美国“家长参与”政策批判研究
发布时间：2018-07-27 11:57
【摘要】：在儿童的教育过程中,家庭和学校是最主要的两个实施单元。学校伴随着家庭教育功能的部分衰退而兴起,经过大规模扩展、专业化建设以及现代制度建构,已经成为现代世界中教育的压倒性主力,家庭的教育职能则处于边缘和次要地位。然而,随着儿童对现代学校制度的依赖和儿童发展标准多元化之间张力的扩大,家校合作已经势在必行。20世纪中期以来,美国以政策路径进行持续而坚定的家校合作关系建构,希图将家长参与学校教育涵盖所有家庭。应该如何看待这一政策倡导下的家校关系的本质?美国对家校关系的政策倡导,代表着家庭的独立教育职能重回儿童发展主流视域,还是代表着家庭已经作为一种现代学校制度的附庸工具而被重新界定?家校关系是否需要政策引导?政策系统能否对家校关系作出合法的、有效的引导?又该以什么作为评判其合法性和有效性的依据?本研究试图通过以下几个部分对上述研究问题加以探讨:第一章确立家校关系的政策考察路径,即依据哈贝马斯的系统与生活世界学说这一理论视角确立考察家校关系政策的有效性和合法性标准,对美国“家长参与”政策研究进行一种政策价值定向。第二章进行美国“家长参与”政策的历史背景和文本解析,通过厘清政策的目标人群、政策目的与宗旨、政策方案的设计以及政策逻辑特征等基本轮廓,初步辨识出美国“家长参与”政策的基本价值定位的“失真”。第三章阐释美国“家长参与”政策的理念基础,揭示美国主流文化群体的家校关系特征、“家长参与”观念的演化,及其对当下的“家长参与”政策进行的“自以为是”的同构。第四章从种族隔离和歧视对政策目标人群的生活和教育经历、文化传统,以及价值观念等层面的影响来审视其家校关系方面的认知基础,并以此质疑美国“家长参与”政策的针对性、适切性、合法性和有效性,从而揭露美国以主流阶层的家校关系观念为基础建构起来的家校关系政策正在对政策目标群体进行着系统的意识操纵的现实。第五章诠释美国“家长参与”政策以经验分析为主的科学研究、各种标准化工具以及联邦权力与联邦基金等作为其“合法化”路径,试图让所有家校关系实践的利益相关者接受它并付诸实践。揭示政策在专家统治意识、技术主义以及工具理性的驱动下,以各种工具性途径引导和强化社会主流阶层的家校关系意识,呈现出政策系统对家庭教育的“侵占”。第六章梳理并展示美国“家长参与”政策实践中的矛盾,进一步指出“家长参与”政策对处境不利儿童家长和教师主体间的文化冲突、处境不利家长与中产阶级白人家长主体间的文化冲突的忽视已经严重地影响了政策对有效性的价值定位。在结语部分,本研究指出:1.美国“家长参与”政策在基本价值定位和价值选择上存在“失真”与“自以为是”的扭曲现象,政策对政策目标人群的家校关系型塑并非基于其共享的意义和生活世界,而是基于各种“工具理性”的合法化路径,这直接导致政策对家校关系行动者的主体间性的忽视,家校关系符号意义再生产的过程变成一个去政治化的、意识操纵的过程;2.美国家校关系的政策导向导致美国儿童养育“学校化”;3.美国“家长参与”政策代表着一种受现代工具理性侵袭的家校关系,它会导致家庭的独立教育职能、亲子关系以及儿童养育理念等的逐渐异化。通过对美国“家长参与”政策的考察研究后发现,家校合作热潮所倡导的,并非家校的真正合作伙伴关系的建立,家庭也远非是一个独立的教育职能单位。相反,政策导向的家校关系中,家庭已经成为现代学校制度的附庸工具,强大的工具理性和技术理性因素已经将家庭吸附于学校的经济功能的实现过程中,家长所能掌控和发挥的对学校教育的监督、建议、问责和申诉的功能都是被囿限于家庭对学校的经济功能的依赖的范围内,很难真正独立地、有意识地自主关注儿童的自由发展。家庭和儿童都已经成为现代理性的规格产品,非理性的情感沟通以及儿童的基本生活需求等方面都已经逐渐被学业成绩这一中心任务所掩盖,甚至无视;各种严肃的道德也都被适应体制内生存和发展的各种个性品质所代替。这是现代理性对家庭和儿童生活的“侵占”,而非人的理性选择下的认同与共识。
[Abstract]:In the course of children's education, families and schools are the two most important units of implementation. Schools are rising with the partial decline of the function of family education. After a large scale expansion, professional construction and modern system construction, the school has become the overwhelming main force of education in the modern world, and the educational function of the family is on the edge and secondary. However, with the expansion of children's dependence on the modern school system and the tension between the diversity of standards for children's development, home school cooperation has been imperative in the middle of the.20 century. The United States has built a steady and firm relationship between home and school with the policy path. The essence of the family school relationship under this policy? The policy advocacy of the family school relations in the United States, represents the independent educational function of the family back to the mainstream of the development of the children's mainstream, or represents the family has been redefined as an appendage tool for a modern school system? Is it necessary for the family school relations to be guided by policy? Or whether the policy system is right or not What is the basis for the legal and effective guidance of home school relations? What is the basis for judging its legitimacy and effectiveness? This study attempts to discuss the above research issues through the following parts: the first chapter establishes the policy investigation path of home school relations, which is based on the theoretical perspective of Habermas's system and the living world theory. In the second chapter, the historical background and text analysis of "parental participation" policy in the United States are carried out. The goal of the policy objectives, the design of policy plan and policy logic are clarified. The third chapter explains the concept of "parental participation" policy in the United States, reveals the characteristics of the family school relationship in the mainstream American cultural groups, the concept of "parental participation", and the "parental participation" policy in the present. The fourth chapter examines the cognitive basis of the family school relationship from