕大多數法案不僅從來沒有成為法律，甚至從來沒有被立法機關全體投票通過。它們「死」在它們必須通過的許多委員會中的一個 (Ohio State University [OSU], 1991)。在正式的立法程序之外，還存在各種額外的否決點。強大的利益團體或必須執行政策變革的機構對政策變革提案的強烈反對，可以像任何立法委員會一樣拖慢政策變革的進程。同樣地，教師工會或認證協會的反對也會造成障礙。

As a result, school leaders who wish to influence education policy must be persistent and must also build a broad strategic base of support for their ideas. They should not expect that they as individuals or the professional groups in which they are active will be able to influence policy in a short time. They should anticipate a long process that will take several years (OSU, 1991). Usually, policy makers must be educated, support among key policy actors must be built, and negotiations with other stakeholders must take place. In the United States, policy changes are the outcome of patient, long-term efforts and broadbased coalitions. Leaders who want quick results or who like to play “Lone Ranger,” shunning all alliances, are unlikely to succeed within it.
因此，希望影響教育政策的學校領導者必須持之以恆，還必須為他們的想法建立廣泛的戰略支持基礎。他們不應期望他們個人或他們所積極參與的專業團體能夠在短時間內影響政策。他們應該預期這是一個需要數年時間的漫長過程（OSU, 1991）。通常，必須對政策制定者進行教育，在主要政策參與者中建立支持，並與其他利益相關者進行協商。在美國，政策改變是耐心、長期努力和廣泛聯盟的結果。想要速成或喜歡扮演「獨行遊俠」、迴避所有聯盟的領導人，不太可能在其中取得成功。

TABLE 4.1 Offices and Election Dates
表 4.1 職位與選舉日期

U.S. Representative  美國眾議員
U.S. Senator #1  美國參議員 #1
U.S. Senator #2  美國參議員 #2

Governor  總督
State Representative  州眾議員
State Senator  州參議員
Chair, House Education Committee (State)
眾議院教育委員會主席（州）
Chair, Senate Education Committee (State)
參議院教育委員會主席（州）
Mayor  市長
City Council Members  市議會議員
County Executive  縣長
County Commission Members
縣委員會成員
Tax Assessor  評稅員

Timing Policy Concerns with Elections
選舉的時間政策問題

Given the tendency of the U.S. political system to focus on elections, school leaders must be closely attuned to the electoral cycle. First, they need to know precisely when all the elections that could affect them will occur at the federal, state, and local levels. Table 4.1 provides a sample chart that can be used to organize this information for easy reference. Second, school leaders need to know the electoral status of every public official with whom they interact. They must know, however, more than just when he will next stand for election. With elected leaders, questions such as how long they have already served, party affiliation, margin of victory in the last election, and the probability of seeking reelection are also important. In states with term limits, knowing how many years or terms politicians have left to serve is also essential. Table 4.2 provides a sample chart for organizing such information.
鑒於美國政治體系傾向於將重點放在選舉上，學校領導人必須密切關注選舉週期。首先，他們需要精確地知道在聯邦、州和地方層面上可能影響他們的所有選舉將在何時舉行。表 4.1 提供了一個示例圖表，可用於組織這些資訊，以方便參考。第二，學校領導者需要瞭解與他們互動的每位公職人員的選舉狀態。然而，他們必須知道的不僅僅是他下次參選的時間。對於民選領導人，他們已經服務了多長時間、所屬政黨、上次選舉的勝率以及尋求連任的可能性等問題也很重要。在有任期限制的州，瞭解政治人物還有多少年或任期也很重要。表 4.2 提供了組織此類資訊的示例圖表。

Selecting the Time and the People
選擇時間和人物

Both research and years of practical experience suggest that timing is often the key to successfully influencing policy. The electoral cycle is an important aspect of this timing (Kingdon, 1984). As a rule of thumb, the closer a politician is to an election, the less likely she is to support a policy change that would require increasing taxes. Conversely, the most propitious time for advocating such a change is immediately after an election. Similarly, most politicians shy away from supporting controversial policy issues right before an election; those whose position in the district is shaky are generally unwilling to support such issues at any time. Therefore, school leaders who wish to bring about a policy change that is likely to provoke opposition from a segment of the electorate should reflect carefully before asking elected officials for support. Most likely to take a strong stance on a controversial issue is a politician who has been in office for a long time, has a comfortable margin of victory in her dis-
研究和多年的實際經驗都表明，時機往往是成功影響政策的關鍵。選舉週期是這個時機的一個重要方面 (Kingdon, 1984)。根據經驗，政治家越接近選舉，就越不可能支持需要增加稅收的政策變革。相反，最有利於提倡這種改變的時機是選舉之後。同樣地，大多數政治家在選舉前都會迴避支持有爭議性的政策議題；那些在地區中地位不穩的政治家通常不願意在任何時候支持這樣的議題。因此，學校領導人如果希望促成一項可能會引起部分選民反對的政策變革，則應該在請求民選官員支持之前進行慎重的思考。最有可能在有爭議的問題上採取強烈立場的政治人物，是已經在任很長時間、在她的選區中有輕鬆的勝利優勢的人。

TABLE 4.2 Key Information on Electoral Status of Officials
表 4.2 有關官員選舉身份的主要資訊
Vaind
U.S. Representative  美國眾議員
U.S. Senator #1  美國參議員 #1
U.S. Senator #2  美國參議員 #2

Governor  總督
State Representative  州眾議員
State Senator  州參議員
Chair, House  眾議院主席
Education  教育
Committee  委員會
(State)  (國家)
Chair, Senate  參議院主席
Education  教育
Committee  委員會
(State)  (國家)
Mayor  市長
City Council Members  市議會議員
County Executive  縣長
County  縣市
Commission  委員會
Members  會員
Tax Assessor  評稅員
trict, and does not face reelection in the near future. Another type of politician who may be willing to take chances is one who either cannot run for reelection or does not intend to do so. However, the temporary status of such “lame ducks” limits their power and effectiveness. Although a lame duck may be the right person to approach for a vote in a key committee, he would probably make a poor sponsor for legislation.
他可能願意冒險的另一類政治人物是無法競選連任或不打算競選連任的政治人物。另一種願意冒險的政治人物是無法競選連任或不打算競選連任的人。然而，這類「跛腳鴨」的臨時地位限制了他們的權力和效力。雖然「跛腳鴨」可能是在關鍵委員會中尋求投票的適當人選，但他很可能會成為立法的糟糕提案人。

Political party affiliation is another variable to consider in timing policy activity. Democratic politicians and legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party are more likely to support increased spending on public education than are Republicans. Thus, school leaders should consider the presence of Democrats in office an opportunity to work for policy changes with significant price tags attached. On the other hand, Republicans are usually more sympathetic to management, including school management, than are Democrats. School leaders should therefore consider the presence of Republicans in office an opportunity to work for policy changes that enhance their own power, such as changes in the tenure and collective bargaining laws.
政黨派系是選擇政策活動時要考慮的另一個變數。民主黨政治家和民主黨控制的立法機關比共和黨更有可能支持增加公共教育的支出。因此，學校領導人應該將民主黨執政視為爭取政策變革的機會，而這些政策變革會附帶巨大的代價。另一方面，共和黨人通常比民主黨人更同情管理，包括學校管理。因此，學校領導人應該將共和黨人當選視為一個機會，藉此爭取政策改變，以增強他們自己的權力，例如改變任期和集體談判法。

Windows of Opportunity 機會之窗

John Kingdon (1984) has found that success in influencing policy often depends on recognizing the opening of a “window of opportunity,” or a period during which both politicians and the public will be especially receptive to a specific policy idea. Because policy windows open suddenly and do not remain open long, moving quickly when one opens is essential. One predictable policy window is related to the electoral cycle; whenever a change in administration occurs, an opportunity to seek innovative policy changes occurs. This is because a new administration wants to make a name for itself by initiating reforms that will be popular with the public. Moreover, in future reelection campaigns, members of the administration will be able to mention these reforms in their list of accomplishments. Politically alert school leaders are aware of impending changes in administration, especially at the state level. Because most governors serve four-year terms and can be reelected once, such a change usually occurs every eight years. Well before such an election, school leadersworking through their professional organizations and other networks-should begin to discuss needed education policy changes that might appeal to a new administration. Through their legislative liaisons, professional organizations can then bring these ideas to the attention of potential candidates. Although such policy proposals should not be controversial, they can require additional expenditures; new administrations are especially likely to reallocate public funds. Examples of education policy changes brought about by new administrations include: teacher testing, career ladders, preschool programs, and school-to-work initiatives.
John Kingdon (1984) 發現，影響政策的成功往往取決於對「機會之窗」開啟的認知，或政治家和公眾特別容易接受特定政策理念的時期。因為政策窗口會突然打開，而且不會維持很長時間，所以在窗口打開時迅速行動是非常重要的。其中一個可預測的政策窗口與選舉週期有關；每當政府換屆時，就會出現尋求創新政策變革的機會。這是因為新的政府希望藉由推行受大眾歡迎的改革來為自己正名。此外，在未來的連任競選中，管理階層的成員將能在他們的成就清單中提及這些改革。具有政治警覺性的學校領導人知道行政管理的即將變化，特別是在州的層面。由於大多數州長的任期為四年，並且可以連任一次，因此這樣的變動通常每八年發生一次。在這樣的選舉之前，學校領導人應該透過他們的專業組織和其他網路，開始討論可能吸引新政府的所需教育政策改變。透過他們的立法聯繫人，專業組織可以將這些想法帶給潛在的候選人。雖然這些政策提案應該不會引起爭議，但它們可能需要額外的支出；新政府尤其可能重新分配公共基金。新政府所帶來的教育政策改變的例子包括：教師測試、職業階梯、學前教育計畫，以及從學校到工作的計畫。

