1

Patricia A.L. Ehrensal

Calling the Shots:How Elite Discourses Constrain Local Strategic Actors

Temple University

Ehrensal@astro.temple.edu

Strategy Stream

The strategy literature assumes strategy makers are autonomous actors free to define strategicproblems (Ansoff, 1965; Grant & King, 1979; Lyles, 1981). I will argue here that strategymaking is constrained by macro-discourses which present most strategy makers with pre-definedproblems, and strategic decision making can only address the problems as defined.

Discourse is a practice which is about what can be said and thought, as well as who may speakand with what authority (Foucault 1972). Discourses are:

practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.... Discoursesare not about objects; they do not identify objects, they constitute them and in thepractice of doing so conceal their own invention (Foucault 1972, p.49).

Thus, for Foucault, discourses "embody meaning and social relationships, they constitute bothsubjectivity and power relations (Ball 1990, p. 2)." Discourses, then are key to Foucault'spower/knowledge, for it is through the discursive practice that power constructs objects, and indoing so legitimize that knowledge which reinforces it. Thus, "[a] discourse is not then simply a'way of seeing'; it is always embedded in social practices which reproduce that way of seeing asthe 'truth' of the discourse (Knights & Morgan 1991, p. 253)."

Discourse includes many forms of communication, such as text and political debate. It isdiscourse that shapes and defines problems, as well as the strategies for solving them. However,Habermas (1984) posits that because of the power differential between actors ideal discourse isimpossible. The discourse is systematically distorted by power, what Habermas (1984) callspseudo-communication, which leads to false ideologies. These false ideologies are presented astruth and in the best interest of all concerned. In this way power is at once both obfuscated andreinforced by the discourse. Thus, by distorting discourses and imposing false ideologies on thedominated, power makes them agents of their own hegemony.

The use of discourse as a means of domination of one group over another can be found inindividual organizations as well as the larger society. Mumby (1988) examines power,domination and discourse in the context of organizations. Specifically, Mumby considers theroles that ideology, power-as-domination, and organizational symbolism play in the constitutionand maintenance of organizational meaning. He argues:

[M]eaning does not arise spontaneously and consensually, but is rather the product of the

2

vested interests of particular organizational groups. Power is exercised by such groupsnot only in the control of organizational resources (technology, information, money, etc.),but also to the degree that they are able to frame organizational reality discursively in theway that serves their own interests. Ideology serves in this capacity by producing andreproducing the subjectivity of organizational members through the process ofinterpellation. As such, the dominant interests are taken on uncritically as the interests ofall organizational groups. Ideology is thus conceived not simply as a set of beliefs, but asa materially located meaning system that constitutes the social actor's organizationalconsciousness (1988 p.157).

Thus organizational meaning and shared beliefs are not those of the entire organization, but ratherare those of a power group. Through communication and "sense-making" (Mumby, 1988 p.12)they are able to mediate organizational reality.

Sapienza (1985) explored this idea of shared beliefs and how they influence decision making oftop management teams. She looked at two top management teams with different shared beliefs(one was employee oriented and the other customer oriented). The findings of this studydemonstrated that shared beliefs influenced top management decision making in the followingways:

1. Shared beliefs influenced how managers perceived certain aspects oflegislation.

2. Shared beliefs influenced the language that managers used to articulatetheir perception.

3. Decision making entailed a response to the intersubjective reality created inpart by managers' shared beliefs and depicted in metaphoric imagery. Strategy was designed in some measure to adapt the institution to ametaphorical reality (Sapienza, 1985 p.82).

Thus, Sapienza concluded that "believing is seeing", that is shared beliefs dictated what the topmanagement teams actually saw when faced with a problem.

Discourse within governmental organizations (here the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court,the British Parliament, and DES) are not immune to this power-as-domination. Drawing from thework of Poulantzas, Shapiro (1989) posits that ideology is not simply imposed by the dominantgroup, rather it is a "complex unity" in which the dominated classes absorb diverse ideas andpractices, thus making domination a powerful and resilient phenomenon. Shapiro states:

[T]he state itself embodies and expresses the structure of groups or factions that composethe dominant class, as well as those comprising the subordinate classes whose demandsmust, in some way, also be accounted for. This is the price of hegemony. The state hasthe important function of legitimating an ideology in which all groups feel they have some

3

access to power and believe they may achieve some expression of their values. The state,in other words, through the process of political and ideological compromise, is able tomaintain the continuity and cohesion of the entire social formation (Shapiro, 1989 p.58).

Thus, it is the role of the state, through distorted political debate, is to advance that construct ofreality which best serves power.

Bernstein (1990) states that: "Symbolic control translates power relations into discourse anddiscourse into power relations (p. 134)." The field of symbolic control is defined as "a set ofagencies and agents that specialize in discursive codes which they dominate (Bernstein, 1990, p.134)." These agents and agencies control and regulate specialized discourse of communication. "They operate dominant discursive codes regulating social relations, consciousness, anddisposition (Bernstein, 1990, p. 139)." Each of these agencies are concerned with themaintenance and change in the order of the discursive means.

Among these agencies are the Regulators "whose function is to define, monitor, and maintain thelimits of persons activities (Bernstein, 1990, p. 139)." It is through the macro-discourse of theseregulators that problems are defined and strategic possibilities limited. These discourses, howeverobfuscate the power interest being served. Thus, the definition of problems and limiting strategicaction serves to maintain asymmetrical power relations.

By examining the problem of drugs and violence in schools in both the United States andEngland, this macro-discourse limitation of strategic decision makers is uncovered.

