The possibility of a  post-masculinist  politics of educational 
administration in post-modern times?.

Jill Blackmore
Deakin University

Paper presented to  Australian Association of  Research in Education 
Conference, University of Newcastle, November 27-1 Dec. 1994

The possibility of a  post-masculinist  politics of educational 
administration in post-modern times?.

Much has been made in the restructuring of work both locally and globally 
about the need for new forms of leadership and administration to meet the 
demands of a postmodern society. In education, as in the public sectors 
generally in most Western capitalist democracies and increasingly many 
'third world' countries, devolved systems of governance are seen to be a 
better way of meeting the individual needs of citizen/clients in a period 
of transition from 'the modern' to 'the postmodern'. While much of the 
literature on educational leadership appeals to postmodernist discourses to 
rationalise radical educational restructuring, few address the ways in 
which particular discursive regimes, global, national and local work to 
frame and constrain certain possibilities for action within schools despite 
the democratic and equity claims of the reform rhetoric. 


In this paper, I will consider from a feminist post structuralist 
perspective the contradictions arising from educational restructuring in 
the context of the modern/ postmodern with regard to what may constitute 
'good' leadership and administrative practices, about how new femininities 
and masculinities are being constructed in the context of educational re-
formation, and, illustrated by vignettes from my research, about the ways 
in which particular discourses work in specific contexts and hegemonic 
cultures  constrain more democratic forms of educational practice in 
schools.  Finally, I consider the possibilities of a post-masculinist 
politics of administration  in this period of transition from the modern to 
the postmodern.

Modern/postmodern schools


The modern era emerges out of the Enlightenment  and its notions of 
rationality, science and the capacity of man to control his environment 
(Lloyd, 1984). It is generally characterised as a period of incremental 
change and linear progressivism, a time when social systems developed in an 
integrated and coherent manner, in which there was a network of stable 
relationships around common understandings of nationhood, family, community 
and the state, into which individuals were socialised. There is an assumed 
cultural consensus and homogeneity,  a faith in science to resolve human 
problems and in the state to provide basic welfare needs. Strong, 
increasingly pervasive bureaucracies actively intervened to deliver state 
services in health education and welfare to produce greater equality, while 
at the same time the public domain of paid work was separated from the 
private unpaid work of the home.  Modernisation is also associated with 
industrialisation and mass production techniques ( Fordism) which presumed 
a universal, homogeneous and infinite market. Organisations tended to be 
seen as functioning in rational and instrumental ways, necessarily 
hierarchical with linear career paths based upon seniority.  Authority and 
initiatives for change rested with formal roles. Motivation was 
conceptualised in behaviourist terms of reward and punishment. Productivity 
was seen to arise purely from workers self interest and desire for monetary 
gain. Management sought to control all stages of production through 
supervision, surveillance, and Tayloristic fragmentation of jobs and 
extreme specialisation. While there was a high level of regulation of the 
individual, there is also a sense of security and certainty.

Postmodernity is generally depicted as the set of economic, political and 
social conditions emerging out of rise of new information technologies and 
media forms and the globalisation of markets. Time / space relations have 
collapsed and  there is the blurring of the global and local.  Chaos theory 
and quantum phsyics have led to a loss of faith in the laws of science to 
resolve social problems, and recognition of the irrationality of how 
systems and humans relate. Social change is seen to be an unpredictable, 
nonlinear process, better described as chaotic and messy. Now states in a 
deregulated market system selectively  mediate relationships between the 
global and the local.  Post Fordist ways of work organisation focus upon 
team work, flat organisations, finite niche markets and decentralised 
decisionmaking to facilitate the flexibility of workers and organisations 
to respond quickly to diverse market needs of clients. More indirect forms 
of organisational control are played out through systems of self governance 
as individuals  internalise organisational goals through performance 
management, a process reinforced by the peer pressure built into team work, 
quality assurance and accountability technologies. Social relationships are 
increasingly framed by market and contractual arrangements. Shared notions 
of nationality and citizenship, state, family and community are disrupted.  
The emphasis is on constantly forming and reforming networks, diversity, 
cultural pluralism, heterogeneity, and shifting notions  of nationhood and 
citizenship. While there is a sense of capacity for personal empowerment in 
this free flowing context, it is also anxiety ridden and fraught with 
interpersonal tensions. Indeed, identity formation itself is seen to be 
fragmented, contradictory and  partial.  Education can no longer fulfil its 
promise of economic reward as full lifetime employment is replaced by part 
time work, unpaid labour and retraining. 

The above historical caricatures, while not capturing the complexity of the 
debatesabout modernity/ postmodernity, still represent  particular 
arguments called upon to justify the radical restructuring of education 
since the late 1980s. Advocates of the second wave of devolution have 
argued that we need new schools for new post modern times and a more highly 
skilled workforce ( Caldwell & Spinks, 1992) Indeed, the self managing 
school with its 'centralised decentralisation' would appear to typify both 
the modern and postmodern organisation with its modernist tendencies for 

top down, executive mode of decisionmaking and line management, and 
increased differentiation of tasks and rewards as well as the demarcation 
between policy and implementation;  and its postmodern claims to 
decentralise, encourage diversity, community ownership, local discretion, 
professional autonomy and flexibility on the ground (Blackmore, 1993). 

A post modernist educational organisation, it could be expected, should 
address issues arising from a culturally pluralist and heterogeneous 
society and an increased diversity of student needs in order to effect 
significant change in educational outcomes, ( Capper, 1994; Reyes, Velz, 
Pena, 1994). One would expect post-modern schools to address how diverse 
interests could be better represented in school decisionmaking and on how 
decisions with regard to different claims on resource allocation are 
informed by a sense of equity and justice. If post modern organisations are 
seen to be constituted of freely operating, relatively autonomous, 
multiskilled teams addressing specific needs, the role of the principal is 
necessarily redefined, if not made redundant. Central themes in recent 
leadership literature about 'best management practice' talk of shared , 
transformational and visionary  leadership ( Maxcy, 1994), about 
recognition and respect for cultural diversity and pluralism (Capper, 1994) 
, about teacher collegiality and professionality ( Hargreaves, 1994), about 
valuing democratic relationships and about caring environments ( Noddings, 
1993; Beck, 1993). Likewise, change theorists  speak about tolerance for 
uncertainty, the unpredictability of change, its messiness and 
contradictions. They see policy and structures as not mandating change but 
as the products of cultural change(Fullan, 1993; Kenway et al, 1994).  In 
education, empirical studies of the types of educational change which 
effect student outcomes focus upon teachers as change agents and the 
necessity for favourable material and cultural conditions for change ( 
Hill, 1993). Principals are portrayed as the facilitators, enablers and 
providers of such conditions ( McLaughlin & Talbert, 1994). The role of the 
leaders in the postmodern 'learning organisation' is seen as facilitating 
not prescribing what others do. 

