利益集团视角下的美国教师组织对教育政策影响的研究
|
摘要
之所以利益集团视角下的美国教师组织对教育政策的影响作为研究内容,是因为要对美国教育政策进行研究无法脱离美国所特有的国情,即美国具有高度发达的市场经济、多元政治及人民热衷于组织团体的现实状况。一般而言,当美国人发现他们有某种需要亟需满足时,他们可能先以个人行动谋求解决,但当他们发现以个人之力无法满足需要时,他们往往会毫不犹豫地集合具有相同利益的人,以集体力量来共同对政治系统施压。如此一来,集团利益成为积聚众人之力,影响公共政策的原动力。
美国教师组织对教育政策的影响则是美国国家具体实际在教育政策领域中的具体体现。美国的教育是采用高度分权和分散管理的方式。与其他国家相比,美国的国家比较弱,而社会(包括社区、永久性的组织和特别组织)比较强。教育——美国独一无二的最大公共事业——很容易受到社会和构成它的各种团体和个人的集中影响。美国的教师组织恰好就是永久性的组织和特别组织。教师组织所关注的问题几乎包括美国教育政策领域的方方面面——幼儿教育、初等和中等教育、高等教育、课程、教学、教师教育、教育管理等。从某种角度说,从19世纪中期到20世纪中期,美国教育中的许多重大进步都离不开教师组织的大力倡导和推动。因此,教师组织成为当时颇受人尊敬的教师专业协会。另外,在这一时期,美国的联邦教育管理机构——联邦教育部只是一个收集、处理和分发信息和情报的机构,对美国教育事业缺乏统筹管理能力。鉴于美国教育的分散状况,教师组织(主要是指全美教育协会)自动承担了许多原本属于联邦教育部职责范围内的事情。它的所作所为在很大程度上弥补了联邦教育部在功能上的一些不足和缺失。
20世纪中期以后,由于种种原因,全美教育协会放弃传统的专业协会宗旨,蜕变成为一个在美国政坛颇具影响力的教师工会。使之前只有美国教师联盟一个成员的具有工会性质的教师组织,由于全美教育协会的加入,力量得到了很大的加强,对教育政策的影响作用变得更加复杂。20世纪50、60年代,在内外压力的驱使下,全美教育协会不再将教育和教学专业的发展视为协会发展的头等目标,而是大胆效仿美国教师联盟等教师工会的行事风格,认同并接纳教师工会常用的集体谈判、罢教等手段。随着全美教育协会组织风格和组织策略的日益激进,协会集聚了令所有其它美国教师组织羡慕的资源,
Study on the impact of U.S. teacher's association on the educational policy in perspective of the interest groups as the research object, just because we can't deviate from the fact that it is a nation of highly developed market economy, poly-politics and falling over themselves for organizing. Generally speaking, when the desires needed to be satisfied, the American may resolve it by himself at first. If the desires can't be satisfied successfully, he will not hesitate to gather people who desire the same interest to gather the power to impact on the political system together. Thus, interests of group become the power of mass and the impetus that impact on public policy.The impact on educational policy of U.S A. teacher's association is the materializing of the facts of American in the field of educational policies. American education is the way of high decentralization and separate management. Compared with other countries, U.S.A. is a weaker nation, yet has stronger society (including community, permanent organization and special organization). And its education that is in the class by itself and the largest public enterprise in the U.S. is easily affected by society and all kinds of groups and individuals that compose it. And America Teacher's association happens to be a permanent organization and special group. Teacher's association concerns almost all of the aspects of educational policies including infant education, primary and secondary education, higher education, curricula, teaching, teacher education and educational management, etc. From another way, a great deal of important progress will not realize without the vigorous impulse and advocate of teacher's association in the U.S. from the 1850s to the 1950s. At that time, teacher's association is a respectable professional association. Moreover, the Federal Department of Education management is a center collecting, managing and distrusting information, which is short of ability of making overall plans and taking all factors into consideration to the whole education cause. In the light of the dispersal situation of American education, Teacher's association (actually National Education Association) automatically takes many businesses that belong to the Federal Department. In great part, teacher's association has made up for the
shortcomings and absence of the Federal Department of Education.After the 1950s, National Education Association (NEA) abandoned the tenets of professional association for a variety of matters, and changed into an influential teacher union in the U.S. political field. And with the affiliating of NEA, the power of American Federation of teachers (AFT), which is a teacher union and has the characteristics of labor union, has been strengthened and the influential functions to educational policies becomes more complicated. In the 1950s and 1960s, by the impelling of inside and outside pressure, NEA abandoned the top goal, that is development of education and teaching, imitated the action style of teacher unions such as AFT, and agreed with and accepted the methods such as collective negotiation and teacher's strike used by them frequently. With the organizing style and strategies becoming more Jacobinical, NEA gathers the resources admired by all other teacher union, and changes into a teacher union having the maximum members and biggest economic power in America. Before the 1960s, AFT had no power to organize the action of the teachers in the whole country. But after then, AFT enormously had succeeded in competition with NEA, and it had great impact on the drafting and implement of all kinds of the educational policies in the urban area. Facing with a series of educational policies on the current educational innovation and development in America, the teacher union delegated by NEA and AFT has great uncertainty on the drafting and implement of national educational policies.Teacher associations have the essential characteristics of interest groups, so the study of the impact on educational policy of U.S. teacher's association in the perspective of the interest groups can make us find out clearly how teacher associations impact on the drafting and implement the various educational policies. And on this premise, the dissertation is divided into three parts:The first part is the theory of interest groups and its impact on the educational policies. The theory of interest groups is a theory and analytical angle of view often used in politics. In this part, the dissertation constructs the theoretical framework of interest groups impacting on the drafting of educational policies on the basis of analyzing the theory of interest groups.The second part is the status of the American teacher associations. In the U.S., the most influential teacher associations are the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation Teachers (AFT). We can know well about the basic status of the American
teacher associations by the brief introduction of the organizational structures, the revenues and expenditures, the political action and member benefit programs. These brief introduces are the organic part of the study on the impact teacher associations have on the drafting and implement of educational policies.The third part is the impact of American teacher associations on the educational policies. Most of the actions of American teacher associations are provided with the basic characteristics of generic interest groups. And teacher associations impact the drafting and implement of various educational policies by inter-organization cooperating, engaging in educational research, reflecting the policy and political action. In the political actions, teacher associations don't take part in the political election, but endorse and oppose the candidates of congressman and President to protect their interests that is to impact the drafting and implement of various educational policies. The impact on the teacher policy, primary education innovation and higher education policy represent the teacher associations have on the educational policy.Finally, the dissertation puts forward that the trend of teacher associations is neo-unionism and brings forward some policy suggestion on exerting the positive function of teacher associations and perfecting the teacher associations of our country.
