55Educational Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1999

The Crippled `Pedagogue’ : discourses ineducation and the Greek case

POPI PIGIAKI, University of Crete, Department of Philosophy & Social Studies,Greece

ABSTRACT This paper looks at principal discourses in education which are usedas points of reference in an attempt to identify the character and the quality ofcontemporary discourse in the ® eld of Greek educational policies. By illuminatingthe central expectations of the European Commission as well as the characteristicsof critical inquiry on education, in which ¯ exibility and autonomy are crucialdeterminants, we question whether the Greek case complies with them. The paperdemonstrates that, insofar as it relates to the essential nature of their discourse,rather than being critical, the teachers’ involvement in the national educationalpolicy making has been problematic.

Critical Inquiry and the European Challenge

The White Paper for Education, issued by the European Commission (1995),speci® ed certain elements of educational concern for its member countries. Theseconcerns indicate the threefold new challenges facing contemporary Europe, i.e. theexplosion of information, the internationalisation of the economy and the scienti ® c-technical development: The basic question is how do the agencies for education useinformation and high technology so that they equip young people to cope effectivelywith the challenges in the ® eld of labour posed by the coming post-modern society,i.e. the shift from stable to more ¯ exible forms of work relationships, fromcentralisation to decentralisation and to corporate networks (ibid., p. 6).

According to the White Paper (ibid.) these will require a more autonomous workforce with knowledge-based ¯ exible skills. Education is needed for enlightenment,so that feelings of insecurity can give way to the conscious acquisition of newidentities by the citizens of the new international society of knowledge. TheEuropean citizen of the future is to be open to a multi-cultural democratic Europeansociety, is to be able to understand the deeper meanings of developments, is to thinkcritically and is to make use of his status as a citizen, both as an individual and asa member of collectives (ibid., p. 11). He/she should be able to manage fragmentedand incoherent information and to turn it into a personally meaningful messagewithin a wide context of subjective interpretations (ibid., p. 9). Those unable to doso would be at risk of a new form of illiteracy, those able to do so would avoid thedanger of making ill-considered use of fragments of information, of becomingpassive victims within the new society. Therefore:

0013±1911/99/010055±11 Ó 1999 Educationa l Review

56 P. Pigiaki

the essential mission of education is to help everyone to develop their ownpotential and become a complete human being, as opposed to a tool at theservice of the economy; the acquisition of knowledge and skills should gohand in hand with building up character, broadening outlook and acceptingone’ s responsibility in society. (ibid., p. 9) (author emphasis)

Schools should encourage the development of `critical faculties ¼ at all levels’(ibid., p. 12) (original emphasis), as well as they should face the challenge `topromote equal access to education by preventing social exclusion (ibid., p. 9) and bysecuring `the principle of equal rights in education (ibid., p. 23). The qualitiesrequired for the new citizen of Europe should be ¯ exibility and autonomy. This callsfor a change `in the current structure of education’ (ibid., p. 23). It is in the hopesof the European Commission that `teachers in the ® elds are usually ahead of theeducation systems and it is among their ranks that the pioneers of the learning societyare to be found’ (ibid., p. 24).

Such expectations being made on education today by the European Union (EU)come into line also with forward-looking educational thinkers, despite criticismswhich tend to interpret the EU’ s theoretical stance as being neo-conservative andneo-liberal. Such interpreters think that the EU puts emphasis on the notion of `homoeconomicus’ at the expense of the ideas of `home koinonikus’ and `home civilis’(Kazamias, 1995).

On our understanding, we arrive at the notion of the empowerment of individualsin the work place and in schools both through critical thinking and through socialaction, which is in fact, if it is to be practised, a revolutionary attitude to education.The problem, however, lies within predominantly conservative educational practice,and with the fact that schools, being resistant to change, are in¯ exible institutions(Hargreaves, 1994; Sarason, 1993, 1990, 1971; Muncey & McQuillan, 1993; Hess,1992; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Chubb, 1988; Gross et al., 1971). Current liberalpractices in education imposed during the so-called period of modernity, stillunderstand the notion of socialisation as `adjustment’ , still advocate such ideas as astandardised curriculum, the back-to-basics movement, the testing of competence,predictability, the raising of standards, the management of schools in accordancewith the values and ideology of market forces (Bowe et al., 1994; Ranson, 1993;Szkudlarek, 1993; Corbett & Wilson, 1991; Pine, 1985). These practices of `instru-mental rationality’ have reduced the educational problems to technical problems andthey already proved to fail to serve the needs of a society which is moving into the21st century (Kincheloe, 1991).