Paradoxically, in the global shift from centralised to devolved systems of 
education, there has been an increased focus upon the leadership role of 
the principal through policies, structures, accountability processes, and 
role descriptions of line management. In a devolved system, the principal 
is expected to mediate contradictory political, economic and social 
relationships between schools and their communities with the more powerful  
role of local school councils; between the principal and the teacher with 
increased powers of the principal; and between the principal and the centre 
through performance management and appraisal of both schools and 
individuals. As Peter Watkins ( 1993) points out, the centralising 
tendencies of policy and accountability frameworks in most instances are 
more powerful than the decentralising. The second wave of devolution in the 
1990s  in most Western liberal capitalist democracies has largely been a 
top down state initiative, coercive in effect, often replacing, as in 
Victoria, consensual arrangements which marked the historical 
'partnerships' between teachers, parents and state in schoolbased 
decisionmaking since the 1970s ( Blackmore, 1986;  Gordon 1991 ;  Ball, 
1990). Indeed, the second wave of restructuring in most Australian states 
is significantly different than earlier forms with the 'severing of 
educational means and ends, a shift towards measured output, and a dramatic 
reorganising and tightening of accountability structures for 
schools'(Robertson, 1993, p. 117). There is less 'real possibility for 
substantial inputs by representatives of teacher, citizen and community 
groups' in policymaking at the centre, their involvement largely being 
confined to school level ( Ryan, 1993, p. 191). Government policies have 
reduced the notion of community to exchange relations ie. parental choice 
of school.  Parental involvement is 'limited to little else than pressuring 
schools and teachers to improve student achievement in student 

competencies'through threat of withdrawal( Ryan, 1993, p. 192). Where 
parental involvement does occur on school councils and boards, it is 
limited to financial not educational issues as principals are able to 
'capture' decisionmaking processes. Such bodies are invariably dominated by 
white, middle class professional males( Deem, 1992; Middleton, 199)

 The notion of  difference embedded in such policies in post-Mabo times is 
still that of cultural assimilation of pluralist interests 'in the national 
interest'. This assimilationist perspective is underlaid by an instrumental 
economic rationalism and a shift away from communitarian notions of the 
civic and education as an investment in and production of a public good, 
towards individualistic notions of the economic and education as a  form of 
private consumption. Although the claim is made that diversity and equity 
will be better achieved by devolving decisionmaking because those at the 
workface can better address specific and diverse local needs if given the 
flexibility and capacity to prioritise, many  school based interventions 
tend to be limited to a more concentrated focus upon narrowly outcomes 
based foci rather than diversity  and breadth ( Ryan, 1993, p. 193). The 
New Zealand experience indicates how, because equity demands a wider 
redistribution of already scarce resources, equity is quickly dropped off 
local agendas ( Middleton, 1992). 

Finally, devolved schools in all Australian states, as in England and New 
Zealand , now operate within an increasingly marketised state system of 
education, competing not only with state subsidised 'private' schools for a 
contracting student population but also neighbourhood state schools. The 
key element in the restructuring discourse which calls upon new forms of 
schooling and new leadership to meet postmodern needs is the market. The 
market is the mechanism by which individual choice is exercised to address 
issues of  diversity and difference. Indeed, schools in an unregulated  
system tend to select students ( Edwards & Whitty, 1992 ) and the 
differences between schools on the basis of class, race and ethnicity are 
exacerbated ( Glen, 1993;  Scheurich & Imber, 1992 ; Hannaway and Carnoy, 
1992; Lieberman et al , 1991). The reality is more reduced autonomy, 
constraint and uniformity. Restraint, because  devolution has in most 
instances been accompanied with reduced educational expenditure, 
intensification of work and controlling accountability measures and system 
wide support services such as professional development are 'downsourced' to 
schools and 'outsourced' to consultants. Uniformity because schools are 
increasingly being judged on the basis of market image ( as measured by 
community satisfaction surveys1).  Market status and position is maintained 
by conforming to the dominant image of a good school as being well 
uniformed, well disciplined and academically successful ( as measured by  
standardised test scores).   This requires schools to be highly selective 
and narrow in orientation, as a diversity of clientele makes maintaining 
that image, particularly with constrained funds, difficult and non-
marketable (Kenway, et al. 1993). In many instances, therefore, educational 
restructuring has exacerbated inequality in certain education systems ( 
e.g. England, New Zealand) on the grounds of class, ethnicity and race for 
students(  Edwards and Whitty, 1992).

In the above context, issues of social justice generally, and  gender 
equity in particular,  have become more complex, particularly with respect 
to women in leadership.  As I have argued, leadership in the selfmanaging 
school cannot be decontextualised from the shift to self governance and the 
marketisation of education. Contradictory, overlapping discourses exist:  
discourses of managerialism/ entrepreneurialism compete with and draw from 
discourses of educational leadership/ professionality, positioning 
educational leaders in contradictory ways as they confront the 'dilemmas of 
management' (Bowe & Ball, 1992).  In turn , particular discursive regimes 
have material effects. Dominant managerialist discourses actively inhibit 
practices which could produce  autonomy, flexibility and diversity. 

Particular images of leadership are privileged by discourses about 
efficiency and effectiveness, images most readily equated with masculinity 
:  good financial management, entrepreneurship, decision maker, high public 
relations profile. Marian Court speaks of the New Zealand schools where 
'there are culturally produced links between masculinity and authority 
grounded in skills of numeracy, technical logic and business 
competitiveness that can be seen to equip men as the people best suited to 
running schools as business enterprises' ( Court, 1994, p. 36). 

On the other hand, there is another weaker discourse emerging in this 
context of restructuring. 'Women's ways of leading' are held up in some 
educational systems as models of 'best management practice' because women's  
'skills' as facilitators, communicators and in interpersonal relations are 
seen to be a desirable attributes for educational managers in these complex 
and chaotic times. Women's 'propensity' for more democratic modes of 
decision making, their emotional management skills derived out of their 
familial and pedagogical experiences, and their emphasis on curriculum and 
student welfare is therefore an exploitable resource in schools ( 
Shakeshaft, 1987; Adler et al., 1993;  Ozga, 1993; Court;  Weiner, 1993). 
Women leaders have been portrayed as good change agents ( Yeatman, 1994; 
Blackmore, 1994). Women in leadership positions simultaneously have insider 
status as part of formal  decisionmaking structures, but also have outsider 
status as a female in male dominated workplaces. In being marginal, female 
managers can 'see the fault lines within the dominant cultures' of 
management ( Gosetti & Rusch, 1994).  Recent research indicates that women 
principals are better able  to deal with change than their male 
counterparts 
( Caldwell, 1994). 

But again such discourses must be contextualised. In particular the 
significant shift towards self governace at the level of the individual as 
well as schools signifies different relationships. As Stephen Waring(1990) 
points out, Drucker, the management guru whose work is highly influential 
in the shift towards the devolved organisation ( eg. Caldwell & Spinks, 
1992) was highly aware that management requires to maintain control of 
intellectual workers but at the same time relies upon their creativity for 
productive outcomes. Direct bureaucratic intervention, now unacceptable 
within a discourse of self management, is supplanted by a system of self 
governance and new, more subtle technologies of control ( e.g. performance 
management , bonus payments, principal and teacher appraisal, performance 
indicators, curriculum guidelines and standardised testing). These 
technologies of control recognise that in appealing to their 
professionality and sense of care for students, individuals will 
internalise demands for quality, and in so doing become complicit, in their 
own control.  Total Quality Management or Quality Assurance emphasise team 
work for this same end ( Watkins, 1994). While the quality management 
discourse calls upon collegiality and professionality, new organisational 
structures and differential reward systems are premised upon competitive 
individualism and increased differentiation between teachers, and between 
teachers and principals. The emphasis is on teams and professional 
collegiality, but it is individuals who are rewarded on narrowly  defined 
quantifiable performance measures which emphasise outcome, not process.  
This is the context into which women are being encouraged to become the new 
leaders for new times.