Network and Coalition Building
網路與聯盟建立

Because of the fragmentation of U.S. educational governance, effectiveness in the policy realm requires building both networks and coalitions. As Kaplan and Usdan (1992) observe:
由於美國教育治理的分散性，政策領域的有效性需要同時建立網路和聯盟。正如 Kaplan 和 Usdan (1992)觀察到的：

To function largely in isolation-which has been the norm in some sectors of education, is to volunteer for obscurity-even extinction. . . . Finding and making common cause with people and groups of similar purpose and vision and so rising above the professional roles and governmental jurisdictions is a necessity. (p. 672)
在教育的某些領域中，大體上孤立地運作是一種自願的行為，甚至是自願滅亡。. . .......與目標和願景相近的人和團體尋找和建立共同事業，從而超越專業角色和政府管轄範圍是必要的。(p. 672)

In thinking about building networks and coalitions, education leaders will find Bryson and Crosby’s (1992) concepts of forums and arenas helpful.
在思考建立網路和聯盟時，教育領導者會發現 Bryson 和 Crosby (1992) 的論壇和舞台概念很有幫助。

A forum is a venue in which ideas are presented, discussed, and debated. As a result of such exchanges, people may change their minds, find that their beliefs are stronger than they thought, or learn that those beliefs are more widely shared than they ever imagined. Issue definition, the earliest stage of the policy process, occurs in a wide range of forums, including think tanks, scholarly journals, radio talk shows, professional organizations, and online service bulletin boards and chat rooms. People who do not participate in fo-
論壇是展示、討論和辯論意見的場所。經過這樣的交流，人們可能會改變想法，發現他們的信念比他們想像的更堅定，或了解到這些信念比他們想像的得到更廣泛的認同。議題定義是政策過程的最早階段，發生在各種論壇，包括智庫、學術期刊、廣播清談節目、專業組織、線上服務公告板和聊天室。不參與論壇的人
rums where policy issues important to them are discussed are excluded from an important phase of the policy process-some would say the most important phase.
在討論對他們很重要的政策議題時，他們被排除在政策過程的重要階段之外 - 有人會說這是最重要的階段。

Arenas are venues in which decisions about policies are made. Rules, laws, and various procedures are established in them. Arenas are far more restricted domains of activity than are forums. Examples of arenas include state legislatures, school boards, the board of directors of a corporation, and the executive committee of a labor union. Forums and arenas are connected with each other because the people who make decisions in arenas also participate in numerous forums.
競技場是決定政策的場所。規則、法律和各種程序都是在這些場所制定的。競技場比論壇的活動範圍更受限制。競技場的例子包括州立法機關、學校董事會、公司的董事會，以及工會的執行委員會。論壇和競技場是相互連繫的，因為在競技場中做決定的人也會參與許多論壇。

Building Relationships with Education Professionals. The fragmentation of education in the United States into 15,000 school districts in 50 states means that education leaders must deliberately develop ways to establish and maintain relationships with other professionals in their field. In Bryson and Crosby’s (1992) terms they must find (and sometimes create) forums in which the educational ideas and problems that concern them can be discussed. At the state leveland sometimes at the local level as well-professional organizations often provide such forums for discussion. Indeed, this is one of their major functions. After carefully considering the professional organizations that she is entitled to join, each school leader should select a few with which to affiliate, and at least one or two in which to become truly active.
與教育專業人士建立關係。在美國，教育被分割成 50 個州的 15,000 個學區，這意味著教育領導者必須刻意發展各種方法，以建立並維繫與其領域內其他專業人士的關係。用 Bryson 和 Crosby(1992)的話來說，他們必須找到(有時是創造)可以討論他們所關心的教育理念和問題的論壇。在州的層面，有時也在地方的層面，專業組織經常提供這樣的討論場所。事實上，這是他們的主要功能之一。在仔細考慮了她有權加入的專業組織之後，每一位學校領導者都應該選擇幾個組織加入，並且至少有一兩個組織要真正活躍起來。

Leaders can participate at several levels in the forums offered by these organizations. Simply reading a professional magazine regularly is an easy way to participate in a forum. A higher level of participation involves attending conferences, workshops, and dinners. An even higher level encompasses presenting at conferences or organizing workshops. The highest level of involvement is assuming a formal leadership role in the organization. At every level of activity, members have opportunities to participate in forums where policy issues are discussed and clarified. As an outgrowth of such discussions, many organizations take official policy positions, which their lobbyists then communicate to politicians. Active members help determine what these official positions will be.
領導者可以在多個層面參與這些組織提供的論壇。定期閱讀專業雜誌是參與論壇的簡單方法。更高層次的參與包括參加會議、研討會和晚宴。更高層次的參與包括在會議上發表演講或組織工作坊。最高級別的參與是在組織中擔任正式的領導角色。在每個層級的活動中，會員都有機會參加討論和澄清政策問題的論壇。作為這些討論的結果，許多組織會採取正式的政策立場，然後由他們的說客傳達給政治家。活躍會員協助決定這些官方立場。

Often, however, forums in which educators can discuss ideas do not exist at the local or regional level. Therefore, in order to address local or regional policy issues effectively, education leaders may need to create a forum first, which can take many forms. In some places, all of the high school principals in the county meet for lunch once a month. The superintendents in the southeastern corner of the state may golf together regularly. Sometimes people establish formal councils, roundtables, or task forces. Often, broader forums develop out of more limited ones. For example, in many states the rather informal forums established by superintendents have evolved into statewide forums used to discuss school finance issues. In many states-Ohio and Tennessee are just two examples-such forums eventually led to organizations that retained legal counsel in order to challenge the constitutionality of
然而，在地方或區域層級，往往不存在可讓教育工作者討論想法的論壇。因此，為了有效解決地方或區域政策問題，教育領導者可能需要先建立一個論壇，其形式可以有很多。在某些地方，縣內所有高中校長每個月會聚在一起吃一次午餐。州東南角的校長可能會定期一起打高爾夫球。有時候，人們會成立正式的理事會、圓桌會議或工作小組。通常，更廣泛的論壇會從更有限的論壇中發展出來。例如，在許多州，由校監建立的相當非正式的論壇已演變成用於討論學校財務問題的全州性論壇。在許多州--俄亥俄州和田納西州只是兩個例子--這類論壇最終導致一些組織聘請了法律顧問，以挑戰《教育法》的合憲性。
school finance systems. In such cases, the close link between forums and arenas becomes clear.
學校財務系統。在這種情況下，論壇與舞台之間的密切聯繫變得很清楚。

Building Relationships with Other Government Agencies. Unfortunately, the relationship between local government agencies tends to be a competitive one, more often marked by the determination to “protect turf” than by a desire to cooperate in serving the public (Garvin & Young, 1994). As a result, agency programs often overlap and duplicate each other, wasting precious resources. For more than a decade, both federal and state governments have encouraged local agencies, including school districts, to work together more collaboratively. For example, in 1988 New Jersey initiated a School-Based Youth Services Program at every school site, which must offer several social and educational services (First, Curcio, & Young, 1994). Pressure to collaborate will most likely continue; additionally, if resources remain meager, officials in public service agencies will increasingly understand the rationale for cooperating rather than competing.
與其他政府機構建立關係。不幸的是，地方政府機構之間的關係往往是一種競爭關係，其特點往往是「保護地盤」的決心，而不是合作服務大眾的願望（Garvin & Young, 1994）。因此，各機構的計畫經常互相重疊，浪費了寶貴的資源。十多年來，聯邦政府和州政府都鼓勵包括學區在內的地方機構加強合作。例如，在 1988 年，新澤西州在每所學校啟動了校本青少年服務計劃，該計劃必須提供多種社會和教育服務（First, Curcio, & Young, 1994）。合作的壓力很可能會持續下去；此外，如果資源仍然微薄，公共服務機構的官員將越來越了解合作而非競爭的理由。