Furthermore, in recent years certain fallacies have arisen within the educationcommunity in the gap between the language of neo-conservative discourse and theactual practice of education. Liberal discourse has developed a rhetoric whichdisguises its effects so that it promotes rhetorical consideration for localism, com-munity, parental choice, support for the family and for individual freedom, evenconcern for the promotion of equality and humanistic social interaction. In fact theend result of what are thought of as being liberal educational practices is theencouragement of elitism, competition, individualistic values, sel® shness, personaleffort and personal reward for the able, and social exclusion for the disadvantaged(Giroux, 1988, 186 ff; cf. Echols et al., 1990). School pathologies are usually ignored(McLaren, 1989) or attributed to the individual’ s lack of an ability to make use ofthe forces of the market place, and are usually translated into the need for greatercontrol, with consequent demands for stricter discipline and for meritocratic rewards.

57The Crippled `Pedagogue’

Liberal discourse does not question the values and the socio-economic structures ofthe dominant culture (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1985; Kincheloe, 1991, p. 65).

Such a discourse is in direct opposition to the EU’ s advocacy of ¯ exibility, criticalthinking, continuous re-learning, and to the idea of connecting schooling with thevalues and qualities of decision making and social action. What is needed is tore-think the language of schooling `for traditional language prevents educators fromcritically examining the ideological assumption embedded in their own language’(Giroux, 1988, p. 2), and which constitute their conceptual and political illiteracy.The re-thought language would go beyond the given and would listen to `what hasbeen left out and silenced’ . Critical pedagogy, through critical knowledge, revealsthe myths, the lies and the injustices which are kept silent and which maintain thedominant culture (Giroux, 1988).

Critical pedagogy focuses on how social reality works and on how the logic ofdomination should be changed through a critical decoding of history. It requires abreaking down of hierarchical roles and regulations through effective deliberationand re¯ ection. Knowledge should be linked to power and to socio-political appli-cation, while at the same time educators are called upon to adopt an educationaldiscourse which will revitalise democratic public life, plurality and critical citizen-ship (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991, p. 81). Teachers should be seen as transformativeintellectuals; school has to be seen as a political sphere in which teachers andstudents struggle to de® ne the meanings of schooling and the meanings of power,revealing through their action a language of possibility and a language of hope(Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991; Giroux, 1988, p. xxxii; Aronowitz & Giroux, 1985).Within such a discourse `for freedom’ and for a radical democracy of pluralism,individuals are called to on to view their own identity `in the sphere of constantprovisionality and within the process of translation’ (Szkudlarek, 1993), as theyrefuse dependence on modernist totalitarian certainty.

The present time should be view as one of transition from the era of modernityinto post-modernity, which is characterised by ¯ uidity of knowledge and the need forcritical attitudes (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 30). Similarly, the crisis of modernity inschools together with the ¯ uidity of the post-modern era is shown in the urgent needfor teachers to be critical, re¯ ective and collegial, able to demonstrate ¯ exibility,collaboration, creativity, self and social awareness, able to engage in collectiveaction with openness to communication, to community and to continuous develop-ment (Hargreaves, 1994; Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

The Paradox of the Greek Case and the Crippled `Pedagogue’

Political Will and Internal Limitations in the Educational Discourse

Greek education has adopted a highly centralised system in which every importantdecision about the curriculum, the allocation of time to subject areas, books used inschool, books directing the teachers, teaching materials, modes of student assess-ment, and so forth, is decided within the Ministry of Education. Teachers areexpected to function simply as those who implement ministerial decisions, whiletheir recruitment, until 1997, depended totally on the waiting list called epetirida,from which appointments to schools were made according to the date of applicationfor registration on it, i.e. the year of graduation. As a result the `epetirida’ lengthenedwith time so that new appointments have to wait for at least 10 years before reaching

58 P. Pigiaki

the top of the list. On the other hand, appointment as a teacher in the State system,which provides a permanent contract of employment, did not require so far anyteacher quali ® cation.

Moreover, the `parallel education’ in Greece, known as parapaedia , i.e. informalprivate classes or private lessons on pay, which almost every pupil `has’ to attendafter school time, still wields an increasingly dominant in¯ uence over parents andpupils/students, acting as a substitute for the school. The situation leads schools tothe lack of focus of interest for many teachers, and to boredom and indifference forpupils (Pigiaki, 1987).