In the United States and England there is a similar problem of violence and drugs in schools. Thestrategic decisions made by school officials regarding these problems, however, are dissimilar. Inthe United States the problems are interpreted as primarily criminal, thus a disciplinary approachis privileged. As a means of prevention increased surveillance within the schools is often calledfor (Curcio and First, 1993; Saunders, 1994). This surveillance includes patrolling the halls andrestrooms (either by school officials, security guards, or police), routine locker checks, metaldetectors and searches of students. In England the problems are interpreted as social, thus arehabilitative strategy is privileged. While installing alarm systems, fences and sprinkler systemsare seen as necessary to curtail vandalism, schools need to go further to get at the root of theproblems. When dealing with pupil anti-social behavior, both the victim and perpetrator areconsidered victims. The problem of crime in schools is viewed as a social responsibility, involvingmany organizations and the school pupils themselves (Kelly, 1991). Heightened security in theschools is seen as potentially harmful. After the chilling incident of the shooting of the children inDunblane, the conversation on the School-Management internet discussion list centered on theneed to increase security, however there was great concern regarding what a "fortressatmosphere" will take away from the learning environment (Lea, 1996; Margiotta-Mills, 1996;Chew, 1996; Patrick, 1996; Gordon, 1996).

In order to understand why the strategies to address the similar phenomena of drugs and violencein schools are dissimilar in the United States and England, one has to look at how the problem isdefined, by whom, and what interests are being served. Thus, one needs to analyze the dominantelite national discourses surrounding drugs and violence in schools of these two countries.

The framework of the dominant elite national discourse in the United States is crystallized in fourdocuments. Two of these documents are United States Supreme Court decisions; New Jersey v.

4

T.L.O. (1985) and Vernonia School District v. Acton, (1995), both of which concern studentsFourth Amendment rights (protection from unreasonable search and seizure) in the public schoolsetting. The other two documents are the Safe Schools Act of 1994 and the Gun-Free SchoolsAct of 1994. These two Acts are contained within a larger piece of legislation -- the Goals 2000:Educate America Act -- which the United States Congress passed into law in March 1994.

The framework of the dominant elite national discourse in England is crystallized in twodocuments; the Children Act (1989), and the Discipline in Schools: Report of the Committee ofEnquiry Chaired by Lord Elton (Elton Report) (1989). These two documents describe howchildren are to be regarded and treated by governmental agencies, including schools. TheChildren Act 1989 is legislation passed by Parliament which is concerned with the welfare ofchildren and how that welfare is to effect decisions made about children. The Elton Report(1989) is a summary of the findings of an extensive study of the state of discipline in Englishschools.

These documents define the problem of drugs and violence in schools. In doing so they both ruleout any other interpretation or definition of the problem, as well as limit strategy choices of schoolofficials in individual schools. By deconstructing the dominant elite national discourserepresented in these document the underlying power relations that influence the socialconstruction of reality are revealed. Additionally, these constructs are pulled apart it seeks outthe excluded voices, exceptions to the rules and hidden exploitations (Rosenau, 1992; Boje andDennehey, 1993; Morrow with Brown, 1994). Thus, by deconstructing the dominant elitenational discourse surrounding drugs and violence in school in each of these countries, the naivereality is stripped away and nature of school and its power interests revealed.

Discourses and Strategies

Dominant Elite National Discourses

The dominant elite national discourse surrounding drugs and violence in U.S. schools iscrystallized in four documents. Two of these documents are U.S. Supreme Court decisionsconcerning children's Fourth Amendment rights (protection from unreasonable search and seizure)in school. In T.L.O., the Court ruled that children in schools do have an expectation of privacyand school officials act as agents-of-state when they conduct school searchers. However, thereneeds to be a balance between students' expectation of privacy in school and school officials needto maintain order and discipline in schools. Thus, the Court established the lesser standard ofreasonable suspicion for school officials to conduct searches of students in school. In Vernonia,the Court ruled that school officials do not need individualized suspicion to subject studentathletes to random drug testing. The result of these two decisions was the reduction of students'Fourth Amendment rights to the point where the Fourth Amendment is meaningless in schools(O'Connor, 1995).

The other two documents are the Safe Schools Act (1994) and Gun-Free Schools Act (1994). These Acts are part of a larger piece of legislation, Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), andwere enacted to help meet Goal 7 of the National Education Goals which:

provides that by the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violenceand will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning, by ensuring that all schools

5

are save and free of violence (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994, p.204).

The Safe Schools Act (1994) provides Federal grants to assist schools in urban and ruralcommunities in implementing strategies to eliminate violence and discipline problems in theirschools. According to the Act these strategies may include the hiring of police and/or securityguards to patrol the school, and the acquisition and installation of metal detectors. The Gun-FreeSchools Act (1994) requires all school districts to adopt zero tolerance policies for weapons,defined as firearms, in order to be eligible to receive Federal funds under the Elementary andSecondary Schools Act of 1964.

In England the dominant elite national discourse surrounding drugs and violence is schools iscrystallized in two documents. The Children Act (1989) "has made fundamental changes to theway in which our society will go about addressing [children's] need for the foreseeable future(Whitney, 1993, p. 9)." This legislation states at the outset that when making decisionsconcerning them, the welfare of the children is to be of paramount consideration. This order isnot only directed to the Courts, but also to all local authorities and agencies whose authority andservices extends to children. Additionally, the Children Act (1989) charges that agencies are towork together to provide for the well-being of children in their care. As schools are the largestagency concerned with children, they fall under the Act and indeed "they are a vital link inprocedures for child protection (Whitney, 1993, p. 11)." Thus, schools must work closely withother child service agencies to ensure the well-being of children in their care. In addition, schoolsthemselves must ensure that their procedures and policies make the welfare of all their children intheir care paramount.

The Elton Report (1989) is the result of a 10 month inquiry of the state of discipline of schools inEngland and Wales. In addition to reporting the findings of this investigation, the report alsooffers 138 recommendations to improving the standards of discipline in schools. Mirroring thereport, these recommendations cover a wide scope of levels and areas. This stems from thereports thrust that behavior is a complex process which is influenced by many factors at everylevel of society. Thus, sole blame for bad behavior cannot be placed on the individual child. Rather, in order to understand why a behavior occurs, one needs to question it and investigatepossible causes for the behavior. Like the Children Act (1989), the Elton Report (1989)emphasizes the protection of children, as well as the importance for all children to believe thatthey are a respected and valued member of the school community. While the report clearly statesthat the elimination of indiscipline in schools is an unrealistic goal, with careful attention to theneeds of children, however, it can be substantially reduced.