Furthermore, whilst women are being instituted as change agents at the 
organisational level, the ascendancy of the discourse of manageralism has 
led to new social orderings in schools which undermine the capacity of 
women to practice more democatic modes of leadership. Senior management 
teams often supplant more representative elected decision making bodies and 
exclude teachers from everyday decisionmaking processes which impact on 
their professional lives. Martain Mac An Ghaill, in a case study looking at 

the construction of masculinity in English schools, relates the powerful 
role of school principal in a self governing school.

'He could be located within the project post-Fordist era with its emphasis 
on small scale, flat hierarchies and flexible team work in a differentiated 
marketplace, in which new school systems are helpoing to shape new teaching 
cultures.  He is representative of a new 'masculine' authoritarianism in 
which overt forms of technologies power are being supplanted by forms of 
technical bureaucratic knowledge'.  

The head saw this new masculine leadership 'in terms of  being a fusion of 
public and private sector 'man'' ( Mac An Ghaill, 1994, p. 22).  Lyn Davies 
similarly comments that the competitive point scoring, sporting career 
version of masculinity ' articulates well with the overall themes of 
schooling, of hierarchy and individuation. It lends itself to divide and 
rule, and is the  breeding ground for the fragmentation of teaching staff 
which is necessary if teachers are not to become a political force' ( 
Davies, 1992, p. 128).


Masculinity, modernism and management

Christine Sleeter points out in the preface of Educational Administration 
for Cultural Pluralism that in postmodern times, where leadership for 
change is critical,   
What is ironic is that the principalship is the one role in the school that 
is most likely to be occupied by a member of multiple status positions ( 
white, male, well educated) that benefit from existing social arrangements. 
The principal is more likely than any other role group in the building to 
be male, at least as likely to be white, and usually earns the highest 
salary.  While these facts certainly do not condemn administrators in 
general and principals in particular, they do position administrators in a 
particular way : to take for granted much of the institutional structure of 
schools and their context, and justifications for why things are as they 
are' (Sleeter, 1994, p. ix; my italics)

While gender has become a significant category of analysis in considering 
power /knowledge relations in schools, masculinity has not been put under 
scrutiny.  Gender has been  perceived as an issue for feminists, just as 
race has been for Aboriginal people and ethnicity for those of non-English 
speaking background. This is in part because dominant cultural expressions 
view difference as other, and do not treat white, male or middle class as 
problematic.  Overt displays of 'macho' masculinity and violence, as 
racism,  are therefore depicted as 'discipline' and 'authority' problems of 
students  not issues of particular power relations in schools generally( 
Mac An Ghaill, 1994; Court, 1994; Rizvi, 1994 ). What is ignored with 
respect to gender is any analysis of the  organisational culture which is 
conducive to sexist behaviours, and the role particular adult masculinities 
play in constructing and maintaining a masculinist1 culture. In part it is 
because of the genderblindness of organisational theory (Acker, 1990; 
1992). In part it is because the early development of the sociology of 
gender was saturated with an umproblematic view of modernisation, the 
characteristic blindness to power and the theoretical incoherence of sex 
role theory to fully explain resistance and agency (Carrigan et al (1987 ). 
And in part it is because 'one of the cultural supports of men's power is 
the failure to ask questions about masculinity' (Connell, 1993, p. 191). 

Increasingly, research from a cultural studies pespective is focusing upon 
how different masculinities and femininities are constructed in relation to 
each other, of how particular masculinities become 'hegemonic' in 
particular contexts (Connell, 1987; Blackmore, 1993). Given multiple 
masculinities and feminities, particular forms of masculinity are 

sustained, reproduced and privileged in certain management practices in way 
which render other forms of masculinity   (e.g. homoesexuality) and all 
forms of femininity as lesser (Connell, 1987; Kerfoot and Knights, 1993) . 
This hegemony has to be continually worked at and worked over, as new forms 
of masculinity arise in order to maintain their dominant position. 
 
For example, Burrell and Hearn (1990) argue that the modernist project 
linked modernism, productivity and big science in a linear fashion in ways 
which either excludes gender altogether as relevant or includes gender in 
the sense that the above triad increased control over emotion ( Burrell & 
Hearn, 1990).  Modernist views of organisation treated rationality and 
emotion as mutually exclusive and as male and female attributes 
specifically. Kathleen Jones  argues that  'the dichotomy between 
compassion and authority contributes to the association of the 
authoritative with a male voice. Then the implication is that the 
segregation of women and the feminine from authority is internally 
connected to the concept of authority itself' (Jones, 1993, p. 120). The 
discourse of authority is one 'constructed on the basis of a conceptual 
myopia' which  'normalises authority by opposing it to emotive 
connectedness or compassion'. 'Authority orders existence through 
rules...Authority's rules distance us from the person. Compassion pulls us 
into face-to-face encounter with another'( Jones , 1993, p. 121).The 
association between masculinity and  rationality has been clearly 
researched by feminists. What is also not mentioned is the extent to which 
this association is embodied. The following example from research project 
on leadership funded the ARC  is illustrative of how  a certain mode of 
masculinity embodies authority, in this particular instance in the role of 
the vice-principal, and how this form of masculinity was privileged and 
maintained by the cultural context. 

A female was appointed as deputy principal in a secondary college, 
previously a technical school, which had a majority of boys.  This deputy 
principal had significant experience as a regional consultant but not in-
school experience.  She came to the position as a consequence of the 
devolution of  support services to schools. She described  her approach to 
the job: 

My preferred style is to be able to discuss things and to listen to a range 
of opinions, questions and concerns.  In dealing with students and parents 
there's less time to do that and what would see as part of my style that I 
had wanted at the beginning of the year was to model a more gentle culture, 
a more caring culture, a more concerned culture within the school, away 
from the macho heavies.  Now I think that is happening, feedback that we've 
had from the community has been that it seems to be less violent here this 
year and that was one of the good to hear.

Not only did she not have the time to establish the social relationships 
that she felt were central in her role as VP, but she entered a position 
which had no clear job description. The position had been vacated by a 
legendary male figure. Many of the male staff, particularly th elevel co-
ordinators,  had modelled themselves upon this VP, whose physical presence 
alone was, we were told by most staff, able to quell even the most 
disruptive male students.  His authority was clearly associated with 
physicality, rationality, unemotional, hardness and masculinity. Most staff 
saw him as strict with students, but more sympathetic  behind closed doors. 
The association between masculinity and authority  as encapsulated in the 
VP's role echoed the  mindset of a conservative rural community and  many 
of the staff. 

After the appointment of the VP. staff spoke about how many parents would 
query 'how are you coping since the male VP left? I hear discipline's gone 
out the window'.  This comment was, according to most staff, inaccurate. 