An obvious comparison of the above short description with what both criticalpedagogy and the European challenge calls for pictures the Greek case in a verydifferent line of function. In our analysis we shall attempt to identify the nature ofthe educational discourse dealing with serious defects and attempts for improvement.Educational discourse in Greece which impacts on schooling takes place between theministry of education and the teachers’ unions. Discussion in this paper will belimited to the area of secondary education and the role of its union known by theinitials OLME, i.e. Organisation for Secondary School Teachers.

Since the ® rst socialist government of the Panhellenic Social Movement (PASOC)in 1981 indicated its political will to negotiate educational policies with the teachersunion, OLME has played a decisive part within educational discourse. It has been aministerial hope that the engaging by political power with the societal power of theteachers’ force would result in the discourse leading to signi ® cant changes ineducation. As a gesture of good will, a few days after its election, the socialistministry granted (Circular 43121/21 December 1981) 1 day free from school dutiesfor the sake of their syndicalist duties to all local representatives of the union, whilethe government approved Law 1264/1982 to promote syndicalist freedom. At thesame time the ministry satis® ed several demands made by OLME, such as:

· making the Regulations governing the functioning of the Pupils Communitiesmore democratic (Ministerial Decision, 31 March 1982);

· abolish the posts and functions of the school inspectors and legislate for theestablishment of school advisors in their place (Law 1304/1982);

· establish remedial help in schools as well as remedial afternoon tuition in school,free of fees, for students who want to prepare themselves for university entry (Law1304/1982, Art. 26,27);

· establish new legislation with agreed criteria for the transfer and secondment ofteachers (Presidential Order, 112/1983);

· support the scheme for 1 year in-service training with total relief from teachingduties;

· change the examination system regulating students’ entry to the Universities (Law1351/1983);

· establish new legislation de® ning the function of school teaching staff in accord-ance with the requests of OLME (Decision, 6492/11 January 1983; cf. OLME,1982, no. 553, p. 7); and

· prepare a new Bill for education in co-operation with OLME

This new spirit of co-operation was greeted with enthusiasm by OLME (1982, no’ s544, 547). The honeymoon period, however, did not last more than three years andat present, some 17 years later, the relations between the ministry of education andOLME, with PASOC government (apart from 1989±93), are the worst possible. The

59The Crippled `Pedagogue’

political will for sharing with the union in decision making proved insuf® cient forestablishing a genuine discourse between the two parties.

One obvious reason was the intensity of the work needed for new legislation.OLME found itself unable to cope with this; acknowledging in April 1983, forinstance, that:

It is not easy to reach new positions based on evidence something whichat the same time is absolutely necessary for the new form of the syndical-istic movement. (OLME, 1983, no. 557) (author emphasis)

Since then, whenever the ministry has wanted to proceed with legislation atreasonable speed, OLME has always needed more than the time available for activeparticipation in decision making. OLME’ s major problem seems to be that, in itsdiscourse, it only adopts a very generalÐ theoretical attitude towards matters, and inits `dialogue’ with its `basis’ , the teacher force, to which it refers for help, it has beenproved to be slow and inef® cient (OLME, 1983, no. 557). For its part the ministryneeds concrete and speci® c proposals for discussion and possible legislation. Soonthis failure to meet the ministry’ s needs took the form of a constant `sloganised’complaint on the part of OLME that the ministry makes hasty decisions and does notreally engage in dialogue. On its side the ministry accuses OLME of having nothingconcrete to propose and of failing to contribute to the dialogue.

A ® rst example of this came with the establishment of Comprehensive Schools inGreece. In February 1983 (Circular 427/4 February 1983) the ministry formed aWorking Team for studying and proposing the introduction of such schools, whileOLME announced the organising of a conference on the matter for the end of thesame year. The Comprehensive school was legally established in June 1984 (Minis-terial Decision 361/6 June 1984). Because only few local unions responded to theirrequest for submitting proposals on the issue (OLME, 1983, no. 557) OLMEaccepted responsibility for the fact that it was unprepared.

As a consequence of this discrepancy, and contrary to ministerial hopes, everymajor change introduced in the course of the past 17 years, by both socialist andconservative governments, has been introduced solely on the initiative of the Ministryof Education, i.e. without the public consensus of OLME. Major issues of `dialogue’and con¯ ict between the Ministry and the union are discussed brie¯ y below.