Deconstruction of the Discourse

Elsewhere I have given a detailed analysis of the findings of the deconstruction of these dominantelite national discourses surrounding drugs and violence in schools (Ehrensal 1998 & 1998a) . Here, however I will give a brief summary of those findings.

In the United States and England, schools are special places were adults and children are broughttogether for the common purpose of teaching and learning. How these institutions are organized,however, is influenced by the construct of children in those institutions.

Weaver (1997) looks at Dewey and Foucault's view of organization and administration. While

6

both Dewey and Foucault are concerned with the power of/in organizations, Dewey "seesorganizations as edifying forums (p.31)," while Foucault "views organizations as controlledviolence (p. 31)." Dewey is optimistic that

[t]he new possibilities of organization will elide the distinction between communal andindividual needs and desires. "Old" individualism, the individualism of the Enlightenment ,will give way to a new communally constructed individual, a delicate balance betweenfreedom and idiosyncracy and interconnected communal fate (Weaver, 1997, p.39).

Foucault, on the other hand is concerned about how massive organization and technology haveallowed for a generalized mechanism of panopticism to spread.

Organizations, bureaucracy and institutions coalesce seamlessly into a nondirected, un-overseen "accidental conspiracy" of power exercised over a discrete group of people. Asgreater and cheaper means of inspection and observation become available throughtechnology, the less any organization will be able to resist adopting panopticarrangements. The panoptic principle's of ever-increasing efficiency is one which isdifficult to ignore (Weaver 1997, p. 43).

Weaver concludes that the choice between these visions is not a choice of which is correct, ratherit is "a choice between which vision under particular circumstances or discussions is the morelikely to result in action (p. 46)."

Following from this conclusion of Weaver's and Sapienza's (1985) conclusion that believing isseeing, the constructs of child as threat to adult and child as victim of adult determines theorganization of schools.

In the dominant elite national discourse surrounding drugs and violence in U.S. schools, childrenemerge as threats to adults. Given the threat that children pose to adults, the U.S. Supreme Courtand Congress have ruled that special measures need to be taken in schools to ensure the safetyand security of both the adults and children in these organizations. This macro-discourse limitsnot only school officials' view of children, but also the interpretation of their actions. Thus, itopens the possibility for schools to evolve along Foucault's vision of organization -- marked bypanopticons and disciplinary drills.

In the U.S. a damnation model is privileged. In this model those who do not comply with thenorms and values of the school are deemed unworthy of the property right of education. Suchstudents are excluded and thus sorted (damned) into the welfare and prison systems. Only thosestudents who are worthy are allowed the property right of education. Thus, in order to avoiddamnation, students need to internalize the norms and values, as well as demonstrate properbehavior.

In England, children emerge as victims of adults, thus it is the duty of the school and othergovernmental agencies to protect children from potential harm. The Children Act explicitly statesthat in making decisions concerning children, their welfare must be paramount. The Elton Reportcontinually reinforces the importance of establishing a sense of community in schools. It is onlyby being part of a community in which they feel valued and respected that high standards ofbehavior can be expected of pupils. This macro-discourse opens the possibility of schoolorganization in a Dewey-esque vision -- one where activities are organized in a democratically

7

controlled setting.

In England a redemption model is privileged. In this model, all pupils can be redeemed. Thosepupils who demonstrate inappropriate behavior are determined to be suffering from a deficit, andwith additional and specialized disciplinary drills (such as pastoral care and referrals to socialservices) these pupils can be helped to accept the norms and values of the school community.

Thus far I have shown how the dominant elite national discourses surrounding drugs and violencein schools in both the U.S. and England have not only defined the problem, but, through theconstructs that emerge from the discourse, have also limited the types of strategies to be enacted. In the next section I will briefly discuss the strategies privileged by school strategy makers in eachof these countries. This information was gathered from professional literature that school officialsuse as resources when making recommendations for various strategies.

Strategies in the U.S.

As stated in the previous section, the dominant elite national discourse surrounding drugs andviolence in U.S. schools constructs children as threats to adults, and thus a damnation model isprivileged. The strategic decisions of school district level strategy makers demonstrate thelimitations of interpretation and actions placed on them by the macro-discourse. In this sectionthese strategies will be summarize.

The strategies employed to address the problems of drugs and violence in schools fall into fourbroad categories: zero tolerance policies; surveillance, including searches; police presence inschools; and, conflict resolution.

Zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies towards drugs grew out of the federal drugenforcement policies of the 1980's (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).

By 1993 zero tolerance policies were being adopted by school boards across the country,often broadened to include drugs and weapons but also tobacco-related offenses andschool disruption (Skiba & Peterson, 1999, p. 373).

In 1994 the federal government, by passing the Gun-Free Schools Act, mandated that all schoolsmust adopt a zero tolerance policy for weapons, defined as fire-arms, to receive federal fundsunder the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (1964). These policies were to carry a requiredpenalty of expulsion from school for a period of one year, unless the superintendent recommendeda shorter period.

School boards have complied to this legislation by adopting zero tolerance policies towards fire-arms. However, they have broadened definition of weapon to include not only such articles asknives, but also anything that might be construed as a weapon, as well as "look alike" weapons(Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Thus, under the policies being adopted, students have been expelled orsuspended for such things as; carrying a metal nail file in a purse, bring an antique pocket watchwith a pen-knife fob to show and tell, possession of a toy gun, or turning in a razor blade foundon the school bus (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).

Zero tolerance policies towards drugs have been expanded to include "over the counter" drugsand "look alike" drugs. Hence, students have been expelled or suspended for giving a friend a

8

Midol tablet, zinc cough drops, lemon drops and Certs breath mints (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Such policies also include alcohol, as well as items associated with drug culture such a beepers(Skiba & Peterson, 1999).