Instead, it was common knowledge within the school that many discipline 
issues were 'manufactured' as certain 'male staff  tried the female VP out 
a bit'.  by 'setting up discipline problems'.  This according to one female 
staff member was ' especially because she is a female and a known female in 
the community.  as prominent, confident and determined to get her own way'  
(Interview, with female teacher). Here staff were actively working against 
the desired educational objectives of the school, and utilising students to 
undermine the professional position of a colleague. 

The VP on her arrival in the position also saw discipline as the central 
issue.She instigated developing a new  dsciplinary policy, through 
collaborative discussions with coordinators and relevant staff.   
Discipline was to become the responsibility of class teachers, then 
pastoral teachers, level coordinator and ultimately the VP, a system not 
uncommon in most schools. But in seeking such change, no matter how 
collaboratively, she was threatening both the  dominant culture in which 
discipline had been enforced in the school through fear rather than 
discussion and self control. Her approach threatened many male teachers who 
had used fear as a measure of student control. She also was prepared to use 
the authority of the her position to enforce the new policy.  After a few 
months an actively subversive  discourse was evident in the school about 
how discipline was carrried out by the male level co-ordinators because 
they had to 'prop up' the female vice principal. But as another male 
teacher observed, this was the result of the success of the new system and 
not her failure. Many  female teachers saw the reliance on the previous VP  
for all discipline had been comforting for staff but was essentially an 
abrogation of professional responsibility by both individual teachers and 
level co-ordinators. All female staff expressed a preference for the new  
disciplinary approach as one which they personally operated on even under 
the previous VP. Despite this, the dominant discourse was about the failure 
of discipline and the weakness of the VP. Evidence for her 'being a 
pushover' was provided by male staff in that  that students visited her 
office because she was prepared to talk and listen. One boasted that when 
he was acting VP that there were ' no kids lining up to talk to me'.  
But the links between masculinity and authority have accorded men a measure 
of cultural capital, building in them in in others an expectation of their 
'natural ' ability and right to lead organisations' ( Court, 1994, p. 36). 
None of their male colleagues were prepared to publically challenge this 
behaviour, although they agreed in private that  it was unprofessional.  
Indeed, it was in their interests not to speak out , even though many were 
excluded by the dominant macho masculinity, in that is reinforced the 
ideologies of masculinism ie. of male domination. 

What was most significant is how, when speaking of her 'weakness as VP'  
reference was made to her physical presence and femaleness, her smallness 
in stature, and her soft voice and style.There was frequent comment about 
her 'invisibility' in terms of actual physical presence patrolling the yard 
and corridors. At the same time,  one male teacher's authority and hence 
his  personal and professional identity was threatened by the disciplinary 
changes. Unable to deal with this, he became increasingly violent ,verbally 
then physically, to students,and had to be warned by the VP about the 
inappropriateness of this intimidatory behaviour. In this instance as in 
others where she exerted her formal authority, she was seen to be 
aggressive, conflictual and hard.  As Weedon suggests 'the way in which 
discourse constitutes the minds and bodies of individuals is always part of 
a wider network of power relations, often with institutional bases' ( 
Weedon, 1987, p. 108). 

Despite this, it was evident that most staff saw the transition to the new 
mode of discipline as desirable and preferable. Even one of the 
'subversive' males expressed surprise that the students did not 'take 
advantage more of the VP's weakness' and that students were 'handling the 

new mode of operation well'. This comment signified more the  discomfort of 
the male teacher with the new disciplinary policy than the students 
incapacity to deal with change or difference modes of discipline. Later the 
VP found out when she was talking to students in one of the more difficult 
boys classes which she took on voluntarily:

they said to me: 'he ( the co ordinator) doesn't dare do the things he did 
last year, this year... ever since you arrived' . They must have perceived 
things that I just never expected them too.

What this vignette indicates is  how masculinity has  to be 'achieved, 
worked at and accomplished moment by moment in the drive to attain a secure 
masculine identity an as part of that what it means to be a 'real'man. ( 
Kerfoot & Knoghts, 1993, p. 663) It shows how particular institutional 
discourses can, by constructing different masculinities and femininities, 
position individuals as failures of successes by virtue of their gender  
and of how this articulates with the dominant culture of a school.  Martain 
Mac An Ghaill speaks of how teachers construct their personal and 
professional identities in selective responses to contradictory workplace 
demands. 

Dominant state and professional discourses circumscribed the 'gendering'  
of these different work practices...A highly salient feature within the 
context of a widening cultural gap between  secondary school management and 
teaching was the promotion of a new gender-specific hierarchies of 
domination and subordination...The female teachers were contesting the 
masculinization of the administrative functions that had come to dominate 
school life. High status was being ascribed to the emerging 'hard 
masculine' functions of: the accountant, the Key Stage tester, the 
curriculum coordinator and the information technology expert.  At the same 
time, female teachers were associated with and directed into the 'soft 
feminine; functions of profiling and counselling. In short the 
remasculinisation of teaching was taking place within conventional cultural 
forms of splitting the rational and the emotional ( Mac An Gahill, 1994, 
p,. 34)

But to consider this instance separate from the context of devolution and 
marketing education is to fail to understand how such discourses work 
locally and globally , and in turn how these have material effects.  While 
the discourse of marketisation and devolution claim to address issues of 
diversity and choice,  market status is maintained by conforming to 
dominant images of 'good schools' as being well disciplined, well groomed 
and academically  sucessful.  The discourse of macho masculinity  which 
associated discipline with male leadership had wider implications for a 
school which  had built  it s reputation upon strong discipline and 
increasingly relied upon student enrolments for its image and survival. 
Despite their support of her policies and management, many  teachers 
believed that her presence did impact on how parents viewed the school and 
therefore effected school enrolments, a criticalissue in a teime when 
schools are depedent on per capita funding.

In the next section, I want to indicate how particular dominant 
institutional and system wide discourses position women in leadership 
differently to men, and of the constraints and possibilities which exist 
for more democratic approaches to leadership in a devolved system of 
education. The discussion will be informed by the empirical data derived 
from research projects in state educational bureaucracies and schools.

Strategic masculinity,  postmodernist organisation and discourses of 
constraint  and possibility

Connell sees hegemonic masculinities constantly being reworked, 

'reconstituting themselves in new forms which both build upon and transform 
early forms of masculinity, to maintain dominance ( Connell, 1987).  
Kerfoot and Knights(1993) speak of how there has been a shift away from the 
paternalistic masculinity of the modernist era to strategic / competititive 
masculinity in the post Fordist workplace. The discourses of masculinism 
have now incorporated the notion of the 'new age man', who can be 
publically sensitive, caring and family minded without being seen to be 
'unmasculine', but who is able, without any redistribution of either 
institutional power or domestic labour, to colonise and appropriate the 
better aspects of childcaring. In this way many men so prepared to change 
earn 'brownie points' and advantage over those males who continue to treat 
public and private as separate. Whereas emotion was excluded from 
organisational life, now emotion is seen to reflect a high level of 
commitment and passion is equated to vision. 'So competitive masculinity 
can lead to an individual being self driven for no discernible reason other 
than being seen to be competent, committed and engaged in their work'( ( 
Kerfoot & Knights, 1993, pp. 664, 672). There is a desire to control all 
aspects of work life, and an investment in maintaining an 'image of 
success', often more image than substance. So masculinity has changed, 
seemingly inclusive of a range of 'feminine' behaviours.  