The Law Governing Secondary Education

The Law 1566/1985 for primary and secondary schools was the response by thesocialist government of 1981±85 both to a need and to a request from OLME tochange the existing `undemocratic’ Law 309/1976. The minister of education hadheld preliminary discussions with OLME about the Bill for more than 2 years. InMarch 1984, with only six minor points of disagreement outstanding, OLME calleda 24 hour strike, unjusti ® ably in the ministry’ s view (OLME, 1985, 574). Parliamen-tary elections declared for April 1985 stopped the Bill being voted on. After theelections, it was submitted by the same minister and deputy minister in June to thesummer Parliament and it was passed under the guillotine law, without the union’ sagreement, in September. OLME accused the ministry of not engaging in dialoguewith them before submitting the Bill to the Parliament and declared a second 24 hourstrike for the 4 September making 20 new demands! (OLME, 1985, no. 580). This

60 P. Pigiaki

was the ® rst serious indication of tension between the socialist ministry and theunion, and it was the starting point of a still unconcluded dispute.

The Con¯ ict About the Evaluation and Assessment of Teachers

In 1984, after the establishment of the school advisors, the ministry submitted toOLME a plan for legislation (by Presidential Order) on the matter. A second planfollowed in 1985. Both were totally rejected by OLME, which showed a clearunwillingness to co-operate. The main issue in dispute was the refusal by OLME toallow the school advisor to participate in teacher assessment, and the total refusal ofassessment excepting only those who apply to become head teachers (OLME, 1986,no. 586). In 1993, the conservative government voted for legislation on teacherassessment (Presidential Order 320/1993). This too was ineffective. An electionfollowed almost immediately and the socialist minister of the time gave in to unionpressure, issuing an order for school advisors to abstain from evaluating teachers(Ministerial Circular 24168/25 November 1993). OLME’ s position on teacher evalu-ation has been as follows:

The union rejects any form of individual evaluation of teachers as untrust-worthy and ineffective. Instead, evaluation should refer to the whole workof the school, which is done by the teaching staff itself, so that it does notdifferentiate among teachers, it has no effect on teachers’ promotion or ontheir salary, it does not create competition and it `respects their pro-fessional freedom and initiative’ . The school advisor has only a guidance,not an evaluative role in school evaluation. (OLME, 1995, no. 645)

Furthermore:

Individual evaluation takes place only in the case of one being a candidatefor an administrative post (head teacher, school advisor) and the task (iscarried out) by a certain body on the basis of the candidate’ s ® le and thecandidate’ s own report on his work, as it has been reported in theevaluation of his school. (ibid.)

It is remarkable that, despite having made repeated attempts to prepare a plan for theevaluation of teachers over the past 13 years, the Ministry of Education has failed toovercome the union’ s determined opposition to any judgement being made on anindividual teacher’ s performance. What is more, the union demands that no headteacher or school advisor should play any part in teacher evaluation. In the view ofthe union a teacher is his sole judge and jury.

At the present time, a new Law (2525/1997) passed by the socialist governmenthas re-introduced teacher evaluation. Once again this was met with protests anddemonstrations. It still remains to be seen whether it will be put into effect.

Moreover, in the mid±1980s OLME adopted the attitude that every piece oflegislation should be based `on its positions’ and that it engages in struggles so thatthe ministry will accept `all of its demands’ (OLME, 1986, no. 585). This stance iscurrently employed by the union as a slogan or `excuse’ every time it rejects aministerial proposal. Thus, the language of discourse for OLME has becomein¯ exible and rigid, whilst its relations with the ministry have taken on a polemicalcharacter, especially when in its demands included the `® nancial upgrade’ of teachers(OLME, 1988, no. 603). Since then, the ® nancial problem has taken the lead in two

61The Crippled `Pedagogue’

major teacher strikes: In the 46 day-long strike in 1989 (13 May±27 June) during theperiod of the school examinations, and in a 57 day-long strike in 1997 (20January±17 March).