In addition to drugs and weapons, many school districts have adopted zero tolerance policiestowards violence/fighting. Hence, a school yard scuffle now carries the penalty of expulsion fromschool. Additionally, especially since the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton CO,school districts have begun to adopt zero tolerance policies for "terroristic threats." In the schooldistrict where I reside, an eight year old boy was suspended for saying "I'm going to kill you" tothe teacher who was verbally chastising him in front of the class. Finally, while the penalty forviolating such policies is suspension or expulsion, in many cases the "offenders" also face policeprosecution. Additionally, in many states such offenders will be tried as adults.

Surveillance. In addition to adopting zero tolerance policies, many school districts have alsoadopted various surveillance strategies (Landen, 1992; McCune, 1994; Dowling, 1998, 1998a;Zirkel, 1998). The acquisition of equipment and personnel to carry out these strategies can beobtained by funds granted through the Safe Schools Act (1994). Such surveillance not onlyincludes the use of teachers and non-teaching professionals as hall and cafeteria monitors, as wellas security cameras, but also a wide use of various types of searches.

School officials have long been able to search students' lockers without having to comply to theFourth Amendment. These searches were conducted as a means of ensuring public health -- thatis to be sure that students were not storing moldy sandwiches or dirty gym clothes in theirlockers. However, since the escalation of the war on drugs, such searches have been expanded toinclude looking for drugs (Dowling, 1998). To ensure that students are not concealing drugs intheir personal effects stored in the locker, school officials have begun to use police sniffer dogs toinspect lockers (Splitt, 1996). If a dog "alerts" on a particular locker, it is opened and thecontents searched for drugs.

Another form of non-intrusive search being employed, especially in urban schools, is metaldetectors (Kongshem, 1992; Landen, 1992; McCune, 1994; Majestic, 1995). These can either bethe hand-held type or the permanently installed "airport" style apparatus. When entering theschool building, either all or randomly selected students are checked with the metal detectors. Ifthere is a detection, the student is searched for weapons.

In addition to these non-intrusive searches, many schools have also adopted the use of moreintrusive ones. One such search is the random drug testing of student athletes, like that ruledconstitutional in Vernonia (1995). Several school districts have expanded this strategy to includetesting any student participating in extra-curricular activities. There have also been debates onwhether such searches can be expanded to include the entire student body.

Finally, some schools have used strip searches as part of their anti-drug and -violence strategies(Trotter, 1995). In Doe v. Renfrow (1983) a young girl was strip searched after a sniffer dog"alerted" on her. No drugs were found, and it was discovered that the male sniffer dog wasreacting to the pheromone left on the girls clothing after playing with her pet female dog inestrous. In Cornfield v. Consolidated School District (1993), a 16 year old boy was stripsearched by school officials because they believed he was "crotching" drugs. While no drugs werefound, the search was upheld by the 8th Circuit Court.

9

School uniforms and dress codes. To promote security, many districts have imposed uniforms ordress codes on their students (LaPoint, 1992; Trump, 1993; Adami, & Norton, 1996; Gluckman,1996; Paliokas, 1996; Stephens, 1996). Dress codes are often the simple banning of particularforms of clothing, such as baseball caps, baggy trousers, tee-shirts with racist comments and/orsuggestive or vulgar language. School officials have also banned types of clothes or colorsassociated with gangs as a means of avoiding gang-related violence (Trump, 1993; Adami &Norton, 1996). Some schools have voluntary school uniform policies, claiming that the wearingof uniforms will not only help in decreasing violence, but also encourage good behavior andeliminate distractions from the educational process (Paliokas, 1996). Such policies have foundfavor not only with school officials, but with many politicians as well. Indeed, President Clinton isa strong proponent of school uniforms.

Some are troubled with the First Amendment (freedom of speech) aspects of these policies. InTinker (1969) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students do have free speech (includingsymbolic speech) rights in schools, providing that it does not disrupt the educational practice. The Kuhlmeir (1988) and Fraiser (1986) Courts, however have placed restrictions on studentspeech. Given these restrictions, along with the rhetoric of school security, school officials havebeen able to impose dress policies.

Police and security guards in schools. Police involvement in schools has taken on several forms. Police act as educators in drug prevention programs such as D.A.R.E. (Drug Avoidance andResistance Education). In these programs they teach school children how to "just say no" todrugs, alcohol and tobacco.

However, in recent years the role of police in schools has been expanded.

In many school districts there is a police officer acting in an administrative capacity, sometimesunder the title of Dean of Students. School officials argue that the police presence in school helpsstrengthen security during school hours (Bushweller, 1993, 1994; Bartlett, 1994; Smith, 1994;Trump, 1998), as well as assisting with truancy problems. School districts have also hiredsecurity guards to patrol hallways and ensure safety at school sponsored events (Hylton, 1996;Riechers, 1995). There are Constitutional questions raised by the presences of police and securityguards in schools (see Stefkovich & Miller, 1999), these however, are far to complex to beaddressed here.

Conflict-Resolution programs. Conflict-resolution programs have been adopted by schools acrossthe U.S. as a non-violent means of resolving disputes between students (Bowen & Glitter, 1993;Stephens, 1998). Conflict-resolution is an intervention which:

necessitates structured problem-solving communication that occurs between cooperatingdisputants and neutral mediators who guide them in their search for a peaceful resolutionto their conflict. When the disputants agree on a resolution to their conflict, the mediationends (Carter, 1999, p.3).

Peer-mediation is a popular form of conflict resolution, in which students are trained and act asmediators in resolving problems between fellow students (Araki & Takeshita, 1991; Saunders,1994; Vail, 1995). Such programs are viewed as a key component for school change as:

the student mediation program provides a strong peer model for nonviolent conflictresolution and reinforces students' emerging skills in working out their own problems

10

(Lantieri, DeJong,& Dutrey, 1996, p. 246).