However, launching and sustaining collaborative efforts are notoriously difficult, in part because of the absence of appropriate forums and arenas at the local level. New Orleans provides an illuminating example of how one can go about overcoming this problem by first creating a forum. Convinced of the importance of linking schools with social services, the mayor worked with the University of New Orleans to call a summit conference in 1991. They invited a wide range of participants, including representatives of the public and Catholic school systems, the police department, parent organizations, area universities, the city health department, and the juvenile justice system. At the summit conference, representatives of these agencies began to communicate with each other for the first time. The conference led to a joint grant proposal by the University of New Orleans, the Orleans Parish Public School System, and the mayor’s office for financial support for collaborative efforts. Participants believed that for one person to take the first step and provide leadership for the effort was essential, saying: “These groups have been willing to cooperate because someone took the initiative and talked to them about the possibilities of collaboration. . . . Someone has to step forward and begin the dialogue” (Garvin & Young, 1994, p. 100).
然而，發起和維持合作努力是出了名的困難，部分原因是在地方層級缺乏適當的論壇和舞台。新奧爾良提供了一個很有啟發性的例子，說明如何通過首先創建一個論壇來克服這個問題。市長深信將學校與社會服務聯繫起來的重要性，於 1991 年與新奧爾良大學合作召開了一次高峰會議。他們邀請了廣泛的與會者，包括公立和天主教學校系統、警察部門、家長組織、地區大學、市衛生部門和青少年司法系統的代表。在高峰會議上，這些機構的代表首次開始相互溝通。會議促成了新奧爾良大學、奧爾良教區公立學校系統和市長辦公室的聯合撥款提案，為協作努力提供財務支援。與會者認為，由一個人踏出第一步並為這項努力提供領導是非常重要的，他們說：「這些團體都願意合作："這些團體之所以願意合作，是因為有人主動與他們討論合作的可能性。. . ..必須有人站出來開始對話"（Garvin & Young, 1994, p.100）。

Of course, many efforts at local coalition building are less ambitious than the New Orleans Summit Conference. The possibilities for establishing local forums in which representatives of several government agencies can interact are endless and include activities such as monthly luncheons with a speaker, an ongoing discussion group, an annual conference, and a newsletter. Whatever form a local forum takes, at least one forum should exist in which education leaders can communicate with people from other public agencies. A long history of communication and interaction will facilitate networking and the development of eventual coalitions if leaders need them in order to collaborate or seek policy change.
當然，許多地方聯盟建立的努力都沒有新奧爾良高峰會議那麼雄心勃勃。建立地方論壇，讓多個政府機構的代表可以互動的可能性是無窮無盡的，包括每月與講者共進午餐、持續的討論小組、年度會議和通訊等活動。無論地方論壇採取何種形式，至少應該有一個論壇，讓教育領導者可以與其他公共機構的人員進行溝通。長期的溝通與互動，將有助於建立人際網絡，並在領導人需要時，發展最終的聯盟，以便合作或尋求政策改變。

POLITICAL CULTURE 政治文化

DEFINING POLITICAL CULTURE
界定政治文化

In order to understand what a political culture is, one should first have a general understanding of what a culture is. Sociologist Geert Hofstede (1987) defines culture this way:
為了瞭解何謂政治文化，首先應該對何謂文化有一般的瞭解。社會學家 Geert Hofstede (1987) 這樣定義文化：

[It] is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or society from another. . . . Culture is reflected in the meanings people attach to various aspects of life; their way of looking at the world and their role in it; in their values . . . Culture . . . becomes crystallized in the institutions and tangible products of a society. . . . (pp. 401-402)
[它]是心靈的集體程式，將一個團體或社會的成員與另一個團體或社會的成員區分開來。. . .文化反映在人們對生活各方面所附加的意義；他們看待世界的方式以及他們在其中所扮演的角色；他們的價值觀......。. .文化......結晶為社會的制度和有形產品。. . .(pp. 401-402)

A more informal, but also useful, definition was offered by a business executive, speaking of organizational culture: “the way we do things around here” (Deal & Kennedy, 1982, p. 4). A political culture, then, is a collective way of thinking about politics that includes beliefs about the political process, its proper goals, and appropriate behavior for politicians. Over time, political culture becomes crystallized in institutions such as the campaign fund raiser, the party machine, and the town meeting; over time, such political “products” as campaign speeches, laws, and education policies increasingly reflect it. A political culture is not the same as a political system, which consists of a set of formal structures and constitutional laws; the first part of this chapter described the U.S. political system. Even if two groups of people have political systems that appear identical on paper, they will play the political game quite differently within those identical structures if their political cultures differ.
一位企業主管在談到組織文化時，提出了一個比較非正式，但也很有用的定義：「我們在這裡做事的方式」（Deal & Kennedy, 1982, p.4）："Deal & Kennedy, 1982, p.4）。因此，政治文化是一種關於政治的集體思考方式，包括對政治過程、其正確目標以及政治家適當行為的信念。隨著時間的推移，政治文化會在競選募款人、政黨機器和市鎮會議等機構中結晶；隨著時間的推移，競選演說、法律和教育政策等政治「產品」也會越來越多地反映出政治文化。政治文化與政治體制不同，政治體制由一套正式的結構和憲法組成；本章的第一部分描述了美國的政治體制。即使兩個群體的政治體制在紙面上看來完全相同，但如果他們的政治文化不同，他們在這些相同的結構中玩的政治遊戲也會完全不同。

Political scientists identify three basic political cultures in the United States: the traditionalistic, the moralistic, and the individualistic. Although each of these cultures is associated with particular geographic areas, they are of roughly equal importance in national politics. Moreover, in several states educational leaders can best understand many political conflicts as confrontations between parts of the state with different political cultures. In the following sections, the three cultures are briefly described; they are arranged in chronological order according to their appearance in the United States.
政治學家認為美國有三種基本的政治文化：傳統主義、道德主義和個人主義。儘管每種文化都與特定的地理區域有關，但它們在全國政治中的重要性大致相同。此外，在幾個州中，教育領導者可以將許多政治衝突最好地理解為具有不同政治文化的州內各部分之間的對抗。以下各節將簡單介紹這三種文化；它們是根據在美國出現的時間順序排列的。

traditionalistic political culture
傳統政治文化

As readers can see from Figure 4.3 and Table 4.3, traditionalistic political culture is dominant in the South and in regions of the country where Southerners originally settled. One major characteristic of this culture is ambivalence toward the market and unrestrained commercial enterprise. It is no coincidence, for example, that the first major American critique of capitalism was produced by a Southern politician, John C. Calhoun, whose analysis of the social ills produced by industrialization’ anticipated some of Karl Marx’s ideas. A
正如讀者從圖 4.3 和表 4.3 中看到的，傳統政治文化在南方和南方人最初定居的地區佔主導地位。這種文化的一個主要特徵是對市場和不受限制的商業企業的矛盾心理。舉例來說，美國對資本主義的第一個主要批判是由南方政治家約翰‧卡爾洪 (John C. Calhoun) 提出的，這並非巧合，他對工業化所產生的社會弊病的分析，預見了卡爾‧馬克思 (Karl Marx) 的某些觀點。A

Figure 4.3 Map showing predominant political cultures, by state.
圖 4.3 顯示各州主要政治文化的地圖。
Note. From American Federalism: A View from the States 3rd ed., by Daniel J. Elazar. Copyright © 1984 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
說明。摘自 American Federalism：A View from the States 3rd ed., by Daniel J. Elazar.版權所有 © 1984 年由 Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.經 Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.許可轉載。

TABLE 4.3 The Predominant Political Cultures of the 50 States
表 4.3 50 個州的主要政治文化

Alabama 阿拉巴馬	California 加州	Alaska 阿拉斯加州
Arizona 亞利桑那州	Colorado 科羅拉多州	Connecticut 康涅狄格州
Arkansas 阿肯色州	Idaho 愛達荷州	Delaware 特拉華
Florida 佛羅里達州	lowa	Hawaii 夏威夷
Georgia 喬治亞	Kansas 堪薩斯州	Illinois 伊利諾州
Kentucky 肯塔基州	Maine 緬因州	Indiana 印第安納州
Louisiana 路易斯安那州	Michigan 密西根州	Maryland 馬里蘭州
Mississippi 密西西比州	Minnesota 明尼蘇達州	Massachusetts 麻州
New Mexico 新墨西哥州	Montana 蒙大拿州	Missouri 密蘇里州
North Carolina 北卡羅萊納州	New Hampshire 新罕布什爾州	Nebraska 內布拉斯加州
Oklahoma 奧克拉荷馬州	North Dakota 北達科他	Nevada 內華達州
South Carolina 南卡羅來納	Oregon 俄勒岡州	New Jersey 新澤西州
Tennessee 田納西州	South Dakota 南達科他	New York 紐約
Texas 德州	Utah 猶他州	Ohio 俄亥俄州
Virginia 弗吉尼亞州	Vermont 佛蒙特州	Pennsylvania 賓州
West Virginia 西維吉尼亞州	Washington 華盛頓	Rhode Island 羅得島
	Wisconsin 威斯康辛州	Wyoming 懷俄明州

Note. Based on Elazar (1984), p. 136.
註。根據 Elazar (1984)，第 136 頁。
second major characteristic of traditionalist political culture is the belief that an established elite should provide political leadership. Although the exact nature of this elite can vary-it may consist of the local “good ole boys” in one place and of a group of highly educated patricians in another-membership in it is achieved through family or other social ties. The overriding political goal is maintaining the established order or, if it must change because of changing circumstances, bringing about the transition with minimal disruption.
傳統主義政治文化的第二個主要特徵，就是相信應該由既有的精英來提供政治領導。儘管這種精英的具體性質可能各不相同--在一個地方可能由當地的「老好人」組成，而在另一個地方則可能由一群受過高等教育的貴族組成--但其成員身份是通過家庭或其他社會關係實現的。壓倒一切的政治目標是維持既有秩序，或者，如果因環境變化而必須改變秩序，則以最小的干擾實現過渡。