The Con¯ ict over Decentralisation

In April 1994, the socialist ministry of education submitted a report of 20 pages toOLME as a starting point for discourse, which put forward speci® cally, among otherissues, the issue of decentralising the administration and control of education byenhancing the second degree local educational authorities (i.e. on the basis of eachprefecture). OLME has never answered the ministerial request. It was only 1 yearlater, following pressure by public ministerial denunciation of the highly centralisededucational system (George Papandreou’ s interview on 7 November 1994), and thereassurances given by the ministers of education and of internal affairs that decentra-lisation will not affect the working conditions of teachers (Press Release on 29February 1995), that OLME issued through public Announcements (on 13 and 24March, and 12 April 1995) its response to the minister. Those Announcementsrevealed the union’ s opposition to any discussion about any decentralisation which`touches on the employment contracts, pensions and insurance of the teaching force’ ,as well as its opposition to any hint from the ministry about abolishing the waitinglist for teacher recruitment. For OLME `rights’ , hypothetically at risk, became theexcuse for refusing to discuss decentralisation. In the meanwhile, however, itseemed, with reference to the teaching force, to support decentralisation so long asthe ministry does not make `dangerous’ plans in which `responsibility for the totalfunction of the schools, from salaries to any decision concerning function, would betransferred to the local authorities’ . In OLME’ s words:

It is necessary to intervene so that those who formulate new legislation fordecentralisation do not in any way touch the existing structure of edu-cation. (Decision of all representatives of local unions on 13 April 1995,cf. also Decisions of the 7th OLME Conference, in OLME, 1995, no. 646)(author emphasis)

This seemingly conservative stance discloses a paradoxical con¯ ict between thedemocratic terminology employed by the union and what it actually demands. Also,the absence of any critical educational inquiry behind the union’ s demands presentsa further paradox, since, above all, it is supposed to be the community of the teachingforce.

The Con¯ ict Regarding the Recruitment of Teachers

Soon after the 2-month strike on ® nancial demands at the beginning of the year 1997the minister of education, Gerassimos Arsenis promoted Law 2525, which estab-lished criteria for the appointing of teachers to state schools, in order to secure thequality of the teaching force for the future. (The law also dealt with the abolition ofthe Comprehensive school, only 14 years after it was established, the introduction ofthe Uni® ed School, and new ways of assessing pupils and selection for enteringuniversity studies.) The measures laid down by the law are: Gradual abolition of thewaiting list epetirida until the year 2003. Other appointments will require success inwritten examinations and from the year 2003 sitting for the examinations will also

62 P. Pigiaki

require possession of a `Certi® cate in Pedagogy and Didactics’ (1-year teachertraining course at universities).

On this front OLME makes three demands:

(1) The present system of recruitment should be maintained, because, in its view, itis the most objective system. In other words: the sole criterion for teacherselection is possession of a university degree and the order in which appoint-ments are made should continue to be determined by the date of application tothe ministry.

(2) In order to satisfy the request for pedagogical competence, OLME maintains thatinitial training should take place after the appointment of teachers to theirschools.

(3) In addition, in-service training should be available for all teachers on the basisof periodic paid leave for short seminars and of paid leave for a whole year, inthe course of which teachers should be free from duties in school. Teachers onin-service training should not be subjected to any form of assessment. Attend-ance at in-service training should not be taken into consideration with regard toany promotion (OLME, 1995, no. 645, and also 1997, no. 655).

To take this last demand seriously would exhaust the ® nancial resources of thewealthiest of countries. It should also be noted that no serious thought has been givento questions relating to the content, the orientation and the quality of initial andin-service training itself. In recent years several and varied attempts have been madeto provide in-service training, but all have little or no positive effect.

Pedagogues and Syndicate: a paradox

The highly centralised function of Greek education, the total absence over decadesof any pedagogical criteria for teacher recruitment, the lack of teacher evaluation formore than the past 20 years, the failure to correlate teacher training to the needs ofpractice and the demands of curriculum development, the absence of teachers’self-re¯ ection and self-development, the intense demands made on pupils of `paralleleducation’ , all these generate an almost pathological condition.

The ultimate paradox in the situation is found in that the obvious lack ofprofessional freedom has not been identi® ed as such by Greek teachers. The freedomof teachers to choose educational programmes and curricula for their students, andfor students to participate democratically in choosing the educative experiences towhich they are to be exposed ® nd no place in the Union’ s agenda. No real demandhas been ever made by OLME for professional freedom, initiative and genuineresponsibility, i.e. whatever constitutes the nature of critical thinking and of criticalpedagogy. It is this state of affairs that turns Greek teachers into crippled profession-als who, at the same time, are not in a position to engage in any genuine pedagogy.

