![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
With reference to the heads of departments of moral education (HDMEs) in Shanghai’s junior secondary schools, this paper explores middle leaders’ logics for leading school-organized extra-curricular activities (SEAs). This qualitative study, guided by Woulfin’s lived logic framework, found that the interviewed HDMEs actively reinterpreted the institutional logics with three logics—expressive, instrumental, and hierarchical—by manipulating policy circulation, responding to the performative accountability and micropolitics in the hierarchy, and using correlative thinking. The lived logics of leading SEAs reveal that, as heads of a marginalized department in schools, the HDMEs struggled to seek visibility by using correlative thinking, promoting the importance of their work, and aligning with more helpful senior leaders. The study responds to theories on school middle leadership and implementation logic. It could deepen our understanding of the paradoxes in China’s development and governance, especially in areas concerning both measurable performance and unmeasurable issues (e.g. ideology and sustainable development).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Beetham, Legitimization of Power.
2 Zeng, “Changing Manners”.
3 Ibid.
4 Zhu, “Performance Legitimacy”.
5 Zhou, Zhongguo Guojia Zhili.
6 Ibid.
7 Althof and Berkowitz, “Moral Education and Character Education”.
8 Cheung and Pan, “Transition of Moral Education”.
9 Green, Education and State Formation.
10 Raffel, “Public Administration Ignored Public Education”.
11 See Li et al., “Does Middle Leadership Matter”; Shaked and Schechter, “School Middle Leaders’ Sense-Making”.
12 Woulfin, “Duet or Duel”.
13 Xu, School Leadership, Citizenship Education.
14 Communist Party of China Central Committee (CCCPC, hereafter), “Dang De Ruogan Lishi Wenti”.
15 See note 13 above.
16 CCCPC and State Council, “Zhongguojiaoyu Gaige He Fazhan”.
17 Office of Communist Party of China and Office of State Council, “Weichengnianren Xiaowai Huodong”.
18 Ministry of Education, “Jichu Jiaoyu Kecheng Gaige Gangyao (Shixing)”.
19 CCCPC and State Council, “Weichengnianren Sixiang Daode”.
20 See note 17 above.
21 State Education Commission, “Zhongxue Deyu Dagang”
22 See note 18 above.
23 CCCPC, “Xuexiao Deyu Gongzuo”.
24 See note 13 above.
25 See Li et al., “Does Middle Leadership Matter”; Busher et al., “Making Sense of Middle Leadership.”
26 Spillane et al., “Managing in the Middle”.
27 Busher et al., “Making Sense of Middle Leadership”.
28 Li et al., “Does Middle Leadership Matter”.
29 De Nobile, “Model of Middle Leadership”.
30 See note 28 above; Adey, “Professional Development Priorities”.
31 Bennett et al., “Understandings of Middle Leadership”.
32 Ibid.
33 See note 27 above.
34 See note 27 above; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, “Power, Agency and Middle Leadership”.
35 Ibid.
36 See note 27 above.
37 See note 12 above.
38 Scott, Institutions and Organizations.
39 See note 12 above.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ball et al., How Schools Do Policy.
43 Hamilton, Max Weber, Critical Assessments.
44 See note 12 above.
45 See note 27 above; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, “Power, Agency and Middle Leadership
46 Avigur-Eshel and Berkovich, “Introducing Managerialism into National Educational Contexts”.
47 Goodwin, “Schools Policy, Governance and Politics”.
48 Ranson, “Public Accountability”.
49 Ibid.
50 Singh et al., “Policy Enactment, Context and Performativity”.
51 Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, “Power, Agency and Middle Leadership”.
52 See note 26 above.
53 See note 31 above.
54 See note 27 above.
55 See note 51 above.
56 Shaked and Schechter, “School Middle Leaders’ Sense-Making”.
57 See note 27 above.
58 Blase, The Politics of Life.
59 Ibid.
60 Gowlett, “Queer(Y)Ing New Schooling”.
61 Ibid.
62 Tan, “Enactment of the Policy Initiative”.
63 Hall and Ames, Anticipating China.
64 See note 62 above.
65 See Shanghai Municipal Party Committee of Science and Education, and Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, “Minzu Jingshen Jiaoyu”; “Shengming Jiaoyu”.
66 Law, “Citizenship, Citizenship Education”; See note 13 above.
67 Merriam, Qualitative Research and Case Study.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 See note 63 above.
71 See note 60 above.
72 See note 28 above; See note 27 above.
73 DiMaggio and Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited”.
74 See note 12 above.
75 See note 42 above.
76 See note 27 above; See note 56 above.
77 See note 63 above; See note 62 above.
78 See note 5 above.
79 See note 51 above.
80 See note 12 above.
81 See note 51 above; See note 27 above.
82 See note 42 above.
83 See note 51 above; See note 27 above.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Shuqin Xu
Shuqin Xu is an associate professor of Research Centre for Public Administration and School of Government at Sun Yat-Sen University. Her main research areas include education policy, citizenship education, education and social change in China.
Zhonghua Guo
Zhonghua Guo is a professor Research Centre for Public Administration and School of Government at Sun Yat-Sen University. His main research areas include citizenship, state theory, politics in contemporary China.