In traditionalist political cultures, government is seen as a positive force in society-as long as it restricts its activity to maintaining the status quo. Active participation in politics is considered a privilege that should be restricted to the members of the elite and those whom they invite to become involved. Political parties and political ideology are unimportant; typically, traditionalist areas have a one-party system, and major issues are fought out between factions of the dominant party. On the other hand, kinship, social connections, and personal relationships are extremely important. In this culture, politicians are expected to have and steadily maintain a wide-ranging network of personal relationships. Although the traditionalist political culture is not as likely to become corrupt as is the individualistic culture, domination by corrupt elites is sometimes a problem in traditionalistic areas.
在傳統主義的政治文化中，政府被視為社會中的一股正面力量--只要它的活動只限於維持現狀。積極參與政治被認為是一種特權，應該僅限於精英成員和他們邀請參與的人。政黨和政治意識形態並不重要；傳統主義地區通常都是一黨制，重大議題都是由佔優勢的政黨派系爭奪。另一方面，親族關係、社會連繫和人際關係極為重要。在這種文化中，政治人物應該擁有並穩定地維持廣泛的人際關係網。儘管傳統主義政治文化不像個人主義文化那樣容易腐敗，但腐敗精英的支配有時也是傳統主義地區的一個問題。

Traditionalistic political culture brings several strengths to U.S. politics. Its skepticism about unrestrained commercial activity sometimes causes its representatives to raise important questions, and its concern for continuity provides needed balance in a rapidly changing society. Moreover, elite political systems occasionally produce courageous, even brilliant, leaders who probably would never succeed in politics in the other two cultures. Senators William Fulbright of Arkansas, Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina come readily to mind. Because their power was rooted in a base comprising kinship and other social ties, they were sometimes able to take unpopular stands, secure in the knowledge that they would be reelected anyway. Obviously, the traditionalistic political culture also has major weaknesses. Its resistance to change has been a major factor in perpetuating racism, and its elitism discourages widespread political participation, including high voter turnout (Elazar, 1984).
傳統政治文化為美國政治帶來了多種優勢。它對不受限制的商業活動持懷疑態度，有時會使其代表提出重要問題，而它對延續性的關注，則為快速變化的社會提供了所需的平衡。此外，精英政治體系偶爾會培養出有勇氣、甚至傑出的領導人，而這些領導人在其他兩種文化中可能永遠不會在政治上取得成功。阿肯色州參議員 William Fulbright、田納西州參議員 Estes Kefauver 和北卡羅萊納州參議員 Sam Ervin 就很容易讓人聯想到他們。由於他們的權力根植於親族關係和其他社會聯繫，他們有時能夠採取不受歡迎的立場，因為他們知道自己無論如何都會連任。顯然，傳統的政治文化也有很大的弱點。它對改變的抗拒是種族主義永久化的主要因素，而它的精英主義則妨礙了廣泛的政治參與，包括高投票率 (Elazar, 1984)。

MORALISTIC POLITICAL CULTURE
道德政治文化

As readers can see from Figure 4.3 and Table 4.3, the moralistic political culture is dominant in New England and in areas where New Englanders originally settled. It is also dominant in areas that received large numbers of Scandinavian immigrants in the nineteenth century, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin. Members of this culture believe politics is (or should be) “a public activity centered on some notion of the public good and properly devoted to the advancement of the public interest” (Elazar, 1984, p. 117). Because they see government positively, as an important way to improve life for everyone, people in a moralistic political culture favor an activist government that initiates new programs when necessary. They also believe participation in politics
正如讀者從圖 4.3 和表 4.3 中看到的，道德主義政治文化在新英格蘭和新英格蘭人最初定居的地區佔主導地位。在十九世紀接收大量斯堪的納維亞移民的地區，例如明尼蘇達州和威斯康星州，這種文化也佔主導地位。這種文化的成員相信政治是（或應該是）「以某種公共利益觀念為中心的公共活動，並適當地致力於促進公共利益」（Elazar, 1984, p.117）。因為他們正面看待政府，將其視為改善每個人生活的重要方式，所以道德主義政治文化中的人們喜歡積極主動的政府，在必要時啟動新計劃。他們也相信參與政治
should be as widespread as possible; the New England town meeting is typical of the participative institutions this culture tends to produce. Ideas and issues are important in this culture, and its members often debate them with great intensity. Unlike representatives of the other two cultures, members of the moralistic culture view government bureaucracies and civil service systems positively because they believe that they encourage the fair and impartial implementation of government policies. Clean government is of great importance in this culture, and political corruption is seen as a shocking betrayal of public trust.
新英格蘭的市鎮會議是這種文化傾向於產生的典型參與性機構。在這種文化中，想法和議題是很重要的，其成員經常會激烈地辯論這些想法和議題。與其他兩種文化的代表不同，道德主義文化的成員正面看待政府官僚與公務員制度，因為他們相信這些制度鼓勵公平公正地執行政府政策。在這種文化中，廉潔的政府非常重要，政治貪污被視為對公眾信任的背叛，令人震驚。

Historically, the moralistic political culture has been the source of most of the “clean government reforms” in U.S. society, such as laws requiring the publication of campaign finance records or forbidding nepotism (the hiring of relatives in government jobs). The moralistic belief in widespread political participation has also had a positive impact on U.S. government, leading to such institutions as citizens’ advisory councils and public debates of important issues. Sometimes, however, members of the moralistic political culture become overly rigid in their beliefs or veer toward fanaticism. Representatives of the other two cultures often perceive them as too idealistic and out of touch with the realities of practical politics (Elazar, 1984).
從歷史上看，道德主義的政治文化是美國社會中大多數「廉潔政府改革」的源頭，例如要求公佈競選財務記錄或禁止裙帶關係（雇用親戚擔任政府工作）的法律。道德主義對廣泛政治參與的信念也對美國政府產生了積極的影響，促成了公民諮詢委員會和重要議題的公開辯論等制度。然而，有時候，道德主義政治文化的成員在他們的信仰上會變得過於僵化或偏向狂熱。其他兩種文化的代表經常認為他們太理想化，與現實政治脫節 (Elazar, 1984)。

INDIVIDUALISTIC POLITICAL CULTURE
個人政治文化

The individualistic political culture developed in Middle Atlantic states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey; settlers from this area spread it westward. Moreover, in the twentieth century its influence has spread into southern New England, changing the flavor of politics in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. In the individualistic culture, politics is understood as a type of marketplace in which the government should serve utilitarian-primarily economic-purposes. Members of this culture believe government should keep to a strict minimum its intervention in “private” spheres such as business, the family, and churches; however, they do want it to provide the framework needed to keep the economy working efficiently. In this culture, politics is seen as a business like any other; individuals enter it in order to advance themselves socially and financially. The political process is based on the exchange of favors that exist within a system of mutual obligation. For example, in exchange for a large campaign contribution from a corporation, a state representative may vote against a law that the corporation opposes. Or, at the local level, a city councilman may help the son of a loyal party worker get a job teaching in the city schools. The party machine-based on a complex system of mutual obligations and strong party loyalty-is an institution typical of this culture. Issues, ideas, and ideology are unimportant in it, as is tradition. Loyalty and strict respect for the system of mutual obligation are what really count. At its best, politics in this culture operates in a smooth, efficient, and businesslike manner; at its worst, it becomes corrupt. The individualistic culture is more susceptible to corruption than are the other two cultures, which is perhaps why people in the individualistic culture frequently consider political activity morally questionable or “dirty.”
個人主義政治文化發展於中大西洋各州，如賓夕法尼亞州和新澤西州；來自這一地區的移民將其向西傳播。此外，在二十世紀，它的影響已擴散到新英格蘭南部，改變了馬薩諸塞州、羅德島州和康涅狄格州的政治風格。在個人主義文化中，政治被理解為一種市場，政府應該為功利--主要是經濟--目的服務。這種文化的成員認為，政府應該將對「私人」領域（如商業、家庭和教會）的干預限制在最低限度；但是，他們確實希望政府提供必要的框架，以保持經濟的有效運行。在這種文化中，政治被視為與其他事業一樣的事業；個人進入政治是為了在社會和經濟上提升自己。政治過程是建立在互惠互利的基礎上。例如，為了換取企業的大筆競選捐款，州代表可能會投票反對企業反對的法律。或者，在地方層面，一位市議會議員可能會幫助一位忠實的政黨工作者的兒子在市立學校找到一份教書的工作。政黨機器以複雜的相互義務和強烈的政黨忠誠為基礎，是這種文化的典型體制。問題、想法和意識形態在其中並不重要，傳統也是如此。忠誠度和對相互義務系統的嚴格尊重才是真正重要的。在最好的情況下，這種文化中的政治會以順暢、有效率和務實的方式運作；在最壞的情況下，它會變得腐敗。個人主義文化比其他兩種文化更容易受到貪污腐敗的影響，這也許就是個人主義文化中的人們經常認為政治活動在道德上有問題或「骯髒」的原因。

The individualistic political culture has made important contributions to the nation as a whole. In particular, its emphasis on smooth, efficient, businesslike government has made an impact nationally, as has its preference for nonideological politics. However, it is vulnerable to the criticism that its practitioners have no principles and believe that everything is for sale to the highest bidder (Elazar, 1984). Several of the political developments of the 1990s, including the rise of the Religious Right, Ross Perot’s third party initiatives, and the resurgence of the old Populist Movement on the left. can be understood in part as a rejection of individualistic politics by people from the traditionalistic and moralistic cultures.
個人主義政治文化對整個國家做出了重要貢獻。特別是，它強調順暢、有效率、務實的政府，以及它對非意識形態政治的偏好，都對全國產生了影響。然而，它也很容易受到批評，說它的實踐者沒有原則，相信一切都可以賣給出價最高的人(Elazar, 1984)。1990 年代的幾個政治發展，包括宗教右翼的崛起、Ross Perot 的第三黨倡議，以及左翼舊民粹運動的復興，都可以部分地理解為傳統和道德主義文化背景下的人們對個人主義政治的拒絕。