However, at present, the alarming prospect is that the teaching force in Greeceappears to remain ® rm in its commitment to inertia. Instead of being conscious of theseriousness of the situation, OLME triumphs over the achievements of its struggles(i.e. the repeated and lengthy strikes) which refer to good levels of payment and alow number of teaching periods (a maximum of 21 periods a week for newlyappointed teachers, reduced to 14 for teachers with 18 years of service). OLME,acting as a syndicate rather than as an educational community, has achieved the

63The Crippled `Pedagogue’

promotion of `teachers’ personal interests’ , but it has failed to engage in educationaldialogue.

We understand something ® rst when it has meaning, when it leads topractical use, when it leads to insight. (Dalin & Rust, 1996, p. 81)

Pursuing such a line of thought, the nature of OLME’ s discourse on crucialeducational issues does not seem to be understandable, nor is effective in practice.It seems also that the union cannot overcome the dif® culties of its `dialogue’ with itsown `basis’ , the teachers, as well as with the ministry of education. Consequently,OLME’ s discourse has not been for freedom, nor for democracy, despite the fact thatthe political will has been on offer. The union’ s engagement in dialogue has not thecapacity to revitalise democratic life in schools or critical citizenship. Trapped inmaking demands on security and certainty OLME had turned both its discourse and`its positions’ , although couched in democratic-socialist jargon, into an almostdogmatic totalitarian `theory’ which makes no allowance for developing communica-tive rationality and pedagogical insight. Thus, it became rigid and sterile, having alsolost the capacity for development.

Consequently, the European Commission’ s hopes that teachers can be ahead oftheir systems, acting as pioneers for change, are frustrated in the Greek case by theteachers’ union, due to the lack of genuine discourse. Yet, it is only through genuinediscourse that one learns new ways of thinking, speaking, communicating and acting;in Ranson’ s words, `the capacity for interpretative understanding’ (Ranson, 1994,p. 109).

Conclusion

The Need for Enlightenment

Educationalists like Giroux would be quick to identify the above pathology andconsequent alienation present in the Greek teaching force. Enlightenment in its truesense is lacking. As MacIntyre puts it:

To be enlightened is to be able to think for oneself; but it is a familiar truththat one can only think for oneself if one does not think by oneself. It isonly through the discipline of having one’ s claims tested in ongoingdebate, in the light of standards on the rational justi® cation of which theparticipants are able to agree, that the reasoning of any particular individ-ual is rescued from the vagaries of passion and interest. (1987, p. 24)(author emphasis)

Enlightenment also cannot ¯ ourish given a harsh, in¯ exible and bureaucratic way oforganising teaching and the curriculum. The rigid structure must triumph. On theother hand, without enlightenment there is no hope that schools in Greece can changetheir rigid character and union-serving interests. Individualistic interests militateagainst enlightenment.

The Greek situation highlights the need for teachers to develop critical thinkingand re¯ ection. Hargreaves recognises the dif® culty in such situations and maintainsthat a new teaching force which would be able to tolerate change and ¯ uidity, isgenerally required. As he puts it:

Organisational ¯ exible structures, on-going discourse, ¯ uidity and uncer-tainty threaten the established careers of present teachers accustomed to

64 P. Pigiaki

certainty, to silence and to implementing instructions. Nevertheless, a newgeneration of teachers and a new teachers’ Union is needed, which wouldhave grown critical enough to accept uncertainty, inquiry, doubt andpersonal freedom and responsibility as pedagogues. (Hargreaves, 1994,p. 67)

Our times need such a teaching force, just as much as we need teachers who areintellectuals willing to play a central role in the broad struggle for democracy andsocial justice (Giroux, 1988, 121 ff.).

Schooling for democracy and justice does not mean that we simply includeenvironmental, health, peace and poverty education within the school curriculum. Itmeans in the main that schooling must be such that it really empowers people andhumanises them, leading them to a more equal and shared future. The need for sucha development in Greece is obvious. Signals coming from elsewhere in Europe,however, suggest that the problem is not con® ned to Greece.

Correspondence: Popi Pigiaki, Department of Philosophy & Social Studies, Philo-sophical School, University of Crete, 74±100 Rethymnon, Crete, Greece.

REFERENCES

ARONOWITZ, S. & GIROUX, H. (1991) Post-modern Education, Politics, Culture and Social Criticism(Minneapolis , Oxford, University of Minnesota Press).