Other discourses have also emerged with work restructuring and the 
'leadership' crises. 'Women's ways of leading' are held up in business and 
some educational systems as models of 'best management practice' .Women's 
'skills' as facilitators, communicators and in interpersonal relations are 
seen to be a desirable attributes for educational managers in these complex 
and chaotic times.  There is a rapidly growing literature in educational 
administration asserting the need to 'reclaim' a feminist ethics of care as 
central to administrative practice ( Beck, 1992; Noddings, 1993). Women's 
'propensity' for more democratic modes of decision making, their emotional 
management skills derived out of their familial and pedagogical 
experiences, and their emphasis on curriculum and student welfare is 
therefore an exploitable resource for new 'styles' of leadership( 
Shakeshaft, 1987; Adler et al., 1993;  Ozga, 1993; Court; 1994). Women 
leaders have been portrayed as good change agents, having insider status as 
part of formal decisionmaking structures and outsider status in male 
dominated cultures,  thus able to see the 'fault lines' to spark change ( 
Yeatman, 1994). 

While masculinity may have changed,  asymmetrical power relations based on 
gender have not. This is most clear in how the system level discourses, 
imbued with notions of strategic masculinity, shape the daily practices of 
those in schools. In particular, the trend in devolved systems is that 
women's 'special contribution' to leadership is limited to the level of the 
school in a new division of labour.  Studies in Israel and Victoria ( 
Australia) indicate a tendency for polarisation between the re-
masculination at the 'hard core' of the financial and policy centre of 
newly devolved systems, and the feminisation and de-professionalisation of 
teaching and middle management at the 'soft edges' close to the chalkface. 
In Israel, there is a form of homo-social reproduction occurring, with male 
teachers congregating in schools with male principals, and the feminisation 
of schools with female principals. The 'political, professional and 
bureaucratic power structures continue to be male dominated. Consequently, 
meaningful changes are not forthcoming and the gender segregation, at 
different levels of the hierarchy, perserveres' ( Goldring & Chen, 1993, 
p.175). This gender segmentation further reinforces the hard/soft; 
rational/emotional; administration/ teaching dualisms upon which modernist 
educational systems have been historically constructed (Blackmore,1989, 
1993; Shakeshaft, 1987; Blount, 1994). Feminist leadership is also 
constructed in mainstream/ malestream literature as 'just a matter of 
style' or skill and not based upon substantively different value positions. 
So, in Victoria,  where a conservative government claims to have made a 

significnt difference in the number of women in the Principal Class  since 
1992 due to a focused Women and leadership program,  it must be viewed in 
the context of the feminisation of the profession and the re-
masculinisation of upper management, a legacy of modernity.  What does this  
contextualisation mean for women principals? 

In one case study school, a female principal  was selected as a 'change 
agent' by the local selection process initiated by the School Council to 
instigate an amalgamation with the neighbouring school which had been 
blocked by previous male principals. Despite initial expessions by many of 
the male staff  and  parents that 'she wouldn't be able to do a good job', 
she was highly regarded after a few months at the school by staff, students 
and parents. The staff concurred with this principal's impression of her 
leadership, and referred to her 'exemplary'  leadership practice with her 
good interpersonal relations, capacity to listen and to communicate ideas,  
preparedness to change her mind when convinced, sense of humour, focus on  
students,  broad knowledge of the system and school but capacity to 
delegate, desire to consult when possible but still able make the difficult 
decisions and explain why.  This principal concentrated on the personal 
aspects rather than paperwork. She was accessible to staff and  students, 
undertaking a reciprocal letter writing exercise with Year 8 English 
students in the first months of her appointment. She sought to minimise 
uncertainty over staffing by communicating quickly with all staff what had 
happened and why. The staff in return felt that they could trust her to 
listen to their point of view and then be fair in her judgement in those 
decisions she alone ultimately had to make. In turn,  she had clear and 
well informed views about leadership and management, gained from reading 
widely. 

You can be a good manager but not necessarily a good leader. In a school 
you have to be both,  because you have that total role. Managers are people 
who shift bits of paper, organisation and budgets. Leaders are people who 
interact with other people, communicate with them, take interest in people, 
get people to accept a shared culture, philosophy and vision and get them 
on-side. Good leadership is about enthusiasm, initiative, lateral thinking, 
hard work, fairly good interpersonal relationships and someone with a wide 
ranging background experience. 

These findings are consistent with research on women in leadership which 
indicates that they work against formal hierarchy, more collaboratively and 
with a focus on students and curriculum. Financial management is seen to be 
means to an end( Adler, 1993; Ozga, 1993; Shakeshaft, 1987). It also 
confirms research in self governing schools in New Zealand, which indicate 
that 'women tended to be more open minded than men' (Ramsey, 1991) and in 
Victoria in Schools of the Future, that women principals indicated higher 
levels of work satisfaction and were dealing with change better than their 
male counterparts ( Caldwell, 1994). 

This principal exemplified 'feminist' leadership.  She was committed to 
democratic practice and sought to develop productive professional and  
supportive collegial relationships through learning groups. Uncomfortable 
with the notion of being seen to be powerful, she redefined  herself as 
being powerful through others, not over others. But while seeking to work 
proactively to provide a conducive environment for learning for staff and 
students, she was constantly confronted with uncertainty, anxiety and lack 
of or mis- information. The discourses of management reform positioned her 
at one moment  as powerless and reactive because of top down demands for 
quick solutions for complex issues and the next as powerful in making 
decisions which effected teachers' futures.   The teacher union 
representative talked about how 

It is a very difficult time for collaborative leadership to take place, 

given that centrally there are a fairly large set of expectations being put 
on leaders within schools not to be collaborative, and to in fact adopt 
line management and very authoritarian models of leadership and 
decisionmaking.

Other studies of principal's in devolved systems indicate how much of the 
discretionary power is more symbolic than real as devolution has been 
accompanied by significant financial cutbacks, intensification of labour 
and increased central control through accountability technologies such as 
peformance appraisal.  This was not unique to Victoria. One Queensland 
principal, quoted in Distant (1993),  indicated her feelings of lack of 
control and being pressured by central directives under devolution:

Its all very well to say the school's responsible for decisionmaking but we 
don't really have control over it. It's a sort of backhanded kind of 
responsibility. There are so many mandatory things coming down from this 
department..you must do this, you must do that, and you will do this and 
have them all implemented by the end of the year. It leaves little room for 
decisions about what the schools will do because there is little time. 

As in the case study  school, even though the principal sought to develop 
more democratic processes and strategies through  participative 
decisionmaking, team work and strategic planning, teachers felt strategic 
planning enforced and regulated their involvement in whole school planning 
and became cynical because their participation had little effect  as 
outcomes  were largely predetermined due to time, budgetary or policy 
constraints.