Carter's (1999) research on conflict-resolution practices is schools found that the most common"resolution" was the non-resolution of the students involved agreeing to "avoid" each other asmuch as possible in and outside of school. Additionally, while conflict-resolution programs areoften emphasized in espoused theories for violence reduction, in practice they tend to be relegatedto an "also ran" status.

Schools in the United States have become places where, because they are threats, students aresubjected to increasing forms of surveillance and are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Thisdiscourse also opens the possibility of the further diminishing of students' rights in schools, suchas proposals for drug testing of all students involved in extra-curricular activities, as well as theemerging of voluntary random drug testing programs for entire student bodies and zero tolerancelaws extending to any object that could be construed as a weapon. Finally, in this Foucaultianorganizational structure, school officials are not only reproducers, but are also judges with theability to pronounce summary judgement on any student whom they believe unworthy of theproperty right of education. In doing so, school officials claim to be helping the worthy studentsby providing the safe school environment.

Strategies in England

As stated earlier, the dominant elite national discourse surrounding drugs and violence in Englishschools constructs children as victims of adults, thus a redemption model is privileged. Thestrategic decisions of the school level strategy makers reflect the limitations of interpretation andactions placed on them by this macro-discourse. In this section these strategies will be outlined.

The strategies employed to address the problems of drugs and violence in schools fall into fiveinterrelated broad categories: exclusion, working together with other social service agencies,whole school approach, Pastoral Care, and educative.

Exclusion. Exclusion, specifically permanent exclusion, rates in England rose between 1989 andend of term 1994 (Parsons & Howlett, 1995). Citing the national survey funded by the DFE andcarried out by Canterbury Christ Church College in the Spring of 1995, Parsons and Howlett(1995) state:

The increase from 1990/91 to 1991/92 was 32 per cent. In the two years to 1993/94 therewas an average annual increase of 70 per cent in permanent exclusions amounting to analmost threefold increase in the period (1995, p. 14).

Thus, permanent exclusion was a widely employed strategy for dealing with disruptive pupils andmaintaining order and discipline in the early part of the 1990s.

The problem of permanent exclusion is primarily one of adolescents, particularly boys, in the lasttwo years of compulsory schooling (Sassoon, 1992; Downes, 1995; Parsons & Howlett, 1995). In addition to this group, there is also concern for the increase in the rate of permanent exclusionof special needs children, especially emotionally behaviorially disturbed (EBD) children (Stirling,1992).

One reason offered for this trend was the shared decline in academic motivation in adolescent

11

boys in developed countries.

In the most developed countries the decline in traditional male semi- and un-skilled jobsappears to be robbing young men of a clear structure to their lives, with consequentialundermining of the urge to achieve academic success (Downes, 1995, p. 8).

Such disaffected pupils become disruptive and are consequently excluded from school.

Several authors, however see this increase in permanent exclusion as an outcome of the EducationReform Act (ERA) of 1988 (Stirling, 1992; Sassoon, 1992; Sassoon, 1994; Parsons & Howlett,1995). Each of these authors cite competition for pupils, league tables, the national curriculum,and finances as stressors on school managers.

Demands of the national curriculum, publication of league tables based on examinationresults, competition for pupil numbers and responsibility for their own finances haveencouraged schools to view themselves in economic terms as business in a competitivemarket (Parsons & Howlett, 1995, p. 15).

Sassoon also observes the link between "market pressures" and the exclusion of difficult pupils:

League tables have made schools more market-conscious. Every child now comes with asum of money attached to her/him and, the better the image of the school, the greater thechance that parents will subscribe to it. Troublesome children detract for this image. Notonly do they produce bad results but prevent others who either may be easily distracted orinfluenced by such children. Non-statemented EBD (emotionally and behaviouraldifficulties) children absorb much of the teachers' time, and LMS has taught headteachersthat time is money (1994, p. 170).

This is not to imply that these authors agree with this market state of education. Indeed, Parsonsand Howlett state that:

the business ethic of the market place and the professional ethic of the school are notentirely compatible. The business ethic is concerned with organizing efficient and effectiveprocesses to guarantee high quality educational attainment, which may mean removingobstacles to the achievement of this goal or elements likely to lower its standing --behaviourally difficult pupils. On the other hand, the professional ethic, with its emphasison caring for pupils within a developmental process of learning and maturing, urges theschool to maintain its service to all pupils no matter what the difficulties they have orpresent to the staff (1995, p. 15).

Thus, Parsons and Howlett (1995) highlight the tension between the strategies (here exclusion)best suited for market place viability and the macro-discourse of the need to protect children.

The dominant elite national discourse surrounding drugs and violence in schools constructschildren as victim of adults, and thus needing to be protected from adult decisions. Clearly thestrategy of exclusion does not serve to protect these child-victims. However, in response to thisrise in permanent exclusion rates, the Education Act 1993 abolished indefinite exclusionsbeginning in September 1994 (Sasson, 1994; Parsons & Howlett, 1995). Additionally:

Head teachers will only be permitted to debar a pupil from school for a maximum of 15days a term (Section 262). LEA's powers have been increased to enable them to direct

12

grant-maintained schools to admit pupils excluded from other schools, provided they haveplaces in the year group and have not excluded the same pupil previously (Section 193). Funding is now following the excluded pupil from the beginning of the 1994/95 financialyear (Section 262) (Sassoon, 1994, p. 170).

Thus, rather than excluding difficult pupils from school, headteachers and staff now need to enactstrategies which allow for the management of these pupils in mainstream schools. Such strategiesshould include viewing the behavior of difficult pupils as evidence of "need" (Parsons & Howlett,1995) working together with other social services agencies to meet the needs of these pupils(Stirling, 1992). By eliminating school strategy makers to continue the practice of permanentlyexcluding pupils, Parliament has imposed the macro-discourses of child-victim and the redemptionmodel on schools. Thus, the interpretation of disruptive behavior is now to be cast in the light of"needs."

As a footnote, in the first year of this legislation the rate of permanent exclusion rose only by11%, in contrast to the average annual rate of 70% in the prior two school years.

Working together with other social service agencies. Recognizing that disaffection, especially inthe 14-plus curriculum, is linked to disruptive behavior in school and truancy (NationalFoundation for Educational Research, 1995), as well as violent and drug behavior (Downes,1995), strategies have moved away from excluding such pupils from school and toward one ofrecognizing such behavior as evidence of "need" (Stirling, 1992; Parsons & Howlett, 1995). Inorder to keep difficult pupils in mainstream schools, however classroom teachers and schoolsneed support, which can be obtained from working with outside agencies (Parsons & Howlett,1995; Williams, 1996).

Education and Prevention of Crime (EPOC) is one such program which links schools with outsideagencies. The project explores:

methods for reducing youth crime and claims to have contributed to a significant reductionin crime levels in areas involved, a marked improvement in pupil/teacher relations and anumber of pupils being reintegrated into mainstream schooling (Williams, 1996, p. 8).

The basic argument for schools working more closely with outside social service agencies andprojects such as EPOC is that:

young people did not feel that they could consult school staff concerning problems theymay suffer. This suggests that at a key stage in pupils' developing disaffection schools arenot equipped to pick up the signs (Williams, 1996, p. 8).

Thus, by working with other social agencies, especially youth services, schools can nip problemsin the bud, by drawing on the expertise and resources these outside groups offer. Additionally,behavioral difficulties may stem from lack of proper parenting or domestic problems. In suchcases working with family service agencies can be invaluable in helping schools to cope withdifficult children (Education, 1995). Therefore, by working with outside social agencies, schoolscan prevent pupils from becoming disaffected, as well as help those already disaffected remain inschool rather than being excluded.

Whole school approach. There has been increasing attention to management of pupil behaviorthrough whole school approaches (Gillard, 1992; Campbell, 1993; Moss, 1995; Education, 1995;

13

Williams, 1996).

The development of school-wide discipline systems perhaps represents a shift from thepsychological focus upon the individual disruptive pupil to the organizational focus upongood behaviour (Moss, 1995, p. 11).

Such discipline systems focus on the need of the majority and raising behavior standards (Moss,1995).

At the most basic, a Discipline System should be based on clear principles and purposes,be agreed by the staff, contain a minimum of essential rules, give guidance to staff ingroup management methods, and be clear to pupils, non-teaching staff, parents, andgovernors as well (Moss, 1995, p. 11).

Successful whole school approaches to discipline includes high expectations for academic andsocial achievement, as well as teachers providing role models for good behavior (Moss, 1995).

Whole school approaches can also be used to address specific problems. Gillard (1992, 1994), amiddle school headmaster, used a whole school approach to deal with bullying in his school. Thisapproach included having the children, in class discussions, come up with a definition of bullyingfor the whole school, as well as methods, to address it. Procedures for addressing bullyingincluded surveys, the establishment of a bully box for reporting incidents of bulling, and theinstitution of a bully court to deal with those who have bullied their classmates.

The important first step taken by Gillard, however was the establishment of the Bullying Group. This was a volunteer group of staff members who were charged with finding ways to reduce theoccurrences of bulling in the school (Gillard, 1992; 1994). While the pupils were included,through discussions in Personal and Social Education (PSE) classes, in the institution of themethods for addressing bullying, the methods themselves were suggested by the staff in theBullying Group. The pupils' roles were to agree to the methods suggested, as well as determinethe best means of carrying out these procedures. Thus, while pupils' views were listen to, theywere not given the opportunity to develop procedures for addressing bullying of their own.

Indeed, one common factor in all whole school approaches to discipline is the central role of staff. It is the staff who establish the behavior policies or discipline systems, and afterward enlist thehelp of the pupils to carry them out. This help includes "punishing" those who behave badly bynot playing with them (shunning), or prosecuting them in a bully court (shaming).

Pastoral Care. As part of their strategy to decrease disaffection and discipline problems, manyschools increase pastoral care support (Thompson & Arora, 1991; Gillard 1992; Jones, 1994;Education, 1995). The use of pastoral care, including Personal and Social Education (PSE), is animportant and effective strategy for implementing both whole school approach and workingtogether with outside agencies strategies.

As part of the whole school approach strategy, pastoral care is used in several ways. Someschools assign senior pupils as mentors for younger ones at risk of becoming disaffected(Education, 1995). Several schools use the pastoral care curriculum, including PSE, as a meansof addressing discipline (Thompson & Arora, 1991). Such curriculum has been used to addresspower, stereotypes, and relationships (Jones, 1991). In one school:

[w]hen the year groups' pastoral progrmamme was planned, work was included to

14

improve pupils' self-esteem and social skills to encourage them to have the self-confidenceto reject bullying behaviour by other people (Jones, 1994, p. 8).

Gillard (1992 & 1994) reported extensive use of PSE classes along with whole school approachas the strategies for addressing the problem of bullying in his school. These classes were used todiscuss appropriate and inappropriate behavior, definitions of bullying, and means of addressingthe problem.

Pastoral care staff are also an important element in this strategy. Not only are they involved incounseling pupils who have been bullied, as well as bullies themselves (Jones, 1994), they are alsoused to train other members of the staff to raise awareness about bullying in school (Jones, 1994;Education, 1995). This training of staff advances the whole school approach for addressingdiscipline problems. Finally, pastoral care staff act as liaisons with outside agencies to assistpupils in obtaining help cannot be provided by the school (Stirling, 1992).

Educative. Education strategies are widely used to address problems of drugs and violence (Lee,1992; Gillard, 1992 & 1994; Kivi & Swift, 1994). As discussed above, PSE classes are used todiscuss appropriate and inappropriate behavior, as well as strategies to help pupils avoid beingbullied. It is in addressing the issue of drugs, however that education is really stressed.

While addressing, for the most part, illegal drugs, what drug education means is debatable.

It is these interpretation of what drug education means that poses the major problem forthose with the responsibility of implementing it in the schools. Current approaches tend torange rom the narrow content-based to a broad personal and social education programme(Lee, 1992, p. 1).