美国教师组织对教育政策的影响则是美国国家具体实际在教育政策领域中的具体体现。美国的教育是采用高度分权和分散管理的方式。与其他国家相比,美国的国家比较弱,而社会(包括社区、永久性的组织和特别组织)比较强。教育——美国独一无二的最大公共事业——很容易受到社会和构成它的各种团体和个人的集中影响。美国的教师组织恰好就是永久性的组织和特别组织。教师组织所关注的问题几乎包括美国教育政策领域的方方面面——幼儿教育、初等和中等教育、高等教育、课程、教学、教师教育、教育管理等。从某种角度说,从19世纪中期到20世纪中期,美国教育中的许多重大进步都离不开教师组织的大力倡导和推动。因此,教师组织成为当时颇受人尊敬的教师专业协会。另外,在这一时期,美国的联邦教育管理机构——联邦教育部只是一个收集、处理和分发信息和情报的机构,对美国教育事业缺乏统筹管理能力。鉴于美国教育的分散状况,教师组织(主要是指全美教育协会)自动承担了许多原本属于联邦教育部职责范围内的事情。它的所作所为在很大程度上弥补了联邦教育部在功能上的一些不足和缺失。
20世纪中期以后,由于种种原因,全美教育协会放弃传统的专业协会宗旨,蜕变成为一个在美国政坛颇具影响力的教师工会。使之前只有美国教师联盟一个成员的具有工会性质的教师组织,由于全美教育协会的加入,力量得到了很大的加强,对教育政策的影响作用变得更加复杂。20世纪50、60年代,在内外压力的驱使下,全美教育协会不再将教育和教学专业的发展视为协会发展的头等目标,而是大胆效仿美国教师联盟等教师工会的行事风格,认同并接纳教师工会常用的集体谈判、罢教等手段。随着全美教育协会组织风格和组织策略的日益激进,协会集聚了令所有其它美国教师组织羡慕的资源,
Study on the impact of U.S. teacher's association on the educational policy in perspective of the interest groups as the research object, just because we can't deviate from the fact that it is a nation of highly developed market economy, poly-politics and falling over themselves for organizing. Generally speaking, when the desires needed to be satisfied, the American may resolve it by himself at first. If the desires can't be satisfied successfully, he will not hesitate to gather people who desire the same interest to gather the power to impact on the political system together. Thus, interests of group become the power of mass and the impetus that impact on public policy.The impact on educational policy of U.S A. teacher's association is the materializing of the facts of American in the field of educational policies. American education is the way of high decentralization and separate management. Compared with other countries, U.S.A. is a weaker nation, yet has stronger society (including community, permanent organization and special organization). And its education that is in the class by itself and the largest public enterprise in the U.S. is easily affected by society and all kinds of groups and individuals that compose it. And America Teacher's association happens to be a permanent organization and special group. Teacher's association concerns almost all of the aspects of educational policies including infant education, primary and secondary education, higher education, curricula, teaching, teacher education and educational management, etc. From another way, a great deal of important progress will not realize without the vigorous impulse and advocate of teacher's association in the U.S. from the 1850s to the 1950s. At that time, teacher's association is a respectable professional association. Moreover, the Federal Department of Education management is a center collecting, managing and distrusting information, which is short of ability of making overall plans and taking all factors into consideration to the whole education cause. In the light of the dispersal situation of American education, Teacher's association (actually National Education Association) automatically takes many businesses that belong to the Federal Department. In great part, teacher's association has made up for the
shortcomings and absence of the Federal Department of Education.After the 1950s, National Education Association (NEA) abandoned the tenets of professional association for a variety of matters, and changed into an influential teacher union in the U.S. political field. And with the affiliating of NEA, the power of American Federation of teachers (AFT), which is a teacher union and has the characteristics of labor union, has been strengthened and the influential functions to educational policies becomes more complicated. In the 1950s and 1960s, by the impelling of inside and outside pressure, NEA abandoned the top goal, that is development of education and teaching, imitated the action style of teacher unions such as AFT, and agreed with and accepted the methods such as collective negotiation and teacher's strike used by them frequently. With the organizing style and strategies becoming more Jacobinical, NEA gathers the resources admired by all other teacher union, and changes into a teacher union having the maximum members and biggest economic power in America. Before the 1960s, AFT had no power to organize the action of the teachers in the whole country. But after then, AFT enormously had succeeded in competition with NEA, and it had great impact on the drafting and implement of all kinds of the educational policies in the urban area. Facing with a series of educational policies on the current educational innovation and development in America, the teacher union delegated by NEA and AFT has great