For principals,  as teachers, the line between the professional and 
personal were increasingly blurred due to the emotional demands of the job 
and invasion of personal time and space ( Strachan, 1994). This principal 
realised the need to emphasise the interpersonal work in a system in crisis 
management, seeing rapid deepseated change  producing stages of grief  - 
denial, despair, anger and acceptance- worked through individually and 
collectively. In particular, the study indicated how female principals felt 
particularly isolated, not merely because they were principals, but because 
of their exclusion by 'the boys club atmosphere' of the principals' 
associations. The study indicated that most women principal's looked to 
their own women's social networks for the emotional and professional 
support required to sustain their energy and commitment levels. Principal 
collegiate groups, one principal in a School of the Future,  saw as 
'contrived collegiality'( Hargreaves, 1994) not professional or personal 
support ( Interview with author). So while their practice demanded 
attention to the personal and social relationships so important to 
educational contexts,  the discourse of management  with its unidimensional 
and functionalist notion of leadership and emphasis on finance and 
outcomes, positioned principals as being task oriented not relationship or 
educationally oriented. Furthermore, principals are further alienated from 
collaborative relationships as senior management teams increasingly 
supplant more representative elected decision making bodies and exclude 
teachers from everyday decisionmaking processes which impact on their 
professional lives. There is increased differentiation and new sets of 
power relations which undercut professional collegiality between staff and 
the principal who now has responsibility for teacher appraisal, job 
allocation and performance payments. Ultimately, the possibilities for 
democratic action are constrained because devolution has in most instances 
been accompanied with reduced educational expenditure, intensification of 
work and increased surveillance through accountability measures. 

This is the context in which female leaders are being constituted as change 
agents at the organisational level, a time when the ascendancy of the 
discourse of manageralism has led to new social orderings in schools which 

are antipathetic to more democratic ways of working.  Feminist leadership 
is therefore being positioned as powerless within a new gender order which 
is no less 'masculinist' than the 'paternalism' of  the  dominant  
management discourses of modernity.  While  discourses call upon new forms 
of leadership for post modern times  talk about professional collegiality 
and team work, dominant management  practice encourages competition and 
rewards individuals. Indeed, the appropriation of the strategies of 
feminist  leadership by dominant malestream management discourses is an 
important aspect of the building of consent required to maintain hegemony 
of particular masculinities, to the exclusion of others  (Connell from 
Gramsci, 1987). 

The possibilities of a feminist post-masculinist educational politics. 

So what then are the possibilities  for a post-masculinist politics in 
educational administration?  I want to rehearse some ideas here. First, 
these vignettes of  two women's experiences in leadership indicate the 
embodiment of  of particular male images of leadership which continue to be 
associated with authority.  Furthermore, that  the ways in which education 
systems are being restructured are establishing contexts which are more 
enabling for  women.  Second, the masculinist politics of modernity has 
rendered gender as invisible or as 'other' through the naturalising 
discourses of dualistic thought, thus either totally ignoring gender/ power 
knowledge relations or making femininity  'the problem'. A masculinist 
politics claims that one set of interests, usually white middle class 
heterosexual males, can represent universal interests and portrays all 
other interests as the 'other',  'particularist' and self interested.   
Masculinist  politics portrays universalism and interest as mutually 
exclusive options. This means 'politics has to be about either ethics or 
interest.  Thus opposition is quietened as the universal interest of 'the 
school' is set up in opposition to the specific interests of a group.  For 
example,  local school boards in newly devolved systems globally are 
generally dominated or chaired by white, professional males, who are able 
to claim to represent the universal interests of a homogeneous parent 
constituency, the clients,  and 'the school'( Deem, 1990; Middleton, 1992; 
Blackmore, 1994). Given that social justice is largely about how specific 
interests are addressed, the issue of social justice slips of the agenda. 
Post modernism and feminism have challenged myths of consensus and 
coherence around a universal interest. Feminism argues against abstract 
universal truths, recognises difference and calls for a  context-specific 
relational morality which considers who makes what decisions about whom, by 
whom, in what context. 

At the same time masculinist politics has been as 'essentialist' politics 
which reduces difference to fixed, immutable, 'parallel' categories of 
gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality. Feminism, on the other hand,  has been 
forced theoretically and politically to address the complexity of the 
nature of difference amongst women on the basis of race, class, ethnicity 
and sexuality. By considering social relations from the standpoint of 
women, 'working inside a discourse not of our making' we see the 'fault' 
lines or points of ruptures which exist between socially organised practice 
and our everyday lives (Smith, 1987, p,  ). Beginning with the experience 
of women does not exclude men, but uncovers how certain masculinities 
remain dominant in ways which effect men as well as women. Feminists have  
successfully illuminated how the 'othering' of women and minority groups in 
essentialising categories has, by setting up such interests in competition, 
maintained certain hegemonic masculinities in educational administration 
(Blount,1994; Blackmore, 1993; Capper, 1994).  But an essentialist politics 
premised upon male/ female dualisms will not disappear with just the 
substitution of feminist values for masculinist values. Women are no more 
'fully  human' than men as there is no ungendered experience, only 
experiences of men and women of different sexuality, race and ethnicity.  

Ultimately, such dualisms maintain unequal power relations. For example, 
the management discourse's appropriation of the feminist 'women's 
contribution to leadership' perspective  re-positions women as possessing 
complementary capacities to men, but does not challenge the privileging by 
dominant discourses of 'masculine' attributes of 'hard nosed 
decisionmaking' and aggression over 'feminine' capacities for care ( as 
different from  'mothering') and interdependence ( as different from 
dependence). 

A feminist post-masculinist politics, because of its emphasis on gaining 
equity through change, would first,  seek to 'represent' diversity and 
difference in ways other than mere numerical representation of specific 
categories in decisonmaking. Representation is about how particular groups 
interests are constructed through image, language and practice, whether 
their interests are equally valued, their voices heard and acted upon. 
Diversity is not achieved by appointing another white middle class woman in 
an already white middle class organisation or when notions of leadership do 
not incorporate a wide range of behaviours. All decisions have both an 
ethical and interest component, as all decisions impact on individuals and 
groups differentially. The  ways difference is represented  must go beyond 
the token women and be legitimised and effected if equity is integrated 
throughout  the policy process as a principle of decisionmaking, not just 
an afterthought. Such principles require ongoing questioning about what 
interests are legitimate when making policy and resource decisions, who 
will this benefit, how and why? 

Second,  a feminist post-masculinist  politics would seek to build a new 
sense of inclusivity and democracy which does not equate consensual 
politics in educational communities with one  privileged position.  In 
general, the notion of diversity embedded in devolutionary policies is that 
of liberal multiculturalism based on numerical representation with some 
exceptions such as New Zealand. It is  essentially cultural assimilation of 
the various pluralist interests 'in the national interest'. Yet  research 
in England and New Zealand indicates that the market exacerbates 
differences between schools on the basis of class, race and ethnicity, and 
encourages conformity not diversity in image, clientele, organisation, 
curriculum or pedagogy. Postmodern educational leaders need to provide 
space for a multiplicity of  voices and  to recognise a diversity of 
experiences, skills and expertise as  benefit ting and creaing an educative 
community. Educational leaders need to ask :  Is their student population,  
school administration or   school council 'representative' of its 
constituency? If not, why not?