Generally, drug education falls under the health education curriculum (Lee, 1992; Kivi & Swift,1994; Trends, 1995).

While the interpretation of drug education is broad, there is a consensus that scare tactics are noteducational.

The general view of health and drug educators is that the shock-horror story or video'nasty' about drugs and their effects is unlikely to be effective in the long term in reducingthe likelihood of young people using drugs. Some argue it is likely to be counter-productive (Lee, 1992, p. 2).

Kivi and Swift (1994) also state:

Experts fear that approaches used in schools to address drug and health related issues maybe out of date. Evaluation of drug education programmes has highlighted a;theinadequacy of some aspects of preventive drug education and the dangers of negativestrategies such as the shock/scare approach and teaching refusal skills ('just say no') (p.403).

Of the "just say no" approaches Lee (1992) states, "If it were only that simple! (p. 2)."

Of the seven drug education approaches reviewed by Lee (1992), six of them involve givinginformation (a minimalist for of education) about drugs, even if it is only the bad effects. Oneprogram deals with issues of self-esteem and making positive healthy lifestyle choices. Thisapproach:

15

places an emphasis on empowering individuals to act separately and collectively as agentswho question, choose and can effect change in society (Lee, 1992, p. 3).

An interesting approach is the cross-curricular one. This "whole curriculum" approach essentiallyis giving information on all the nasty effects illegal drugs have on the body in both PSE andscience classes (Lee, 1992). In this way, information given by the police liaison in PSE classes islegitimized by the science teacher.

Summary. In England while the use of exclusion to manage discipline problems in schools waswidely used in the early 1990s, since September 1994 it has become a difficult strategy toimplement. Thus, school strategy makers were forced to come up with alternative strategies tocope with the problems of drugs and violence in schools. Strategy makers have enacted workingtogether with outside social service agencies, whole school approaches, increasing pastoral care,and educative schemes. By implementing these alternative strategies more pupils are able toremain in mainstream schools, and schools take on a Dewey-esque organizational structure. Therole of school staff in this organizational structure is that of reproducer. It is the duty of theschool staff to ensure that all pupils spend the maximum time allotted in school so that they willbe exposed to as much pedagogic work as possible. Additionally, by presenting itself asunderstanding and accommodating, the state (schools) is able to allow itself to be viewed asbeneficent, thus the pupils will come to see it as concerned with their well being. Thus, schoolstaff claim that they are helping all pupils to benefit from the educational process.

Conclusion

School officials in both the U.S. and England are faced with the problems of drugs and violenceand need to implement strategies to cope with them. Contrary to the assertions made in thestrategy literature, school strategy makers are not autonomous actors free to define strategicproblems. Rather, these problems are defined through a macro-discourse, which in turnconstrains strategy making at the local level.

In the U.S. the dominant elite national (macro) discourse defines the problems of drugs andviolence as criminal. In this discourse children are constructed as threats to adults, thus societyneeds to be protected from them. To that end a damnation model is privileged and strategiesconsistent with that model are implemented.

In contrast, in England, the same problem is defined by the dominant elite national (macro)discourse as a social problem. Children are defined by this discourse as victims of adults, thusneed to be protected from potential ill effects of adult decisions. To that end a redemption modelis privileged and strategies consistent with that model are implemented. However, in both thesecases neither groups of local strategic actors are free to implement strategies which areinconsistent with macro-discourses in which they operate. Both operate in a mode wherealternative models are implicitly or explicitly rejected. To these decision makers there are noalternatives.

The implications of these findings can be extended to the strategy literature in general, in which Ireject the proposition that individual strategy makers are autonomous actors, but rather that localstrategic actors are constrained by the larger discursive context in which they operate. Thus, wecan see in the private sector how discourses of globalization and global competition drive all

16

strategic actors to adopt strategies such as off shore production, restructuring, and calls forworker flexibility. Similarly, neoconservative anti-welfare state discourses drive public sectorstrategists to privatization. Thus, Sapienza's (1985) argument that "believing is seeing" is onlypartly correct. In the case of local level school strategy making, and arguably in most private andpublic sector organizations, the inescapable macro-discourses makes it a case of "what you aretold to believe is what you see."

References

Adami, R., Norton, M. (1996) Not in my school you don't! Preventing violence in themiddle level school. NASSP Bulletin. 80(579) pp. 19-23.

Ansoff, H.I. (1965) Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw Hill.

Araki, C.T., Takeshita, C. (1991) Students helping students: Dispute management in theschools. NASSP Bulletin. 75(538) pp. 31-37.

Ball, S.J., (1990) Introducing monsieur Foucault. In Stephen J. Ball, ed. Foucault andeducation: Disciplines and knowledge. London: Routledge.

Barlett, L.D. (1994) School administrators and law enforcement officials. LegalMemorandum. June.

Bernstein, B. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control. Volume 4. London: Routledge.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549(1986).

Boje, D.M., and Dennehy, R.F. (1993) Managing the postmodern world: America'srevolution against exploitation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J.-C.. (1990) Reproduction in education, society and culture.2nd ed. London: Sage Publication.

Bushweller, K. (1993) Guards with guns. American School Board Journal. 180(1) pp.34-37.

17

(1994) Keeper of the gates. Executive Educator. 16(4) pp. 41-43.

Cornfield v. Consolidated High School District 230, 991 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993).

Cuaracio, J.L., and First. P.F. (1993) Violence in the schools: How to proactivelyprevent and defuse it. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Doe v. Renfrow 635 F.2d 582 (7th Cir. 1980).

Dowling, S.B. (1997) A search of last resort. American school board journal. 184(11) pp. 18-19.

(1998) Before you search that locker. American school board journal. 185(4) pp. 24-25.

Downes,P. (1995) Headteachers around the world are worried about: Money, violence,drugs, boys. Managing schools today. 5(3), pp. 8-9.