uncertainty on the drafting and implement of national educational policies.Teacher associations have the essential characteristics of interest groups, so the study of the impact on educational policy of U.S. teacher's association in the perspective of the interest groups can make us find out clearly how teacher associations impact on the drafting and implement the various educational policies. And on this premise, the dissertation is divided into three parts:The first part is the theory of interest groups and its impact on the educational policies. The theory of interest groups is a theory and analytical angle of view often used in politics. In this part, the dissertation constructs the theoretical framework of interest groups impacting on the drafting of educational policies on the basis of analyzing the theory of interest groups.The second part is the status of the American teacher associations. In the U.S., the most influential teacher associations are the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation Teachers (AFT). We can know well about the basic status of the American
teacher associations by the brief introduction of the organizational structures, the revenues and expenditures, the political action and member benefit programs. These brief introduces are the organic part of the study on the impact teacher associations have on the drafting and implement of educational policies.The third part is the impact of American teacher associations on the educational policies. Most of the actions of American teacher associations are provided with the basic characteristics of generic interest groups. And teacher associations impact the drafting and implement of various educational policies by inter-organization cooperating, engaging in educational research, reflecting the policy and political action. In the political actions, teacher associations don't take part in the political election, but endorse and oppose the candidates of congressman and President to protect their interests that is to impact the drafting and implement of various educational policies. The impact on the teacher policy, primary education innovation and higher education policy represent the teacher associations have on the educational policy.Finally, the dissertation puts forward that the trend of teacher associations is neo-unionism and brings forward some policy suggestion on exerting the positive function of teacher associations and perfecting the teacher associations of our country.
引文
[1] 许激.组织的含义.http://www.manage9.com/type.asp?news_id=66#[ED/OL]2005.11.30
[2] 周燕.美国全国教育协会功能探析.[D]:[硕士学位论文].上海:华东师范大学 2002.5.
[3] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:[博士学位论文].上海:华东师范大学 2002.5.
[4] 王艳荣.美国教师组织发展的初步研究.[D]:[硕士学位论文].福州:福建师范大学.2005.5.
[5] http://rsc.njnu.edu.cn/show.asp?id=816 [EB/OL] 2005-7-16.
[6] 袁振国.教育政策学[M].(新世纪版)南京:江苏教育出版社,2001.40-48.
[7] 钟启泉.教育政治学的新方向:教育政策分析[A].袁振国.中国教育政策评论2001[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2001.247-259.
[8] 马健生.试论教育改革活动的过程特性[J].中国教育学刊,2002.5.
[9] 马向忠.我国中央及地方教师组织参与教育政策制定之研究[EB/OL]etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search-c/view_etd?URN=etd.0701103-171003 2005-5-9.
[10] 程顯光.从各国教师组织来看台湾的教师组织. [ED/OL]http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/47/47-20.htm 2005-6-13.
[11] 卫民.教师组织类别与功能. [ED/OL]http://perc.kta.org.tw/teacher's%20rights/articlell.htm 2005-7-19.
[12] 董添辉.各国教师组织发展取向与教师事业发展. [ED/OL]http://192.192.169.101/newtalk/1015%E5%98%89%E5%B8%AB/essay/giung.pdf 2005-7-19.
[13] 刘安彦.美国教师组织与教育改革. [ED/OL]http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/gem_browse.php/fpath=gem/brd/education/0/F00100HO&num=10 2005-7-21.
[14] 郑彩凤,林漢庭.中小学教师组织工会相关问题之研究. [ED/OL]http://academic.ntptc.edu.tw/public/journal/vil17-1/A18-118%BEG%B1m%BB%F1%AAL%BA~%AEx. doc 2005-7-19.
[15] 郑彩凤.美国教师工会之发展:兼论对台湾组织教师工会之启示.教育政策论坛[J],2003.3.第6卷 第二期 21.
[16] 杨深坑.各国教师组织与专业權发展[M].高等教育出版,2003.8.
[17] 周小虎,孙启林.试析美国教育利益集团对国会立法的影响[J].外国教育研究,2005.10.
[18] 周小虎,孙启林.试析利益集团对美国教育政策的影响[J].比较教育研究,(已录用)
[19] Myron Lieberman. The NEA and AFT Teacher Unions In Power and Politics[ED/OL] http://www.educationpolicy.org/files/neaftbk/httoc.htm,2006-1-11
[20] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher unionsand education policy: retrenchment or reform? [M], Amsterdam. Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004. 125.
[21] Peter Brimelow The Worm in the apple: How the teacher unions destroying American Education. Happer Collins Publishers, 2002.
[22] Tom Loveless. Conflicting Missions?——teachers unions and education reform[M]. The Brookings Institution, 2000.