POLITICAL CULTURE AND EDUCATION POLICY
政治文化與教育政策

In the late 1980s three education policy researchers-Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989)-conducted a cross-state comparative study of education policy making, using a cultural framework for their analysis. One portion of their research specifically explored the impact of political culture on both policy makers and education policy. Indeed, they selected the six states for their study to include two states with a predominantly traditionalistic culture (Arizona and West Virginia), two with a predominantly moralistic culture (California and Wisconsin), and two with a predominantly individualistic culture (Illinois and Pennsylvania). Marshall et al. (1989) made two major findings with regard to political culture and education policy. First, they discovered that powerful national policy movements can overwhelm the importance of political culture in state level policy making. For example, the impact of national movements in such policy areas as school desegregation, compensatory and bilingual education, and special education was apparent in all six states, regardless of their political cultures. At the time of their study, national reform movements were focusing on school finance reform and personnel reforms. Marshall et al. (1989) found that these rather transitory national trends had also taken precedence over the states’ political cultures, even though they were considerably less powerful than the movements for desegregation, compensatory and bilingual education, and special education.
在 1980 年代末期，三位教育政策研究者-Marshall、Mitchell 和 Wirt (1989)-進行了一項跨州的教育政策制定比較研究，並使用文化架構進行分析。他們的研究中有一部分特別探討了政治文化對決策者和教育政策的影響。事實上，他們選擇了六個州進行研究，包括兩個以傳統文化為主的州（亞利桑那州和西維吉尼亞州）、兩個以道德文化為主的州（加利福尼亞州和威斯康辛州），以及兩個以個人文化為主的州（伊利諾伊州和賓夕法尼亞州）。Marshall 等人（1989）在政治文化和教育政策方面有兩個主要發現。首先，他們發現強大的全國性政策運動可以壓倒政治文化在州層級政策制定中的重要性。舉例來說，在六個州，不論其政治文化如何，全國性運動在學校取消種族隔離、補償和雙語教育，以及特殊教育等政策領域的影響都是顯而易見的。在他們進行研究時，全國性的改革運動著重於學校財務改革和人事改革。Marshall 等人(1989)發現，這些頗為短暫的全國性趨勢，也優先於各州的政治文化，儘管它們的力量遠不及取消種族隔離、補償和雙語教育，以及特殊教育的運動。

Their second major finding, however, was that in the absence of a national movement, policy differences related to political culture do emerge. For example, policy makers in the traditionalistic states reported that their legislatures were considering reforms in areas such as student testing, stronger student discipline, and weakening the power of education professionals. All these changes are consistent with the traditionalistic desire to maintain elite power and protect the status quo. In contrast, the moralistic states reported they were interested in policies that would target funds for special needs children, establish long-range planning for the development of school facilities, and strengthen state education agencies. These interests reflect both the moralistic concern for the common good and their confidence in activist government. Finally, the individualistic states favored an incremental, piecemeal approach to school facilities and often used cost-saving arguments to support
然而，他們的第二個主要發現是，在沒有全國性運動的情況下，確實出現了與政治文化有關的政策差異。例如，傳統主義州份的決策者表示，他們的立法機關正考慮在學生測驗、加強學生紀律、削弱教育專業人員的權力等領域進行改革。所有這些改變都符合傳統主義者維護精英權力與保護現狀的願望。相反地，道德主義的各州表示，他們對針對特殊需求兒童的資金、建立學校設施發展的長期規劃，以及強化州立教育機構的政策感興趣。這些興趣反映出道德主義者對共同利益的關心，以及他們對積極政府的信心。最後，個人主義的各州偏愛以循序漸進、零敲碎打的方式興建學校設施，並經常以節省成本的論點來支持這些政策。
their preferred policy changes. These positions are consistent with their perception of politics as a marketplace. Thus, political culture seems to be an important variable in education policy making at the state level, but it is limited and constrained by the national education policy agenda.
他們偏好的政策變化。這些立場與他們將政治視為市場的觀點一致。因此，政治文化似乎是州層級教育政策制定的重要變數，但它受到國家教育政策議程的限制與約束。

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
對學校行政人員的影響

Suggestions for Identifying Political Cultures
識別政治文化的建議

Because school leadership involves considerable interaction with local and state politicians, education leaders will find reflecting upon the political culture in which they work and also upon their own cultural assumptions helpful. Figure 4.4 provides a framework for such reflection. In using this framework, however, leaders should be careful not to approach these issues in a simplistic manner. Recognizing that the traditionalistic, moralistic, and individualistic political cultures are examples of what social scientists call ideal types is important. An ideal type is an abstract description of a social phenomenon that depicts that phenomenon in a simplified and purified form. Although ideal types provide useful frameworks for analyzing concrete situations, they are less complex than the real world, in which phenomena overlap and mingle with each other. For example, although in every state a dominant political culture can be identified, elements of the other cultures are often present as well. In Illinois, the individualistic pattern is most important; however, many communities along the Wisconsin border are moralistic, whereas people in the southernmost tip of the state tend to be traditionalistic. Similarly, Californiabasically a moralistic state-has strong individualistic elements in the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas and traditionalistic tendencies around San Diego. Thus, assuming that because political scientists have assigned one’s state a particular label, the other cultures are totally absent from it would be a mistake. Particularly in metropolitan centers, where people are highly mobile and well traveled, a rich mix of political cultures is often found. Moreover, some evidence suggests that well-educated people, no matter where they live or originally came from, tend to accept the values of the moralistic political culture (Elazar, 1984). As a result, university towns and other communities with a high percentage of college-educated people are likely to contain strong moralistic elements regardless of their geographic location. This means that school leaders who are trying to determine the political culture in which they work should not jump to conclusions but instead carefully observe the political behavior around them before attaching labels to it. They may conclude that two or even three of the cultures are present in their area, and they may actually be able to distinguish community groups or individuals on the basis of their political culture.
由於學校領導涉及到與地方和州政治家的大量互動，教育領導者會發現反思他們工作所處的政治文化以及他們自己的文化假設是有幫助的。圖 4.4 提供了一個進行這種反思的框架。然而，在使用此框架時，領導者應該小心，不要以簡單化的方式來處理這些問題。認識到傳統主義、道德主義和個人主義政治文化是社會科學家所謂的理想類型的例子，這一點非常重要。理想類型是對一種社會現象的抽象描述，它以一種簡化和純化的形式來描繪這種現象。儘管理想類型為分析具體情況提供了有用的框架，但它們不如現實世界那麼複雜，因為現實世界中的各種現象相互重疊、相互交融。例如，儘管在每個州都可以找到一種主導的政治文化，但其他文化的元素也經常存在。在伊利諾伊州，個人主義模式是最重要的；然而，威斯康辛州邊境的許多社區是道德主義的，而該州最南端的人們則傾向於傳統主義。同樣，加州基本上是一個道德主義州，在舊金山灣和洛杉磯地區有強烈的個人主義因素，而在聖地亞哥周圍則有傳統主義的傾向。因此，假設因為政治科學家給一個州貼上特定的標籤，其他文化就完全不存在，那就大錯特錯了。特別是在大都會中心，人們流動性高且經常旅行，經常發現政治文化的豐富組合。此外，有些證據顯示，受過良好教育的人，不論他們住在哪裡或原本來自哪裡，都傾向於接受道德主義政治文化的價值觀(Elazar, 1984)。因此，大學城和其他大學教育程度高的社區，不論其地理位置如何，都可能包含強烈的道德主義元素。這意味著，學校領導者在嘗試確定他們所處的政治文化時，不應匆忙下結論，而應仔細觀察周圍的政治行為，然後再貼上標籤。他們可能會得出這樣的結論：在他們的地區存在兩種甚至三種文化，而且他們可能真的能夠根據政治文化區分社區團體或個人。

Leading in a Traditionalistic Setting
在傳統環境中領導

Men and women selected to serve as school leaders in traditionalistic settings are usually people who are acceptable to the local elite either because they are already part of the established order or because they come from a similar environment elsewhere. (Exceptions do occur, however; see the case study at the
在傳統環境中，被挑選擔任學校領導者的男性和女性通常都是當地菁英所能接受的人，因為他們已經是既有秩序的一員，或是來自其他地方的類似環境。(不過，也有例外的情況；請參閱第 9 頁的案例研究。

For each of the following categories, “yes” answers suggest the presence of a given culture; the more “yes” answers in each category, the more dominant the culture is.
對於下列每個類別，「是」的答案表示存在特定的文化；每個類別中「是」的答案越多，表示該文化越佔優勢。

Traditionalistic Political Culture
傳統政治文化

Is political participation viewed as a privilege for an elite few?
政治參與是否被視為少數精英的特權？
Do most political leaders belong to an elite group based on kinship or social ties?
大多數政治領袖是否屬於基於親族或社會關係的精英團體？
Are government bureaucracy and civil service systems viewed negatively?
政府官僚體制和公務員制度是否被負面看待？
Are most political conflicts played out within a single dominant party?
大多數政治衝突都是在單一政黨內發生嗎？
Is government’s major role seen as maintaining the existing status quo?
政府的主要角色是否被視為維持現狀？

Moralistic Political Culture
道德政治文化

Is widespread political participation valued?
廣泛的政治參與是否受到重視？
Are issues and principles important, especially in political conflicts?
問題和原則是否重要，尤其是在政治衝突中？
Are government bureaucracy and civil service systems viewed positively, as a way to have impartial government?
政府的官僚體制和公務員制度是否被正面看待，成為擁有公正政府的一種方式？
Do two parties exist with different ideological platforms, supplemented by occasional third party activity?
是否存在具有不同意識形態政綱的兩個政黨，並輔以偶爾的第三方活動？
Is government’s major role seen as advancing the common good?
政府的主要角色是否被視為促進共同利益？

Individualistic Political Culture
個人主義政治文化

Is politics viewed as a “dirty” marketplace best left to a few professionals?
政治是否被視為「骯髒」的市場，最好交給少數專業人士處理？
Do two political parties exist that are businesslike organizations, characterized by a high level of cohesiveness and competition between themselves?
是否存在兩個政黨，它們是以高度凝聚力和相互競爭為特徵的商業型組織？
Is remembering one’s political debts and paying them off in an appropriate manner important?
記住自己的政治債務並以適當的方式償還是否重要？
Are government bureaucracy and civil service systems viewed ambivalently-efficient but too restrictive of the system of mutual favors?
是否以矛盾的態度看待政府官僚體制和公務員體制--高效但對互惠制度限制過多？
Is government’s major role seen as favoring economic development?
政府的主要角色是否被視為有利於經濟發展？
Figure 4.4 A framework for reflection on the dominant political culture(s).
圖 4.4 主導政治文化的反思框架。
end of the chapter.) Even so, leaders in traditionalistic places are not always as traditionalistic as the local elite; their education, reading, and travel have often caused them to develop new ideas about education that differ considerably from the views of the local establishment. As a result, even “down home boys” and “girls from next door” may encounter problems if they do not carefully think through their situation.
章末）。即便如此，傳統主義地方的領導人並不總是像當地的菁英一樣傳統主義；他們的教育、閱讀和旅遊經常讓他們對教育產生新的想法，而這些想法與當地建制派的觀點有相當大的差異。因此，即使是「下鄉的男孩」和「隔壁的女孩」，如果沒有仔細思考自己的處境，也可能會遇到問題。

This reflection should include three major components. First, in a traditionalistic setting identifying the members of the local elite is essential. Although they probably will not be openly active in school affairs, they will be interested in them and will have close associates who are active. To a great extent, success in the traditionalistic setting depends upon gaining and keeping the support of this group. In addition, school leaders who work in a traditionalistic area must recognize that personal contacts and social ties provide the basis for political effectiveness in this environment and must invest their energies accordingly, paying special attention to the ruling elite and its close allies. Leaders should never spring unexpected policy surprises on the elite; rather, they should use their social network to prepare for change, laying a foundation through many conversations, offhand comments, articles in newsletters,
這種反思應該包括三個主要部分。首先，在傳統的環境中，識別當地精英的成員是非常重要的。儘管他們可能不會公開積極參與學校事務，但他們會對學校事務感興趣，並會有積極參與的親密伙伴。在很大程度上，在傳統環境中的成功取決於能否獲得並維持這群人的支持。此外，在傳統主義地區工作的學校領導人必須認識到，個人聯繫和社會關係是在這種環境中取得政治成效的基礎，因此必須投入相應的精力，並特別注意統治精英及其親密盟友。領導人絕不應該向精英階層發佈意料之外的政策驚喜；相反，他們應該利用自己的社交網路為變革做好準備，透過許多對話、不經意的評論、通訊中的文章來奠定基礎、
and other channels. Finally, school leaders in a traditionalistic setting should make a point of finding out what the local education traditions are; and, when arguing for needed changes, they should draw on these traditions to justify them. For example, a superintendent who wants to improve significantly the computer education program of her school system should not make the mistake of arguing primarily that such a change will cause graduates to be more productive workers in the local economy (an individualistic argument) or that it will contribute to the development of a more enlightened citizenry (a moralistic argument). Rather, her major arguments for the proposed change should relate it to successful past changes in the school district and to other local traditions.
和其他渠道。最後，在傳統環境中的學校領導人，應該特別注意找出當地的教育傳統是什麼；當他們爭辯需要改變時，應該利用這些傳統來證明其合理性。舉例來說，一位校長想要大幅改善學校系統的電腦教育計畫，她不應該錯誤地以這樣的改變會讓畢業生在當地經濟中成為更有生產力的勞工（個人主義的論點），或是會有助於發展更開明的公民（道德主義的論點）為主要論據。相反地，她對於所提議的改變的主要論點，應該與學區過去成功的改變和其他地方傳統相聯繫。

Leading in a Moralistic Setting
在道德的環境中領導

In a moralistic environment, school leaders usually have the advantage that citizens consider education an important contribution to the common good and are inclined to support it. However, people who are part of this culture also expect to be very involved in government, including school government. A major challenge for school leaders in this environment is providing numerous opportunities for local citizens-and not just parents-to provide input on school policies and practices. Advisory councils, citizen task forces, and town meeting style debates of issues are popular in this culture; leaders should take care to develop them if they do not already exist and to use them frequently if they do. Leaders must also open channels of communication and keep them open, using frequent newsletters, an annual report, a series of articles in the local paper, and other communication devices. Thorough reports of official meetings and understandable copies of school and district budgets should be readily available for public perusal. In a moralistic setting few secrets should exist; most school activities and problems should be well publicized and openly discussed. The development of-or even the appearance of-a ruling clique that makes decisions behind closed doors must be avoided at all costs. Avoiding any hint of favoritism or scandal is also important because in this culture both government impartiality and government honesty are highly valued. Finally, in a moralistic setting school leaders should clearly identify themselves with certain education principles and ideals; they should also be prepared to defend their ideas with principled arguments as well as with facts and figures. Neither a pragmatic orientation nor appeals to tradition work as well in this culture as do good ideas that can be supported in an ethically convincing way.
在道德主義的環境中，學校領導者通常具有公民認為教育是對共同利益的重要貢獻，並傾向於支持教育的優勢。然而，屬於這種文化的人們也期望能積極參與政府事務，包括學校政府。在這種環境下，學校領導者面臨的一個主要挑戰是，為當地公民（而不僅僅是家長）提供大量機會，讓他們對學校的政策和實踐提供意見。在這種文化中，諮詢委員會、公民專責小組和市鎮會議式的議題辯論非常流行；如果還沒有這些機制，領導者應該注意發展它們，如果有的話，也要經常使用它們。領導者也必須開啟溝通管道並保持其暢通性，經常使用通訊、年度報告、在當地報紙上發表一系列文章，以及其他溝通工具。官方會議的詳盡報告以及學校和學區預算的可理解副本應隨時提供給公眾閱讀。在一個道德的環境中，應該很少有秘密存在；大部份的學校活動和問題都應該很好地公開和公開討論。必須不惜一切代價避免形成，甚至出現閉門造車的統治集團。避免任何偏袒或醜聞的蛛絲馬跡也很重要，因為在這種文化中，政府的公正和誠實都受到高度重視。最後，在道德主義的環境中，學校領導者應該清楚地認同自己的某些教育原則和理想；他們也應該準備好用原則性的論據以及事實和數字來捍衛他們的想法。在這種文化中，務實的取向或對傳統的訴求，都不如能以道德上令人信服的方式支持的好點子來得有效。

Leading in an Individualistic Setting
在個人化的環境中領導

School administrators who find themselves in leadership roles in a predominantly individualistic political culture should bear in mind that people in this culture tend to have a pragmatic, economic orientation. One of the leader’s highest priorities should therefore be running a smooth, efficient, and businesslike education operation that offers area taxpayers a good value for their tax dollars. In this environment, school leaders would also do well to develop strong relationships with local businessmen and with local business organizations such as the chamber of commerce and Jaycees. Although
在以個人主義為主的政治文化中擔任領導職務的學校管理者應該記住，在這種文化中，人們傾向於務實、經濟取向。因此，領導者最優先的任務之一，應該是順利、有效率且商業化地運作教育，讓納稅人的稅金物有所值。在這種環境下，學校領導人最好能與當地的商人以及商會和 Jaycees 等當地商業組織建立牢固的關係。雖然
school-business partnerships can be an effective device for building community support in any setting, they are especially appropriate in an individualistic environment. In developing long-range plans for education, leaders should be sure to consider the needs of the local economy and the job market. Although rationales for change could-and indeed should-include noneconomic arguments, economic arguments should always be included as well. Moreover, having a clear concept of the potential financial costs of any proposed change is essential. Finally, remembering that people in the individualistic culture consider politics a “dirty” business, education leaders in this environment should keep a low profile when they engage in political activity or meet with wellknown political figures. In fact, in all their dealings with politicians, educational leaders should bear in mind that the individualistic political system operates on the basis of mutual obligation and the exchange of favors. Although at times requesting a favor may be necessary, school leaders should be careful who they ask and should give serious thought to the nature of the favor they will be asked in return. In particular, they should bear in mind that, of the three political cultures, the individualistic culture is the most prone to corruption. Indeed, in some instances in individualistic settings school leaders would be wise to hold themselves somewhat aloof from local politics, justifying their stance with the old saw, “Politics and education don’t mix” if necessary.
學校與企業的夥伴關係在任何環境下都可以是建立社區支持的有效工具，但在個人主義的環境中尤其適用。在制定長期教育計畫時，領導者應確保考慮當地經濟和就業市場的需求。儘管改變的理由可以，而且確實應該包括非經濟的論點，但也應該總是包括經濟論點。此外，對任何建議變革的潛在財務成本有一個清楚的概念是非常重要的。最後，請記住，個人主義文化中的人們認為政治是一種「骯髒」的行為，在這種環境中，教育領導者在參與政治活動或與知名政治人物會面時，應該保持低調。事實上，在與政治人物的所有交往中，教育領導者都應該牢記，個人主義政治體系的運作是以相互義務和人情交換為基礎的。儘管有時請求幫忙可能是必要的，但學校領導人應小心請求對象，並應認真考慮所請求的回報的性質。尤其是，他們應該牢記，在這三種政治文化中，個人主義文化最容易滋生腐敗。事實上，在個人主義的環境中，學校領導人明智的做法是，在某種程度上保持自己與當地政治的距離，必要時可以用「政治與教育不能混為一談」這句老話來證明自己的立場。