Third, a feminist post-masculinist politics would consider how  to produce 
social change based on equity principles in a deregulated self governing 
system. The management approach focuses upon technologies of control 
through self governance.  Equity is treated as an outcome measure of 
performance appraisal not a basic principle.   But equity demands a wider 
redistribution of already scarce resources and does not  readily satisfy 
outcome-based measures (Capper, 1994). So equity is quickly dropped off 
individual or school agendas ( Middleton, 1992;  Capper, 1993). The issue 
for feminist educational leadership is how to impart legitimacy in schools 
to discourses of fairness and justice in a system premised upon self 
governance without the paternalistic authority of the state.  Feminism has 
relied upon a paternalistic state for at least symbolic commitment of 
organisations to EO policies. But it has not  actively  engaged with men's 
considerable investment in existing relations (Cockburn, 1992). A feminist 
approach needs to address difference within  masculinity  in ways which 
allow new alliances based on substantive educational and social justice 
issues with those groups and men equally excluded and marginalised by 
dominant forms of masculinity.  

Finally, working strategically in new alliances requires understanding the 
politics of privilege as well as of disadvantage. EO policy has tended to 
focus upon the deficiencies of women and not how particular cultures and 
systemic practices privilege certain forms of masculinity.  Viewing 
educational administration through the lens of privilege means 
deconstucting concepts such as merit, seeing it as a social construct which 
favours those already in power,  largely white middle class males, and not  
a neutral standard against which all can be fairly measured (Burton, 1993). 
Exclusive notions of merit and leadership deny access to those whose 
experiences and skills do not conform to a dominant view, an issue to be 
recognised in the allocation of positions and rewards. The lens of 
privilege likewise requires women in leadership to consider their position, 
to better understand why and how they came to be in that position, and how 
they can use that position to challenge and transform exclusive images of 
leadership into more inclusive ways. 

Feminism has struggled with postmodernism in order to understand that 
difference and equity are not mutually exclusive. While postmodernity is 
associated with fragmentation, plurality, chaos, arbitrariness and change, 
it is still a system because it still produces systematic difference. How 
one judges the effects of any change largely is about seeing how patterns 
of difference at the level of the system, institution, classroom and 
student, and indeed the categories of difference themselves, change over 
time.   

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). Heirarchies, Jobs and Bodies : a theory of gendered 
organisations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139-58.
Adler, S., Laney, J., & Packer, M. (1993). Managing Women. Feminism and 
power in educational management . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Al-Khalifa, E. (1989). Management by Halves : women teachers and school 
management. In H. De Lyons (Ed.), Women Teachers Milton Keynes: Open 
University Press.
Albrecht, L., & Brewer, R. (1990). Bridges of Power: Women's multicultural 
alliances . Santa Cruz: New Society Publishers.
Arnot, M. (1991). Equality and democracy: a decade of struggle over 
education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(4), 447-465.
Beck, L. (1994). Reclaiming Educational Administration as a Caring 
Profession . New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Blackmore, J. (1989).   Educational Leadership: A feminist critique and 
reconstruction. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical Perspectives on Educational 
Leadership, Lewes:  Falmer Press.
Blackmore, J. (1993a).  'In the Shadow of Men': Exclusionary theory and 
discriminatory practice in the historical construction of 'masculinist' 
administrative cultures. In J. Blackmore, & J. Kenway (Ed.),  Gender 
Matters in the Theory and Practice of Educational Administration and 
Policy: a feminist introduction Sussex: Falmer Press.
Blackmore, J. (1993a).  'In the Shadow of Men': Exclusionary theory and 
discriminatory practice in the historical construction of 'masculinist' 
administrative cultures. In J. Blackmore, & J. Kenway (Ed.),  Gender 
Matters in the Theory and Practice of Educational Administration and 
Policy: a feminist introduction Sussex: Falmer Press.
Blackmore, J. (1993b) Colonising discourses: devolution and management . 
Paper presented to Australian Association for Research in Education, Edith 
Cowan Uni, Perth.
Blount, J. (1994) One postmodernist perspective on educational leadership. 
Ain't I a leader?  In . S. Maxcy (ed). Postmodern School Leadership: 
Meeting the crisis in educational administration. London: Praegar.
Bowe, R., & Ball, S. (1992). Reforming Education and changing schools . 
London: Routledge.
Brittan, A. (1988). Masculinity and Power . Oxford: Blackwell.