[23] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher unions and education policy: retrenchment or reform? [M]. Amsterdam: Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004. 125
[24] 马克思恩格斯全集 第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1956.165.
[25] 马克思恩格斯全集 第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1956.82
[26] 尤尔根·哈贝马斯.合法性危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000.29.
[27] 阿·汉密尔顿、詹·麦迪逊.等:联邦党人文集[A].霍布金斯大学出版社,1981.2nd.17.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.2.
[28] 戴·杜鲁门.政府之进程.33-37.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.2.
[29] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.4.
[30] 罗伯特·达尔.美国的民主[A](波士顿,赫夫顿·密夫林公司,1981年第4版.235.).李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.2.
[31] 阿尔蒙德.等.比较政治学——体系、过程和政策[M].曹沛霖.等译上海:上海译文出版社1987.200.
[32] 卡罗尔·格林沃尔德.集团权力[A](纽约:普雷格出版公司,1977年)15.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[33] 哈蒙·齐格勒.美国社会中的利益集团[A](新泽西州恩格尔伍德—克里夫斯,普伦迪斯·霍尔公司)30.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[34] 乔治·科索拉斯.政府和政治[A].(马萨诸塞州北西丘埃德,德克斯伯里出版社,1975.)92.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[35] 格雷海姆·威尔逊.美国的利益集团[A](英国牛津,克拉雷恩出版社,1981年)4.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M]。北京;社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[36] 陈振明.政治学[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1999.246.
[37] 宁骚.公共政策学[M].高等教育出版社。2003.305.
[38] Norman J. Ornstein, Shirley Elder. Lobbing for the people[M]. Princeton: N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1977. 47-55.
[39] 谭融.美国利益集团政治研究[M].北京:社会科学出版社,2002.7.
[40] 托克维尔.董果良译.论美国的民主[M].北京:商务印书馆,1988.518.
[41] Roger Charlton Comparative Government [M] London, New York, Longman Inc, 1993. 100-103.
[42] 过中丰.郝玉珍译.利益集团[M].北京:经济日报出版社,1989.35.
[43] Clive, S. Thomas, Ronald D. Hrebenar. Interest Groups in the States [A]. Gray. H. Jacob, R. B. Albritton. Politics in the American States [M]. Harper Collins Publishers, 1990. 132-133.
[44] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.19.
[45] V. Darleen, Opfer. Beyond self-interest: education interest groups and congressional influence, Educational policy [J] Vol. 15 NO. 1. January 2001. 135-152.
[46] 卡尔·施里夫特盖塞.院外活动人员(波士顿,利德尔-布朗,1951年)8.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.51.
[47] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社.1988.55.
[48] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社.1988.56.
[49] 朱向东.西方一些国家公务员范围 http://www.people.com.cn/GB/14576/28320/36615/36616/3311234.html [DB/OL] 2006-2-17.
[50] 李昌道.美国平权措施的宪法争议——析联邦最高法院的两项判决.复旦学报(社会科学版)2004.1.107—110.
[51] 徐冰.“倾斜” 的“常识”[J].星岛月刊(加拿大),2003(1).
[52] 李昌道.美国平权措施的宪法争议——析联邦最高法院的两项判决[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2004.1.107-110.
[53] 毛泽东选集.第2卷.人民出版社,1952.775.
[54] 伊根·古巴(Egon G.Guba).政策定义对政策分析的性质和结果的影响[A].[美]教育领导[J]. 袁振国.教育政策学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1998.158.
[55] 袁振国.教育政策学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1998.139-140.
[56] 孙绵涛.教育政策学[M].武汉:武汉工业大学出版社,1997.2.
[57] 孙绵涛.教育行政学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.98.
[58] M.G.罗斯金,等.林震译.政治科学[M].北京:华夏出版社,2001.370.
[59] 成有信等.教育政治学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2000.241.
[60] 中国大百科全书(教育卷)[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1985.159.
[61] 吴畏.教育方针的理论与实践[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1990.2
[62] 张新平.教育政策的基本理论研究[A],孙绵涛.等教育政策论——具有中国特色的社会主义教育政策研究[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2002.12.
[63] 詹姆斯·E·安德森著.唐亮译.公共决策.华夏出版社.1990.22.
[64] 孙绵涛等.教育政策论——具有中国特色的社会主义教育政策研究[M].华中师范大学出版社.2202.19.
[65] 孙绵涛等.教育政策论——具有中国特色的社会主义教育政策研究[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社.2202.17.
[66] 李素敏.美国赠地学院发展研究[M].保定:河北大学出版社,2004.43.
[67] 李爱萍,等.战后美国基础教育改革政策制约因素分析[J].外国中小学教育,2004,(10):1-5
[68] 袁振国.教育政策学(新世纪版)[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2001.381.
[69] Garrett, Jennifer. School Choice 2001: Increasing Opportunities f or America' s Children to Succeed [DB/OL]. Http://www.Heritage.Org/Research/Education/Schools/background.ofm, 2002-2-01.
[70] [英]维尔.美国政治[M].王合.陈国清.杨铁钧译.北京:商务印书馆,1981.107.
[71] American Federation of Teachers. who we are;the national Education Association. about nea [EB/OL]. http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm;http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/index.html,2005-6-13.