ARONOWITZ, S. & GIROUX, H. (1985) Education Under Siege: the conservative , liberal and radical debateover schooling (Massachusetts , Bergin & Garvey Publishers) .

BOWE, R., BALL, S. & GEWIRTZ, S. (1994) Parental choice, consumption and social theory: the operationof micro-markets in education , British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(1), pp. 38±52.

CARR, W. & KEMMIS, S. (1986) Becoming Critical (Basingstoke , The Falmer Press).CHUBB, J.E. (1988) Why the current wave of school reform will fail, The Public Interest, 90, pp. 28±49.CORBETT, H.D. & WILSON, B.L. (1991) Testing, Reform and Rebellion (Norwood, New Jersey, Ablex

Publishing Corporation) .DALIN, P. & RUST, V.D. (1996) Towards Schooling for the Twenty-First Century (London, Cassell) .DALIN, P., DOLLAR, B., RUST, V.D., VAN DEN BOCH, L., KERSHAW, N. & SCRINDO, M. (1983) Learning from

Work and Community Experience (Windsor , NNFR-Nelson).ECHOLS, F., MCPHERSON, A. & WILLMS, D. (1990) Parental choice in Scotland, Journal of Education

Policy, 5(3).EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1995) Teaching and Learning. Towards a learning society (White Paper)

(Brussels , European Commission Directorate-General ; Education, Training and Youth; DirectorateGeneral for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs).

FULLAN, M.G. with STIEGELBAUER , S. (1991) The New Meaning of Educationa l Change (London,Cassell).

GIROUX, H.A. (1988) Teachers as Intellectuals : toward a critical pedagogy of learning (New York,Westpoint , Bergin & Garvey) .

GROSS, N., GIACQUINTA, J. & BERNSTEIN, M. (1971) Implementing Organizationa l Innovations : a socio-logical analysi s of planned educationa l change (New York, Basic Books).

HARGREAVES, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: teachers ’ work and culture in thepost-modern age (London, Cassell) .

HESS, A.G. (Ed.) (1992) Empowering Teachers and Parents: school restructurin g through the eyes ofanthropologists (Westport , Connecticut , Bergin & Garvey).

KAZAMIAS, A. (1995) Neo-European modernisatio n and education : thoughts and policies in imaginaryEurope, in: A. KAZAMIAS & M. KASSOTAKIS (Eds) Greek Education: perspective s for reconstructio nand modernisatio n (in Greek) (Athens, Seirios).

KINCHELOE, J. (1991) Teachers as Researchers : qualitativ e inquiry as a path to empowerment (London,The Falmer Press).

65The Crippled `Pedagogue’

MACINTYRE, A. (1987) The idea of an educated public, in: G. HAYDON (Ed.) Education and Values(London, University of London Institute of Education) .

MCLAREN, P. (1989) Life in Schools (New York, Longman).MUNCEY, D.E. & MCQUILLAN, P.J. (1993) Educationa l reform as revitalizatio n movement, American

Journal of Education, 101, pp. 393±431.ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1982) 544, 547, 550 and 553 (Athens,

OLME).ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1983) 557 (Athens, OLME).ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1985) 574, 580 (Athens, OLME).ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1986) 585, 586 (Athens, OLME).ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1988) 603 (Athens, OLME).ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1995) 645, 646 (Athens, OLME).ORGANISATION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (OLME) (1997) 655 (Athens, OLME).PIGIAKI , K. (1987) Effecting Change in Education. The introductio n of the Comprehensiv e Lycea in

Greece. A case study, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton , England.PINE, P. (1985) Raising Standards in Schools, Problems and Solutions, AASA Critical Issues Report

(Arlington-Virginia , American Association of School Administration) .RANSON, S. (1993) Markets or democracy for educational , British Journal of Educationa l Studies, 41(4),

pp. 333±352.RANSON, S. (1994) Towards the Learning Society (London, Cassell) .SARASON, S.B. (1971) The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Boston, Allyn and Bacon).SARASON, S.B. (1990) The Predictable Failure of Educationa l Reform (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass

Publishers).SARASON, S.B. (1993) The Case for Change: rethinking the preparation of educator s (San Francisco,

Jossey-Bass Publishers) .SZKUDLAREK, T. (1993) The Problem of Freedom in Post-modern Education (Westport , Connecticut ,

Bergin & Garvey).