Brod, H. (1987). The Making of Maculinities. The new men's studies. London: 
Allen and Unwin, 
Brown, W. (1988). Manhood and Politics: A feminist reading in political 
theory . New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield.
Buchinder, D. (1994). Masculinities and Identities . Melbourne: Melbourne 
University Press.
Burrell, G., & Hearn, J. (1990). The sexuality of organisation. In J. 
Hearn, G. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sherriff, & G. Burrell (Ed.), The Sexuality 
of Organisation London: Sage.
Burton, C. (1987). Merit and gender : organisations and the mobilisation of 
masculine bias. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 22(2), 424-35.
Burton, C. (1993) Equal Employment Opportunity and Corporate Planning in J. 
Blackmore & J. Kenway (eds) Gender Matters in Educational Administration 
and Policy. Falmer Press, London.
Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1989). Using the F word: feminist theories 
and the social consequences of organisational research. In F. Hoy (Ed.), 
Academy of Management Proceedings Washington: Academy of Management.
Caldwell, B. (1994)  Australian Perspectives on leadership Australian 
Educational Researcher 21, 2. pp 45-62
Capper, C. (1994). " ...and justice for all': Critical perspectives on 
outcomes -based education in the context of secondary school restructuring. 
Journal of School Leadership, 4(March), 132-55.
Capper,C.  (ed) Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society. New 
York: SUNY.
Carrigan , T., Connell , B., & Lee, J. (1987). The sex role framework and 
the sociology of masculinity. In G. Weiner, & M. Arnot (Ed.), Gender under 
Scrutiny. New inquiries in education. London: Hutchinson.
Chapman, R., & Rutherford, J. (1988). Male Order. London: Laurence and 
Wishart, 
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1993). The right to manage: a second managerial 
revolution? Cultural Studies?, , 
Cockburn, C. (1991). In the Way of Women: Men's resistance to sex equality 
in organisations . London: Macmillan.
Collinson, D., & Hearn, J. (1992). Men, masculinities and managements: 
unities, differences and their interrelationships. Academy of Management 
Review, 17, 
Collmann, J. (1988). "I'm proper Number One Fighter, Me" : Aborigines, 
Gender and Bureaucracy in Central Australia. Gender and Society, 2, 9-23.
Connell, B. (1987). Gender and Power . Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Court, M. (1992). 'Leading from Behind' : Women in educational 
administration. In S. Middleton, & A. Jones (Ed.), Women and Education in 
Aotearoa 2 Wellington: Bridget William Books.
Court, M. (1994) Removing Macho Managment : lessons from the field of 
education Gender, Work and Organisation 1(1) pp. 33-49
D'Augellie, A. (1989 (pub 1991)). Lesbians and Gay men on Campus: 
visibility, empowerment and educational leadership. Peabody Journal of 
Education, 66(3), 124-142.
Davies, B. (1989). The Discursive Production of the Male/ female Dualism in 
School Settings.  Oxford Review of Education, 15(3),  229-41.
Davies, L. (1990). Equity and Efficiency? School management in an 
international context . London: Falmer Press.
Deem, R. (1990). Governing by Gender-the new school governing bodies. In P. 
Abbott, & C. Wallace (Ed.), Gender, Sexuality and Power London: Macmillan.
Deem, R., Brehony, K., & Hemmings, S. (1992). Social justice, social 
divisions and the governing of schools. In D. Gill, B. Mayor, & M. Blair 
(Ed.), Racism and Education. Strcutures and Strategies London: Sage and 
Open University.
Ferguson, K. (1987). Work, Text and Act in Discourses of Organisation. 
Women and Politics, 7(2), 1-21.
Folbre, N., & Hartmann, H. (1989). The rhetoric of self-interest: ideology 
and gender in economic theory. In A. Kalmer, D. McKloskey, & R. Solow 
(Ed.), The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press.
Fullan, M (1994)  Change Forces  New York: Teachers College Press. 
Glazer, J. S. (1991). Feminism and Professionalism in teaching and 
Educational Adminstration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 
321-42.
Goldring, E. & Chen, M. (1994) The feminisationof the principalship in 
Israel: the trade-off between political power and cooperative leadership. 
In C. Marshall (ed) The New Politics of Race and Gender.  London: Falmer 
Press.
Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (1988). Turning on Learning : five approaches for 
multicultural teaching plans for race, gender, class and disability . 
Grant, R. (1989). Heading for the Top : Career experiences of Women. Gender 
and Education, 1(2), 113-25.
Hammond, S., & Hardbridge, R. (1993). The impact of the Employment 
COntracts Act on women at work. New Zealand Journal of Industrial 
relations, 18(1), 15-30.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose KNowledge? Thinking from women's 
lives. . New York: Cornell University Press.
Hargreaves, A (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times. teachers' work and 
culture in the postmodern age. New York:Teachers College Press. 
Hearn, J., & Morgan, D. (1991). Men, Masculinities and Social Theory. 
London: Unwin Hyman, 
Hearn, J., & Parkin, W. (1992). Women, men,  and leadership : a critical 
review of assumptions, practices and change in industrialised nations. In 
N. Adler, & D. Izraeli (Ed.), Women in Management World Wide New York: M. 
Saharpe. 
Hill, P. (1993) Report on the Consortium on effective schools. Melbourne 
Univ. 
Jones, K. (1988) On Authority: Or, why women are not entitled to speak  In 
Diamond, I., & Quinby, L. (1988). Feminism and Foucault: reflections on 
resistance. Boston, Mass:  Northeastern Press
Kenway, J., Willis, S., Blackmore, J., & Rennie, L. (1993). Making hope 
practical rather than despair convincing : feminist post-structuralism and 
change. British Journal of Sociology,15 2, pp. 187-210
Kerfoot, D., & Knights, D. (1993). Management, masculinity and 
manipulation: from paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services 
in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 659-77.
Kitzinger, C. (1991). Feminism, psychology and the paradox of power. 
Feminism and Psychology, 1, 111-29.
Knights, D., & MOrgan, G. (1991). Corporate Strategy, organisations and 
subjectivity ; a critique. Organisation Studies, 12(2), 251-73.
Lloyd, G. (1984). The Man of Reason; 'Male' and 'Female' in Western 
philosophy . Lonodn: Methuen.
Mac An Ghaill, M. (1994) The Making of Men.  Masculinities. Sexualities and 
Schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Marshall, C. (1985). The Stigmatised Woman: theprofessional woman in sex-
typed career. The Journal of Educational Adminstration, 23(2), 131-52.
Marshall, C., & Anderson, G. (1995). Rethinking the Public and Private 
spheres: feminist and cultural studies perspectives on the politics of 
education. In J. Scribner, & D. Layton (Ed.), The Study of Educational 
Politics London: Falmer Press.
McCarthy, C., & Appple, M. (1989). Race,class and gender in American 
Educational research : towards a nonsynchronyous parellelist position. In 
L. Weis (Ed.), Class, Race and Gender in American Education New York: SUNY 
Press.
Middleton, S (1992) Gender equity and school charters: theoretical and 
political questions for the 1990s in  S. Middleton and A. Jones (eds) Women 
and Education in Aotearoa 2.  Wellington:  Bridget Williams Books.
Middleton, S. (1992). Equity, Equality and Biculturalism in the 
Restructuring of New Zealand Schools: a life history approach. Harvard 
Educational Review, 62(3), 310-22.
Mohanty, C. T. (1990). On Race and Voice: challenges for liberal education 

in the 1990s. Cultural Critique, 14(Winter), 179-208.
Morgan, G. a. K., D. (1991). Gendering JObs: corporate strategy, managerial 
control and the dynamics of job segregation. Work, Employment and Society, 
5(2), 181-200.
Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools: an alternative 
approach to education . New York: Teachers College Press.
Ramsay, P.; Harold, B. Hawk, Kaai,m T., Marriott, R. and Poskitt, J. (1991) 
There's No Going Back: collaborative decisionmaking in Education CRRISP, 
Hamilton, University of Waikato.
Ramsey, E.,  (1993). Linguistic ommissions marginalising women managers.  
In D. Baker & M. Fogarty (eds) A Gendered Culture . Educational management 
in the 1990s. St Albans: Victoria University of Technology.
Sawicki, J. (1991). Disciplining Foucault: feminism, power and the body . 
New York: Routledge.
Segal, L. (1990). Slow Motion: Changing masculinities, changing men . 
London: Virago Press.
Seidler, V. (1989). Rediscovering Masculinity; reason , language and 
sexuality . London: Routledge.
Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Women in Educational Administration Newbury Park, 
CA: Sage.
Sleeter, C. (1992). Power and privilege in white middle class feminist 
discussions of gender and education. In S. Biklen, & D. Pollard (Ed.), 
Gender and Education Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. (1988). The Everyday World as Problematic.: a feminist sociology 
. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Smith, D. (1990). Texts, facts and Femininity . London: 
Smith, D. E. (1990). The Conceptual Practices of Power . Boston: North 
Eastern University Pres
Strachan, J. (1993). Including the Personal and the Professional: 
researching women in educational leadership. Gender and Education, 5(1), 
68-73.
Yates, L. (1993). Feminism and Australian State Policy. Some questions for 
the 1990s. In M. Arnot, & K. Weiler (Ed.), Feminism and Social Justice 
London: Falmer Press.
Yeatman, A. (1990).  Bureaucrats, Technocrats, Femocrats. .  Sydney.: Allen 
and Unwin.
Yeatman, A. (1992). The Gendered management of Equity-oriented change in 
Higher Education. In D. Baker & M. Fogarty (eds) A Gendered Culture . 
Educational management in the 1990s. St Albans: Victoria University of 
Technology, 
Young, I. M. (1990). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. 
In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/ Postmodernism London: Routledge.


1 In Victoria, there will be one form for community satisfaction surveys, 
written in middle class English. Schools and principals will judged by 
responses which fail to allow for the fact that up to 80% of students in 
some schools come from Non-English Speaking Background families.
1 Brittain provids a useful distinction between masculinity as features of 
male behaviour which change, msculnism as the idology which naturalises and 
justifies male domination over women, and patriarchy as the structure of 
unequal power relatons which result  (Brittain, 1989,p. 3-5)