[72] 强煌熙.教师组织舆“集体谈判”的运用[EB/OL]http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/gem_browse.php/fpath=gem/brd/education/O/F00100H0&num=4,2005-4-07.
[73] 臺湾比较教育协会主编 新世纪的教育挑战于各国因應策略[M] 揚智文化出版社 2000.365.
[74] 教育组织舆专业精神[M].华欣文化事业中心,1982.10.
[75] Edward W. Smith, Stanley W. Krouse, Mark M. Atkinson, the Educator's Encyclopedia[M] Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1961, 225-227.
[76] 王艳荣.美国教师组织发展的初步研究.[D]:[硕士学位论文].福州:福建师范大学.2005.5.
[77] 教育组织舆专业精神[M].华欣文化事业中心,1982.18-19.
[78] Myron Lieberman. The NEA and AFT Teacher Unions In Power and Politics[ED/OL] http://www.educationpolicy.org/files/neaftbk/book0001.htm#I12 2006-2-17
[79] 教育组织舆专业精神[M].华欣文化事棠中心,1982.19.
[80] http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm [ED/OL] 2006-3-18.
[81] http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm [ED/OL] 2006-3-18.
[82] 臺湾比较教育学会.新世纪的教育挑战舆各国因應策略[M].揚智文化出版社2000.366.
[83] 楊深坑.各国教师组织舆教育专业權運作关係之研究[M].高等教育文化事业有限公司2003.97
[84] Moo, G. Gregory, Power Grab: How the National Education Association Is Betraying Our Children [M]. Regnery Publishing, 1999. 19-20.
[85] Myron Lieberman. Agency fees: How Fees: Fair are "Fair Share Fees", [EB/OL]http://www.educationpolicy.org/EPIseries/agencyfees-bklt.htm 2006.3.24
[86] Myron Lieberman. Agency fees: How Fees: Fair are "Fair Share Fees", [M] [EB/Ok]http://www.educationpolicy.org/EPIseries/agencyfees-bklt.htm 2006.3.24
[87][88] Moo, G. Gregory, Power Grab: How the National Education Association Is Betraying Our Children[M]. Regnery Publishing, 1999.10.
[89][90] The Biggest Lobbying in Washington, the national Education Association [A].美兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[91] West, Allan M., the National Education Association [M], the Power Base for Education, the Free Press, 1980. 197-199.
[92] 李进忠.美明年教育财政预算将达573亿美元http://www.jyb.com.cn/gb/jybzt/2002zt/wgjy/198.htm 2006.2.23
[93] Urban, Wayne J.,Gender, Race and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations[M], New York: Routledge Falmer, 2000.184-186.
[94][96][97][9931100][101] Charlene Haar, Myron Lieberman, and Leo Troy. The NEA and the AFT: Teacher Unions in Power and Politics [EB/OL]. http://www.educationpolicy.org/files/neaftbk/book.htm 2005-10-30
[95] Urban, Wayne J., Gender, Race and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations[M], New York: Routledge Falmer, 2000. 187.
[98] Mike Antonucci, Teacher Union Political Spending[R], A Report of the Education Intelligence Agency, 2002.
[102] 邹海燕.美国教师要求出版多样化的教科书[J].课程·教材·教法,1994,(5):63.
[103] 公共政策编写组(下).公共政策[M].北京:中国国际广播出版,2002.536.
[104] http://www.aft.org/publications/inside_aft/Inside AFT-Week of Dec. 8, 2003.
[105] 龚兵.教师组织在美国教学专业化进程中的作用[J].上海教育科研,2004,(8):21-23.
[106] Mary Louise Holly. Perspectives on teacher professional development [M]. the Falmer Press, 1989, 207.
[107] 龚兵.教师组织在美国教学专业化进程中的作用[J].上海教育科研,2004,(8):21-23.
[108] 黄爱华,郑柏礼.美、日、中工会与劳资谈判机制对比分析[J].华南理工大学学报.2002,(3):17-19.
[109] [台湾]华欣文化事业中心.教育组织与专业精神[M].1982.21.
[110] James W. Guthrie & Rodney J. Reed. Educational Administration and Policy [M]. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon, 307.
[111] 吴清山.美国教育组织舆行政[M].台湾:五南图书出版公司,民83年.178.
[112] Joel Spring. American Education[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, nc. 1994. 76.
[113] Joanna Richardson. California Foundation urges new approach to labor negotiations[J]. Education Week, 1994. May. 4-8.
[114] Tom Loveless, Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform [M]. Brookings Institution Press, 2000.11.
[115] Tom Loveless, Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform [M]. Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 28.
[116] L. Dean Webb, Paul A. Montello& M. Scott Norton. Human Resources Administration: Personnel Issue and Needs in Education [M]. New York: Maxwell Macmillan Intemational, 1994. 319.
[117] James W. Guthrie & Rodney J. Reed. Educational Administration and Policy [M]. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon, 314-315.
[118] R. R. Rech & B. G. Long. Win Win Negotiator[M]. Kalamazoo, M1: Spartan Publications, 1987. 105-106.
[119] R. W. Rebore. Personal Administration in Education: A Management Approach [M]. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1991. 292.
[120] John T. Seytarth. Personal Management for Effective Schools[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 121.
[121] S. M. Johnson. Unionism and collective, bargaining in the public schools. In N. J. Boyan(Ed.). Handbook of Research on Educational Administration[M]. New York: Longman, 1988. 619.