FINAL POINTS 最終得分

In order to be effective as public leaders, education administrators must understand both the political structure and the political culture within which they work. The political environment in the United States is a complex one, filled with many potential pitfalls for the unwary. Even so, it offers many opportunities for those who possess a sensitive understanding of it. School leaders should always strive, therefore, to work with the system rather than against it.
為了成為有效的公共領導者，教育行政人員必須瞭解他們所處的政治結構和政治文化。美國的政治環境非常複雜，對於不夠謹慎的人來說充滿了許多潛在的陷阱。儘管如此，它也為那些對其有敏銳瞭解的人提供了許多機會。因此，學校領導者應該始終努力與這個體系合作，而不是反對它。

QUESTIONS AMD ACTIVITIES FOR DISCUSSIOM
供討論的問題和活動

What evidence have you seen in your state of the weakening of local power over education policy? of the increase in state power?
在您所在的州，有哪些證據顯示地方對教育政策的權力正在削弱？
Identify a policy change that would be beneficial to your school system and estimate its probable cost. Then develop a list of all other agencies, offices, departments, and programs at the state and local levels whose support would be helpful if you were to try to bring about this change.
找出對您的學校系統有利的政策改變，並估算其可能的成本。然後制定一份清單，列出州和地方層級的所有其他機構、辦公室、部門和計劃，如果您嘗試實現這一改變，這些機構、辦公室、部門和計劃的支持將有所幫助。
Use the information in Table 4.3 to develop a chart that summarizes key information about elected political leaders for your area. What are the implications of your chart for education policy at this time?
使用表 4.3 中的資訊繪製一個圖表，總結您所在區域的民選政治領袖的關鍵資訊。您的圖表對目前的教育政策有何影響？
Use Figure 4.3 to analyze your own political beliefs and attitudes. Then use it to analyze the political culture of the area in which you work professionally. What conclusions can you draw from these analyses?
使用圖表 4.3 分析您自己的政治信仰與態度。然後用它來分析您專業工作地區的政治文化。您可以從這些分析中得出什麼結論？

Pro-Con Debate: Should SChool boards BE ABOLISHED?
Pro-Con 辯論：應該廢除學校董事會嗎？

YES: The school board was a wonderful institution for nineteenth-century America. It was appropriate at a time when only a few rudiments of the “three Rs” were necessary for most children and when teachers themselves were not well educated. In an age of global competition, however, school boards are an anachronism. Most states do not even require that school board members be literate, much less knowledgeable about education. Putting more and more accountability measures in place for teachers and administrators while still giving the ultimate control of the school system to people who may mean well but who know very little about the learning process no longer makes sense. Nor does it make sense to raise the standards for teacher and administrator training and then put professional educators under the supervision of a lay school board. Can you imagine what our health-care system would be like if doctors had to follow the policy dictates of elected “medical boards”? It is time to modernize our governance system by eliminating the old-fashioned school board!
是：對於十九世紀的美國而言，校董會是一個很棒的機構。在大多數兒童僅需學習一些「三 R 」的基本知識，而教師本身也未受過良好教育的時代，它是恰當的。然而，在全球競爭的時代，校董會已不合時宜。大多數州甚至不要求校董會成員識字，更不用說對教育的認識了。對教師和行政人員實施越來越多的問責措施，卻仍然將學校系統的最終控制權交給那些可能是好意，但卻對學習過程知之甚少的人，這已經說不通了。提高教師和行政人員的訓練標準，然後將專業教育工作者交由非專業的學校董事會監督，也是不合理的。您能想像如果醫生必須遵循民選「醫療委員會」的政策指令，我們的醫療照護系統會變成什麼樣嗎？現在是廢除老式的學校董事會，使我們的治理系統現代化的時候了！
NO: The school board is one of the last bastions of democracy in the United States. It also is an important way of building community support for public schools. Electing school board members gives people an interest in their school system and in their local community. It also provides a way for them to express their views on one of the most important functions of government-providing education for children and youth. Moreover, elected school boards help to prevent education from becoming the preserve of a few professional experts. The education of our children is every citizen’s concern because it shapes the future of our whole society. Therefore, everyone should have the chance to participate in the governing of the school system by electing people to school boards. Abolishing school boards would be a disastrous step for us to take; it would remove education from public control and cause many citizens to lose all interest in it Ultimately, this could mean considerable financial loss for our public schools.
否：學校董事會是美國最後的民主堡壘之一。它也是建立社區對公立學校支持的重要方式。選舉校董會成員使人們對他們的學校系統和當地社區感興趣。這也提供了一種方式，讓他們就政府最重要的職能之一--為兒童和青少年提供教育--表達意見。此外，民選的學校董事會有助於防止教育成為少數專業專家的專利。兒童的教育是每個公民都關心的問題，因為它塑造了我們整個社會的未來。因此，每個人都應該有機會透過選舉校董會成員來參與管理學校系統。廢除學校董事會對我們而言將是災難性的一步；這將使教育脫離公眾的控制，並導致許多公民對教育失去所有興趣。

What do you think?
您覺得如何？

CASE Study: THE "YANKEE" SUPERINTENDENT
案例研究：美國佬 "警司

The week before he defended his dissertation-entitled Cooperative Learning in a High School History Class: An Ethnographic Study-at an urban university in northern Illinois, Larry Thomas interviewed for a superintendency in Greenlea, Alabama. He and his wife had vacationed near Greenlea several times, so
Larry Thomas 在伊利諾州北部的一所城市大學為他的論文（題目為「高中歷史課堂中的合作學習」）進行答辯的前一周，接受了阿拉巴馬州 Greenlea 市校長的面試：在伊利諾州北部的一所城市大學，Larry Thomas 面試了阿拉巴馬州 Greenlea 的一位校監。他和他的妻子曾多次在 Greenlea 附近度假，因此
when he saw the job advertisement in a professional journal, he was immediately interested. “They probably will pitch my application in the can,” he said to his wife, Diane Branscom-Thomas, “but who cares? It won’t hurt to apply, and it would be neat to spend a few years so near the Gulf.” Much to his surprise, he was invited to interview and then offered the job with a two-year contract. The board president told him the vote had been unanimous; this, too, surprised him. Only much later did he learn that the pool of applicants had been small, that the top candidate had accepted another position, and that the second candidate had been opposed by a powerful local banker because he was related to a personal enemy. In desperation, but with many reservations, the board had decided in a secret meeting to offer the job to a “Yankee.” They had voted unanimously for him in public only to put a good face on things.
當他在一份專業期刊上看到這則招聘廣告時，他立即產生了興趣。"他對妻子 Diane Branscom-Thomas 說：「他們可能會把我的申請投進罐子裡，但誰在乎呢？申請也無妨，而且能在海灣附近待上幾年也不錯。出乎他意料之外的是，他被邀請去面試，然後獲得這份工作，合約期為兩年。董事會主席告訴他，投票結果是全票通過；這也讓他大吃一驚。很久之後，他才知道應徵者很少，第一名應徵者接受了另一個職位，第二名應徵者遭到當地一位勢力龐大的銀行家反對，因為他與一位私人敵人有親屬關係。在無可奈何的情況下，董事會在一次秘密會議上決定將這個職位提供給一個「美國佬」。他們在公開場合一致投票支持他，只是為了掩飾事情的真相。