Ehrensal, P.A.L. (1998) Comparing the legal discourse of children in schools: New Jerseyv. T.L.O., the Elton Report, and the Children Act. paper presented at the Annual Meetingof the American Educational Research Association, Division L. San Diego, CA. April.

(1998a) Schools , drugs, violence and power: Subtexts in education policydiscours. Third International Conference on Organizational Discourse: Pretexts, Subtextsand Contextw, Kings College, London, England, July.

Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge: And the discourse on language. (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.

Gillard, D. (1992) First steps in facing the problem of bullying. Forum for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education. 34(2) pp.53-56.

(1994) Further steps in facing the problem of bullying. Forum for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education. 36(1) pp. 13-14.

18

Gluckman, I.B. (1996) Dress codes and gang activity. A legal memorandum. March.

Gordon, A. (1996) Posting 3/21/96 00:33 EST. School-Management.

Grant, J.H., & King, W.R. (1979) Strategy formulation: Analytic and normative models. In D.E. Schendel & C. Hofer (eds.), Strategic management: a new view of business policyand planning. pp. 104-122. Boston: Little, Brown.

Great Britain (1989) The Children Act 1989. HMSO

Great Britain (1989) Discipline in schools: Report of the Committee of Enquiry chaired byLord Elton. HMSO

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592(1988).

Hylton, J. B. (1996) Know how. American school board journal. 183(4) pp. 45-46.

Jones, P. (1994) 'Boys will be boys'. Does this explain pupils' experience of bulling in amixed comprehensive school? Pastoral care in education. 12(3) pp. 3-10.

Kivi, M. & Swift, J. (1994) Drugs and a dereliction of Ministerial duty. Education. 183(20), pp. 402-403.

Knights, & Morgan (1991) Corporate strategy, organizations and the subject: A critique. Organisation Studies. 2(12).

Kongshem, L. (1992) Securing your schools. Executive educator. 14(6) pp. 30-31.

Landen, W. (1992) Violence and our schools: What can we do?. Updating school boardpolicies. 23(1) pp. 1-5.

Lantieri, L. (1995) Waging peace in our schools: Beginning with the children. Phi delta

19

kappan. 76(5) pp. 386-388.

LaPoint, V., et. alia. (1992) The role of dress codes, uniforms in urban schools. NASSPBulletin. 76(546) pp. 20-26.

Lea, S. (1996) Posting 3/14/96 at 9:27:43 GMT. School-Management.

Lee, J. (1992) A question of balance. Education and health. 10(2) pp. 1-2, 19.

Lyles, M.A. (1981). Formulating strategic problems: Empirical analysis and modeldevelopment. Strategic management journal. 2(2), pp. 61-65.

Majestic, A.L., et alia. (1995) But is it legal?. Executive educator. 17(6) pp. 31-35.

Margiotta-Mills, A. (1996) Posting 3/14/96 at 22:25:21 GMT. School-Management.

McCune, T. (1994) School violence and technology. Updating school board policies. 25(5) pp. 1-3.

Morrow, R.A., with Brown, D.D. (1994) Critical theory and methodology. Gottdiener,M., ed.. Contemporary social theory. Volume 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mumby, D.K. (1988) Communication and Power in organizations: Discourse, ideology,and domination. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985).

Paliokas, K. L., et. alia. (1996) Trying uniforms on for size. American school boardjournal. 183(5) pp. 32-35.

Parsons, C., & Howlett, K. (1995) Difficult dilemmas. Education. 186(25-26) pp. 14-15.

Patrick, K. (1996) Posting 3/19/96 11:51:23 +1000. School-Management.

20

Reichers, M. (1995) Friday night fights. American school board journal. 182(6) pp.32-36.

"Research" (1995) Dealing with disaffection. Education. 186(14), p.17.

Rosenau, P.M. (1992) Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, andintrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sapienza, A.M. (1985) Believing is seeing: How culture influences the decisions topmanagers make. In Ralph H. Kilmann, et alia, eds. Gaining control of the corporateculture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sassoon, D. (1992). Exclusion: An odd state of affairs. Education. 180(5), pp. 192-193.

(1994). Out of school, out of mind? Education. 183(9), p. 170.

Sendor, B. (1996) A swift and sure student search. American school board journal. 183(2) pp. 11, 39.

Shapiro, S. (1990) Between capitalism and democracy: Educational policy and the crisisof the welfare state. New york: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Smith, F.L. (1994) Fighting back. Executive educator. 16(10) pp. 35-37.

Splitt, D.A. (1996) Student searches: How far is too far?. Executive educator. 18(8) PP. 11, 31.

Stephens, R.D. (1996) The art of safe school planning. School administrator. 53(2) pp. 14-21.

Stirling, M. (1992) The exclusion zone. Managing schools today. November pp. 3-4,10.

21

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct.733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969).

Thompson, D., & Arora, T. (1991) Why do children bully? An evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of whole-school policy to minimize bullying. Pastoral care ineducation. 9(4), pp. 8-12.

Thorne, B. (1987) Re-visioning women and social change: where are the children?.Gender and Society 1(1), pp. 85-109.

Trotter, A. (1995) The perils of strip searches. Executive educator. 17(6) pp. 29-31.

Trump, K.S. (1993) Tell teen gangs: School's out. American School Board Journal. 180(7) pp. 39-42.

(1998) Keeping the peace. American School Board Journal. 185(3) pp. 31, 34-35.

United States. Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 U.S. Government Printing Office.

United States Safe Schools Act of 1994 U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vail, K. (1995) An ounce of prevention. American School Board Journal. 182(9). pp.35-38.

Vernonia School District v. Acton 115 S.Ct. 2386 (1995)

Weaver, W.G. (1997) Dewey or Foucault?: Organization and administration asedification and as violence. Organization 4(1) pp.31-48.

Whitney, B. (1993). The Children Act and schools. London: Kogan Page.

Williams, C. (1996) Breakthrough to the disaffected. Managing schools today. 5(9), pp.8, 10.

22

Zirkel, P.A. (1998) The right stuff. Phi delta kappan. 79(6) pp. 75-76.