[122] John T. Seytarth. Personal Management for Effective Schools[M]. Boston:Allyn and Bacon, 1991P. 257.
[123] James W. Guthrie & Rodney J. Reed. Educational Administration and Policy[M]. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon, 320.
[124] U.S. News &World. Why teacher don't teach [J], Feb. 26. 61-71.
[125] http://www.nea.org/nr/old/nr980416.html 2005.12.6
[126] Tom Loveless. "Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform[M]." Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 50 from Baugh, William H. and Joe A. Stone. 1982. "Teachers, Unions, and Wages in the 1970s: Unionism Now Pays." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 35: 368-765.
[127] Tom Loveless. "Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform[M]." Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 50.
[128] 郭朝红.影响教师政策的中介组织研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2004.4.
[129] Gary A. Griffin. The Education of teachers-The Ninety-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part I[M], The University of Chicago Press, (1999), 97.
[130] 张德锐.师资培训舆教育革新研究[M]塞湾:五南圊害出版有限公司,1999.72.
[131] 许明.美国教师教育专业标准概述——美国教师队伍质量保证机制研究之二[ED/OL].http://www.xhedu.sh.cn/cms/data/html/doc/2003-10/15/34778/index.html2006-3-31.
[132] Tom Loveless. Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform[M]. Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 70.
[133] 公立还是私立?美国家长为孩子择校的烦恼[ED/OL]http://article.topstudy.com.cn/jichujiaoyu/silizhongxiaoxue/zixunzhongxin/200506/27311.html 2006-3-28.
[134] 徐双荣.美国特许学校面面观[J].教学与管理,2000,(9):73-75.
[135] 赵中建:今日美国特许学校[J].教育发展研究,2000,(7):69-71.
[136] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[137] 杨慧敏.美国基础教育[M].广东教育出版社,2004.128.
[138] 文新华、鲁莉、张洪华等.关于“教育券”的分析,教育发展研究[J].2003,(1):60-65.
[139] Vouchers http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html [EB/OL]2006. 3. 28
[140][141] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[142] West, Allan M., the National Education Association, the Power Base for Education [M], the Free Press, 3.
[143] 瞿葆奎.教育学文集·美国教育改革[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.61.
[144] Wesley, Edgar B.,NEA: the First Hundred Years[M]Harper & Brothers ublishers, 1957. 162.
[145] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher unions and education policy: retrenchment or reform?. Amsterdam: Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004. 125.
[146] Trends in bargaining, the NEA 1994 Almanac of Higher Education[Z]. Washington D. C.: NEA. 59-78.
[147] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher nions and education policy: retrenchment or reform?. Amsterdam;Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004.125.
[148] Ladd &Lipset. Professors, Unions, and American higher education[J]. Washington DC: Carnegie Foundation, 1973. 74-76.
[149] U. S. Supreme Cottrt NLRB v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, 444 U. S. 672 (1980) [EB/OL] http://www.jusfia.us/us/444/672/2006.3.29.
[150] Urban, Wayne J., Gender. Race and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations [M], New York: Roufledge Falmer. 2000. 267.
[151] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[152] 联合国教科文组织总部中文科译.教育——财富蕴藏其中[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1996.137—138.
[153] 袁振国.中国教育政策评论2001[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2000.88.
[154] 陈永明等.教师教育研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社2003.385.
[155] 周南照,杨典求.简明国际教育百科全书——教育管理教育科学出版社1992.57.
[156] 吴遵民.关于建立我国科学的基础教育决策机制的思考[J].教育发展研究,2002.12.
[157] 郭朝红.影响教师政策的中介组织研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2004.4.
[158] 公共政策编写组.MPA公共政策(上)[M].中国国际广播出版社,2002.8.
[159] 孙孔懿.教育失误论[M].江苏教育出版社,1997.273.
[2] 周燕.美国全国教育协会功能探析.[D]:[硕士学位论文].上海:华东师范大学 2002.5.
[3] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:[博士学位论文].上海:华东师范大学 2002.5.
[4] 王艳荣.美国教师组织发展的初步研究.[D]:[硕士学位论文].福州:福建师范大学.2005.5.
[5] http://rsc.njnu.edu.cn/show.asp?id=816 [EB/OL] 2005-7-16.
[6] 袁振国.教育政策学[M].(新世纪版)南京:江苏教育出版社,2001.40-48.
[7] 钟启泉.教育政治学的新方向:教育政策分析[A].袁振国.中国教育政策评论2001[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2001.247-259.
[8] 马健生.试论教育改革活动的过程特性[J].中国教育学刊,2002.5.
[9] 马向忠.我国中央及地方教师组织参与教育政策制定之研究[EB/OL]etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search-c/view_etd?URN=etd.0701103-171003 2005-5-9.
[10] 程顯光.从各国教师组织来看台湾的教师组织. [ED/OL]http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/47/47-20.htm 2005-6-13.
[11] 卫民.教师组织类别与功能. [ED/OL]http://perc.kta.org.tw/teacher's%20rights/articlell.htm 2005-7-19.
[12] 董添辉.各国教师组织发展取向与教师事业发展. [ED/OL]http://192.192.169.101/newtalk/1015%E5%98%89%E5%B8%AB/essay/giung.pdf 2005-7-19.