Diane, who was teaching high school English and working on her own dissertation, decided to stay in Illinois for the first year, so in July Larry packed a rented moving truck with his clothes and books and drove to Greenlea, where he had rented a one-bedroom apartment. The first hint of trouble came when “Beanpole” Elliott, the chairman of the board, telephoned to invite Larry and Diane to a barbecue dinner at his home. When Larry indicated that Diane would be living in Illinois this year, a long silence ensued. And, Larry did not pick up on any warning signs when he read the article about him in the local weekly newspaper. He and Diane laughed together over the telephone as he read aloud sentences such as, “Larry is a devoted family man and churchgoer,” and “In what little spare time he has, Larry likes to fish and hunt; he’s really looking forward to getting a lot of fishing in now that he is down here in the sunny South.”
Diane 當時正在教高中英文，同時也在撰寫自己的論文，她決定第一年留在伊利諾州，因此 Larry 在七月打包了一輛租來的搬家卡車，載著他的衣服和書籍，開車到 Greenlea，在那裡租了一間一居室的公寓。當董事會主席「Beanpole」Elliott 打電話邀請 Larry 和 Diane 到他家吃烤肉晚餐時，麻煩的蛛絲馬跡就出現了。當 Larry 表示 Diane 今年會住在伊利諾伊州時，雙方隨即陷入長時間的沉默。而且，當 Larry 在當地週報上讀到關於他的文章時，也沒有發現任何警訊。他和 Diane 在電話中一起大笑，他朗朗讀道：「Larry 是一個忠誠的家庭成員和教會成員」，以及「在他僅有的閒暇時間，Larry 喜歡釣魚和打獵；他真的很期待能在陽光明媚的南方釣到很多魚」。

As a strong advocate of cooperative learning, Larry was eager to implement a program in his new school district. When the school board and top administrators reacted coolly to the idea, he approached the leadership of the teachers’ union. They were warmly receptive to his plans-especially because they were quite unaccustomed to being on good terms with the small group of “good ole boys” who ran the school system. Establishing a teachers’ advisory council, Larry began to meet with them regularly to discuss ways to establish a cooperative learning program. Meanwhile, in order to remain informed about professional issues, Larry attended several national education conferences. He even presented a paper about cooperative learning at one of them, which required him to make numerous long distance phone calls to the other participants.
Larry 是合作學習的強烈倡導者，他渴望在他的新學區實施一項計劃。當校董會和最高行政人員對這個想法反應冷淡時，他找到了教師工會的領導。他們熱情地接受了他的計劃，特別是因為他們很不習慣與管理學校系統的一小撮「老好人」保持良好關係。Larry 成立了教師諮詢委員會，開始定期與他們開會，討論如何建立合作學習計劃。同時，為了保持對專業問題的瞭解，Larry 參加了幾次全國性的教育會議。他甚至在其中一次會議上發表了一篇有關合作學習的論文，這需要他打許多長途電話給其他與會者。

Larry was astonished by the amount of time wasted in his school district’s central office; the other administrators as well as the clerical staff spent hours socializing in their offices, over lunch, and on the telephone. Because Larry found getting all his work done difficult, in October he had a small room on the top floor of the building converted to a private office. He spent at least two hours there each day, answering correspondence, returning phone calls, working on his conference presentation, and familiarizing himself with district finances. In November he sent a memo to his staff, asking them to restrict all socializing to nonworking periods of the day.
Larry 對校區中央辦公室浪費的時間之多感到驚訝；其他行政人員和文職人員花了好幾個小時在辦公室、午餐和電話上交際。因為 Larry 發現要完成所有的工作很困難，他在十月份把大樓頂樓的一個小房間改裝成私人辦公室。他每天至少花兩個小時在那裡，回覆信件、回覆電話、撰寫會議簡報，以及熟悉地區財務。11 月，他向他的員工發出一份備忘錄，要求他們將所有社交活動限制在一天中的非工作時間。

At the January board meeting, two board members publicly attacked Larry. They accused him of being standoffish and cold, of traveling too much, of cheating on his wife, of wasting school money on long distance phone calls, and of having “too many new-fangled ideas that may work good up in Illinois. but aren’t right for Greenlea.” They also accused him of undermining the teachers’ relationships with their principals. This meeting was just the first of many confrontations; in April, the board offered to buy out the second year of Larry’s contract. Larry, who was now taking, sedatives to relieve his stress, was only too glad to accept. In June he returned to Illinois to conduct another job search and to write some articles based on his dissertation.
在一月份的董事會會議上，兩位董事公開攻擊 Larry。他們指責 Larry 冷漠無情，經常出差，對妻子不忠，浪費學校的錢打長途電話，以及「有太多新奇的想法，這些想法在伊利諾州可能行得通，但不適合 Greenlea」。他們還指責他破壞教師與校長的關係。這次會議只是眾多衝突中的第一次；4 月，校董會提出買斷 Larry 第二年的合約。Larry 正在服用鎮靜劑來舒緩壓力，他非常樂意接受。6 月，他回到伊利諾伊州進行另一次求職，並根據他的論文撰寫一些文章。

Questions 問題

What political culture was probably dominant in Greenlea? With which of the three political cultures was Larry Thomas’s behavior most consistent?
在 Greenlea，哪種政治文化可能佔據主導地位？Larry Thomas 的行為與這三種政治文化中的哪一種最一致？
What did the people who ran Greenlea’s schools expect of their superintendent? How did Larry disappoint them?
管理 Greenlea 學校的人對他們的校長有什麼期望？Larry 是如何讓他們失望的？
What did Larry expect of his board and staff? How did they disappoint him? 4. How could Larry Thomas have acted more effectively in this situation?
Larry 對他的董事會和工作人員有什麼期望？他們是如何讓他失望的？4.在這種情況下，Larry Thomas 如何才能採取更有效的行動？

Note. This case study is partially based on a true episode reported by Lutz and Merz (1992).
註。本案例研究的部分內容是根據 Lutz 和 Merz (1992) 報導的真實事件。

FOR FURTHER READIMG 進一步閱讀

Benham, M. K. P., & Heck, R. H. (1994). Political culture and policy in a statecontrolled educational system: The case of educational politics in Hawai’i." Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 419-450.
Benham, M. K. P., & Heck, R. H. (1994).政治文化和政策在國家控制的教育制度：夏威夷教育政治案例"。教育行政季刊》，30，419-450。

As the only U.S. state with a single, centralized school district, Hawaii makes an interesting case study in politics and school governance. Applying Marshall et al.'s (1989) concept of political culture to Hawaii’s history of education policy making, the authors conclude that efficiency had always been a central goal in state policy and that the policy process has always been dominated by an elite.
夏威夷州是美國唯一擁有單一、中央集权學區的州，在政治與學校治理方面是一個有趣的個案研究。將 Marshall 等人（1989）的政治文化概念應用於夏威夷的教育政策制定歷史，作者的結論是，效率一直是州政策的中心目標，而且政策過程一直由精英主導。
Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 35-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993).政策與實踐：The relations between governance and instruction.In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 35-95).San Francisco：Jossey-Bass.

Cohen and Spillane vividly describe the fragmented U.S. system of school governance and discuss the various ways that people interested in education policy making have used to try to overcome it. This chapter provides a good overview of some of the most important education policy networks.
Cohen 和 Spillane 生動地描述了美國支離破碎的學校管理系統，並討論了對教育政策制定感興趣的人們用來試圖克服它的各種方法。本章很好地概述了一些最重要的教育政策網路。
Fuhrman, S. H. (1993). The politics of coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 1-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1993).The politics of coherence.In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 1-34).San Francisco：Jossey-Bass.

One of the greatest challenges in U.S. education policy making is learning to work within a remarkably complex governance system. Fuhrman analyzes the major characteristics of this system, including frag-
美國教育政策制定的最大挑戰之一，就是學習如何在一個非常複雜的治理系統中工作。Fuhrman 分析了這個體系的主要特徵，其中包括：(1)教育政策的制定與執行，以及(2)教育政策的執行。

Focus Questions What are the distinctive characteristics of the U.S. political system?重點問題 美國政治體制的特色是什麼？

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LESS OBVIOUS不那麼明顯的重要性

THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM美國政治制度

FEDERALISM 聯邦制

Federalism Defined 聯邦制的定義

History of U.S. Federalism美國聯邦制的歷史

Federalism Today 今日聯邦制

SEPARATION OF POWERS 三權分立

FRAGMENTATION OF GOVERNANCE治理分散

Fragmentation of Local Government地方政府分化

FOCUS ON ELECTIONS 專注於選舉

JUDICIAL REVIEW 司法審查

IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR SCHOOL LEADERS政治體制對學校領導者的影響

COMPETITION AMONG GOVERNANCE BODIES治理機構之間的競爭

Nature of the Competition比賽性質

Identifying and Monitoring Competitors識別和監控競爭對手

MULTIPLE VETO POINTS 多個否決點

Timing Policy Concerns with Elections選舉的時間政策問題

Selecting the Time and the People選擇時間和人物

Windows of Opportunity 機會之窗

Network and Coalition Building網路與聯盟建立

POLITICAL CULTURE 政治文化

DEFINING POLITICAL CULTURE界定政治文化

traditionalistic political culture傳統政治文化

MORALISTIC POLITICAL CULTURE道德政治文化

INDIVIDUALISTIC POLITICAL CULTURE個人政治文化

POLITICAL CULTURE AND EDUCATION POLICY政治文化與教育政策

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS對學校行政人員的影響

Suggestions for Identifying Political Cultures識別政治文化的建議

Leading in a Traditionalistic Setting在傳統環境中領導

Traditionalistic Political Culture傳統政治文化

Moralistic Political Culture道德政治文化

Individualistic Political Culture個人主義政治文化

Leading in a Moralistic Setting在道德的環境中領導

Leading in an Individualistic Setting在個人化的環境中領導