the effects of racial segregation and discrimination on the life and education experience, cultural traditions, and values of the policy target population, and in order to question the pertinence, relevance, legitimacy and effectiveness of the "parental participation" policy in the United States. The family school relations policy, which is based on the concept of home school relations in the mainstream of the United States, is making a systematic and conscious manipulation of the policy target group. The fifth chapter explains the scientific research, the various standardization tools, the federal power and the federal fund, as well as the empirical analysis of the "parental participation" policy in the United States. As its "legalization" path, it tries to accept it and put it into practice by all stakeholders in the practice of family school relations. It reveals that policy, driven by expert rule consciousness, technicism and instrumental rationality, leads and strengthens the family school relationship consciousness of the mainstream social class by means of various tools, and presents a policy system to family education. The sixth chapter combs and shows the contradictions in the policy practice of "parental participation" in the United States, and further points out the cultural conflict between the parents and teachers of the disadvantaged children, and the neglect of the literary conflict between the disadvantaged parents and the middle class white parents has seriously affected the policy. In the concluding part, this study points out that 1. American "parental participation" policy has the distortion and "self righteous" distortion in the basic value orientation and value choice, and the policy to the policy target population is not based on its shared meaning and living world, but based on various types of family school relations. The legal path of "instrumental rationality" directly leads to the neglect of the intersubjectivity of the family school relations actors. The process of the reproduction of the symbolic meaning of the family school relationship becomes a process of political and conscious manipulation; 2. the policy orientation of American school relations leads to the "schooling" of American children, and the 3. American "parental participation" "The policy represents a family school relationship that is attacked by modern instrumental rationality. It will lead to the gradual alienation of the independent educational function of the family, the relationship between parents and children, and the concept of child parenting. After a study of the" parental participation "policy in the United States, it is found that the upsurge of home school cooperation is not the true partnership of the school. To establish, the family is far from an independent educational function. On the contrary, in the policy oriented family school relationship, the family has become the appendage tool of the modern school system. The powerful instrumental rationality and technical rationality have already absorbed the family in the realization process of the economic function of the school, and the parents can control and play to the school teaching. The function of education supervision, advice, accountability and appeal is limited to the family's dependence on the economic function of the school. It is difficult to be truly independent and conscious of the free development of children. Families and children have become modern rational specifications, irrational emotional communication and the basic needs of children. All the other aspects have been gradually covered up by the central task of academic achievement, or even disregard; a variety of serious morality is also replaced by the various qualities of individual character adapted to the existence and development of the system. This is the identity and consensus of modern reason "encroachment" on family and children's life, rather than the rational choice of human beings.
【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：G571.2
，
本文编号：2147748
[Abstract]:In the course of children's education, families and schools are the two most important units of implementation. Schools are rising with the partial decline of the function of family education. After a large scale expansion, professional construction and modern system construction, the school has become the overwhelming main force of education in the modern world, and the educational function of the family is on the edge and secondary. However, with the expansion of children's dependence on the modern school system and the tension between the diversity of standards for children's development, home school cooperation has been imperative in the middle of the.20 century. The United States has built a steady and firm relationship between home and school with the policy path. The essence of the family school relationship under this policy? The policy advocacy of the family school relations in the United States, represents the independent educational function of the family back to the mainstream of the development of the children's mainstream, or represents the family has been redefined as an appendage tool for a modern school system? Is it necessary for the family school relations to be guided by policy? Or whether the policy system is right or not What is the basis for the legal and effective guidance of home school relations? What is the basis for judging its legitimacy and effectiveness? This study attempts to discuss the above research issues through the following parts: the first chapter establishes the policy investigation path of home school relations, which is based on the theoretical perspective of Habermas's system and the living world theory. In the second chapter, the historical background and text analysis of "parental participation" policy in the United States are carried out. The goal of the policy objectives, the design of policy plan and policy logic are clarified. The third chapter explains the concept of "parental participation" policy in the United States, reveals the characteristics of the family school relationship in the mainstream American cultural groups, the concept of "parental participation", and the "parental participation" policy in the present. The fourth chapter examines the cognitive basis of the family school relationship from the effects of racial segregation and discrimination on the life and education experience, cultural traditions, and values of the policy target population, and in order to question the pertinence, relevance, legitimacy and effectiveness of the "parental participation" policy in the United States. The family school relations policy, which is based on the concept of home school relations in the mainstream of the United States, is making a systematic and conscious manipulation of the policy target group. The fifth chapter explains the scientific research, the various standardization tools, the federal power and the federal fund, as well as the empirical analysis of the "parental participation" policy in the United States. As its "legalization" path, it tries to accept it and put it into practice by all stakeholders in the practice of family school relations. It reveals that policy, driven by expert rule consciousness, technicism and instrumental rationality, leads and strengthens the family school relationship consciousness of the mainstream social class by means of various tools, and presents a policy system to family education. The sixth chapter combs and shows the contradictions in the policy practice of "parental participation" in the United States, and further points out the cultural conflict between the parents and teachers of the disadvantaged children, and the neglect of the literary conflict between the disadvantaged parents and the middle class white parents has seriously affected the policy. In the concluding part, this study points out that 1. American "parental participation" policy has the distortion and "self righteous" distortion in the basic value orientation and value choice, and the policy to the policy target population is not based on its shared meaning and living world, but based on various types of family school relations. The legal path of "instrumental rationality" directly leads to the neglect of the intersubjectivity of the family school relations actors. The process of the reproduction of the symbolic meaning of the family school relationship becomes a process of political and conscious manipulation; 2. the policy orientation of American school relations leads to the "schooling" of American children, and the 3. American "parental participation" "The policy represents a family school relationship that is attacked by modern instrumental rationality. It will lead to the gradual alienation of the independent educational function of the family, the relationship between parents and children, and the concept of child parenting. After a study of the" parental participation "policy in the United States, it is found that the upsurge of home school cooperation is not the true partnership of the school. To establish, the family is far from an independent educational function. On the contrary, in the policy oriented family school relationship, the family has become the appendage tool of the modern school system. The powerful instrumental rationality and technical rationality have already absorbed the family in the realization process of the economic function of the school, and the parents can control and play to the school teaching. The function of education supervision, advice, accountability and appeal is limited to the family's dependence on the economic function of the school. It is difficult to be truly independent and conscious of the free development of children. Families and children have become modern rational specifications, irrational emotional communication and the basic needs of children. All the other aspects have been gradually covered up by the central task of academic achievement, or even disregard; a variety of serious morality is also replaced by the various qualities of individual character adapted to the existence and development of the system. This is the identity and consensus of modern reason "encroachment" on family and children's life, rather than the rational choice of human beings.
【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：G571.2
，
本文编号：2147748
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/jiaoyulunwen/jiaoyutizhilunwen/2147748.html