[13] 刘安彦.美国教师组织与教育改革. [ED/OL]http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/gem_browse.php/fpath=gem/brd/education/0/F00100HO&num=10 2005-7-21.
[14] 郑彩凤,林漢庭.中小学教师组织工会相关问题之研究. [ED/OL]http://academic.ntptc.edu.tw/public/journal/vil17-1/A18-118%BEG%B1m%BB%F1%AAL%BA~%AEx. doc 2005-7-19.
[15] 郑彩凤.美国教师工会之发展:兼论对台湾组织教师工会之启示.教育政策论坛[J],2003.3.第6卷 第二期 21.
[16] 杨深坑.各国教师组织与专业權发展[M].高等教育出版,2003.8.
[17] 周小虎,孙启林.试析美国教育利益集团对国会立法的影响[J].外国教育研究,2005.10.
[18] 周小虎,孙启林.试析利益集团对美国教育政策的影响[J].比较教育研究,(已录用)
[19] Myron Lieberman. The NEA and AFT Teacher Unions In Power and Politics[ED/OL] http://www.educationpolicy.org/files/neaftbk/httoc.htm,2006-1-11
[20] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher unionsand education policy: retrenchment or reform? [M], Amsterdam. Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004. 125.
[21] Peter Brimelow The Worm in the apple: How the teacher unions destroying American Education. Happer Collins Publishers, 2002.
[22] Tom Loveless. Conflicting Missions?——teachers unions and education reform[M]. The Brookings Institution, 2000.
[23] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher unions and education policy: retrenchment or reform? [M]. Amsterdam: Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004. 125
[24] 马克思恩格斯全集 第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1956.165.
[25] 马克思恩格斯全集 第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1956.82
[26] 尤尔根·哈贝马斯.合法性危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000.29.
[27] 阿·汉密尔顿、詹·麦迪逊.等:联邦党人文集[A].霍布金斯大学出版社,1981.2nd.17.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.2.
[28] 戴·杜鲁门.政府之进程.33-37.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.2.
[29] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.4.
[30] 罗伯特·达尔.美国的民主[A](波士顿,赫夫顿·密夫林公司,1981年第4版.235.).李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.2.
[31] 阿尔蒙德.等.比较政治学——体系、过程和政策[M].曹沛霖.等译上海:上海译文出版社1987.200.
[32] 卡罗尔·格林沃尔德.集团权力[A](纽约:普雷格出版公司,1977年)15.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[33] 哈蒙·齐格勒.美国社会中的利益集团[A](新泽西州恩格尔伍德—克里夫斯,普伦迪斯·霍尔公司)30.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[34] 乔治·科索拉斯.政府和政治[A].(马萨诸塞州北西丘埃德,德克斯伯里出版社,1975.)92.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[35] 格雷海姆·威尔逊.美国的利益集团[A](英国牛津,克拉雷恩出版社,1981年)4.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M]。北京;社会科学出版社,1988.3.
[36] 陈振明.政治学[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1999.246.
[37] 宁骚.公共政策学[M].高等教育出版社。2003.305.
[38] Norman J. Ornstein, Shirley Elder. Lobbing for the people[M]. Princeton: N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1977. 47-55.
[39] 谭融.美国利益集团政治研究[M].北京:社会科学出版社,2002.7.
[40] 托克维尔.董果良译.论美国的民主[M].北京:商务印书馆,1988.518.
[41] Roger Charlton Comparative Government [M] London, New York, Longman Inc, 1993. 100-103.
[42] 过中丰.郝玉珍译.利益集团[M].北京:经济日报出版社,1989.35.
[43] Clive, S. Thomas, Ronald D. Hrebenar. Interest Groups in the States [A]. Gray. H. Jacob, R. B. Albritton. Politics in the American States [M]. Harper Collins Publishers, 1990. 132-133.
[44] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.19.
[45] V. Darleen, Opfer. Beyond self-interest: education interest groups and congressional influence, Educational policy [J] Vol. 15 NO. 1. January 2001. 135-152.
[46] 卡尔·施里夫特盖塞.院外活动人员(波士顿,利德尔-布朗,1951年)8.李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1988.51.
[47] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社.1988.55.
[48] 李寿祺.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:社会科学出版社.1988.56.
[49] 朱向东.西方一些国家公务员范围 http://www.people.com.cn/GB/14576/28320/36615/36616/3311234.html [DB/OL] 2006-2-17.
[50] 李昌道.美国平权措施的宪法争议——析联邦最高法院的两项判决.复旦学报(社会科学版)2004.1.107—110.
[51] 徐冰.“倾斜” 的“常识”[J].星岛月刊(加拿大),2003(1).
[52] 李昌道.美国平权措施的宪法争议——析联邦最高法院的两项判决[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2004.1.107-110.
[53] 毛泽东选集.第2卷.人民出版社,1952.775.
[54] 伊根·古巴(Egon G.Guba).政策定义对政策分析的性质和结果的影响[A].[美]教育领导[J]. 袁振国.教育政策学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1998.158.
[55] 袁振国.教育政策学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1998.139-140.
[56] 孙绵涛.教育政策学[M].武汉:武汉工业大学出版社,1997.2.
[57] 孙绵涛.教育行政学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.98.
[58] M.G.罗斯金,等.林震译.政治科学[M].北京:华夏出版社,2001.370.
[59] 成有信等.教育政治学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2000.241.
[60] 中国大百科全书(教育卷)[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1985.159.
