The Sociology of School Organisation

Impossible or irrelevant? A reply

Bibliographic Data

ID11635426
AuthorsRonald A King (corresponding author)
Year1985
Volume6
Issue1
Pages93-95
Publication date1985-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueBritish Journal of Sociology of Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0142-5692 • E-ISSN: 1465-3346
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0142569850060106
OpenAlexW2133449703
LanguageEN
References cited13

This reply to Les Bell's (1984) extended review of my book (King, 1983) is response to some of the specific reservations he makes about it and to some of the general questions he raises. One thing that must be made clear is that it is not treatise, but volume the little red book series, The Contemporary Sociology of the School, intended for student use. The burden of my reply is simple. Given that Bell writes that my criteria for sociology of school therefore appear to be very similar to, if less explicit than my (Bell's) own, I am puzzled that I have not provided a contemporary sociology of school organisation, especially as the specific points of reservation he makes are not at all substantial. I will list and reply to them briefly, as they deserve, and conclude with some general comments. (i) I do not consider Bernstein's work in relative isolation. The Bernstein chapter refers to the work of Durkheim (1956, 1961), Lacey (1970), Kluckholn (1964), Parsons (1951), Goffman (1969), Punch (1977), Klein (1965), Hargreaves (1967), Waller (1932), Douglas (1966), Young (1971), Whitbread (1972), Aries (1962), Bowles & Gintis (1976), Althusser (1972) and Willis (1977). It's true I do not refer to Burns & Stalker (1961) (in that chapter), but neither does Bernstein, and the resemblences between them are those of similar terminology, 'organic' and 'mechanical', with common origin Durkheim (1964). (Incidentally, I acknowledge no debt to Bernstein my own theoretical stance.) (ii) That I say little about pastoral care is reflection of the paucity of research, notwithstanding Best, Jarvis & Ribbens (1980), whom I do quote [1]. Even the recent issues of Pastoral Care Education provide little that is not speculative and prescriptive, and support my description of teachers' definitions of pastoral care as vague and variable, and including assemblies, careers advice and options, each of which I deal with other sections of the book [2]

Epistemology · Social science · Sociology · Sociology of Education · Philosophy · Service-Learning and Community Engagement · Social Work Education and Practice · Teacher Education and Leadership Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub