IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v84y2003i3p526-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technocracies, Bureaucracies, or Responsive Polities? Urban School Systems and the Politics of School Violence Prevention

Author

Listed:
  • Frederick M. Hess
  • David L. Leal

Abstract

Objective. Two tacks are implicit in the seminal Chubb and Moe (1990) argument that education bureaucracies tend to be rigidified by democratic conflict. One emphasizes the vulnerability of urban systems to organized interests and community pressures; the other argues that urban systems are unresponsive and ossified bureaucracies. This debate contrasts with traditional assumptions of apolitical “professionalism.” The predictive power of these theses is examined for the case of school violence prevention policy. Methods. Ordinary least squares regression analysis is conducted on the 1995 Council of Urban Boards of Education survey, encompassing 74 urban school districts. Results. Districts with greater levels of racial violence and violence against teachers had more school violence prevention measures. Levels of general school violence and district perceptions of school violence were not statistically significant. Conclusions. Urban systems are quite responsive to interest group pressure as well as to high SES communities. The professionalism thesis is not supported.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederick M. Hess & David L. Leal, 2003. "Technocracies, Bureaucracies, or Responsive Polities? Urban School Systems and the Politics of School Violence Prevention," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(3), pages 526-542, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:3:p:526-542
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.8403003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8403003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.8403003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:3:p:526-542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.