[61] 吴畏.教育方针的理论与实践[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1990.2
[62] 张新平.教育政策的基本理论研究[A],孙绵涛.等教育政策论——具有中国特色的社会主义教育政策研究[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2002.12.
[63] 詹姆斯·E·安德森著.唐亮译.公共决策.华夏出版社.1990.22.
[64] 孙绵涛等.教育政策论——具有中国特色的社会主义教育政策研究[M].华中师范大学出版社.2202.19.
[65] 孙绵涛等.教育政策论——具有中国特色的社会主义教育政策研究[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社.2202.17.
[66] 李素敏.美国赠地学院发展研究[M].保定:河北大学出版社,2004.43.
[67] 李爱萍,等.战后美国基础教育改革政策制约因素分析[J].外国中小学教育,2004,(10):1-5
[68] 袁振国.教育政策学(新世纪版)[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2001.381.
[69] Garrett, Jennifer. School Choice 2001: Increasing Opportunities f or America' s Children to Succeed [DB/OL]. Http://www.Heritage.Org/Research/Education/Schools/background.ofm, 2002-2-01.
[70] [英]维尔.美国政治[M].王合.陈国清.杨铁钧译.北京:商务印书馆,1981.107.
[71] American Federation of Teachers. who we are;the national Education Association. about nea [EB/OL]. http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm;http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/index.html,2005-6-13.
[72] 强煌熙.教师组织舆“集体谈判”的运用[EB/OL]http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/gem_browse.php/fpath=gem/brd/education/O/F00100H0&num=4,2005-4-07.
[73] 臺湾比较教育协会主编 新世纪的教育挑战于各国因應策略[M] 揚智文化出版社 2000.365.
[74] 教育组织舆专业精神[M].华欣文化事业中心,1982.10.
[75] Edward W. Smith, Stanley W. Krouse, Mark M. Atkinson, the Educator's Encyclopedia[M] Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1961, 225-227.
[76] 王艳荣.美国教师组织发展的初步研究.[D]:[硕士学位论文].福州:福建师范大学.2005.5.
[77] 教育组织舆专业精神[M].华欣文化事业中心,1982.18-19.
[78] Myron Lieberman. The NEA and AFT Teacher Unions In Power and Politics[ED/OL] http://www.educationpolicy.org/files/neaftbk/book0001.htm#I12 2006-2-17
[79] 教育组织舆专业精神[M].华欣文化事棠中心,1982.19.
[80] http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm [ED/OL] 2006-3-18.
[81] http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm [ED/OL] 2006-3-18.
[82] 臺湾比较教育学会.新世纪的教育挑战舆各国因應策略[M].揚智文化出版社2000.366.
[83] 楊深坑.各国教师组织舆教育专业權運作关係之研究[M].高等教育文化事业有限公司2003.97
[84] Moo, G. Gregory, Power Grab: How the National Education Association Is Betraying Our Children [M]. Regnery Publishing, 1999. 19-20.
[85] Myron Lieberman. Agency fees: How Fees: Fair are "Fair Share Fees", [EB/OL]http://www.educationpolicy.org/EPIseries/agencyfees-bklt.htm 2006.3.24
[86] Myron Lieberman. Agency fees: How Fees: Fair are "Fair Share Fees", [M] [EB/Ok]http://www.educationpolicy.org/EPIseries/agencyfees-bklt.htm 2006.3.24
[87][88] Moo, G. Gregory, Power Grab: How the National Education Association Is Betraying Our Children[M]. Regnery Publishing, 1999.10.
[89][90] The Biggest Lobbying in Washington, the national Education Association [A].美兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[91] West, Allan M., the National Education Association [M], the Power Base for Education, the Free Press, 1980. 197-199.
[92] 李进忠.美明年教育财政预算将达573亿美元http://www.jyb.com.cn/gb/jybzt/2002zt/wgjy/198.htm 2006.2.23
[93] Urban, Wayne J.,Gender, Race and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations[M], New York: Routledge Falmer, 2000.184-186.
[94][96][97][9931100][101] Charlene Haar, Myron Lieberman, and Leo Troy. The NEA and the AFT: Teacher Unions in Power and Politics [EB/OL]. http://www.educationpolicy.org/files/neaftbk/book.htm 2005-10-30
[95] Urban, Wayne J., Gender, Race and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations[M], New York: Routledge Falmer, 2000. 187.
[98] Mike Antonucci, Teacher Union Political Spending[R], A Report of the Education Intelligence Agency, 2002.
[102] 邹海燕.美国教师要求出版多样化的教科书[J].课程·教材·教法,1994,(5):63.
[103] 公共政策编写组(下).公共政策[M].北京:中国国际广播出版,2002.536.
[104] http://www.aft.org/publications/inside_aft/Inside AFT-Week of Dec. 8, 2003.
[105] 龚兵.教师组织在美国教学专业化进程中的作用[J].上海教育科研,2004,(8):21-23.
[106] Mary Louise Holly. Perspectives on teacher professional development [M]. the Falmer Press, 1989, 207.
[107] 龚兵.教师组织在美国教学专业化进程中的作用[J].上海教育科研,2004,(8):21-23.
[108] 黄爱华,郑柏礼.美、日、中工会与劳资谈判机制对比分析[J].华南理工大学学报.2002,(3):17-19.
[109] [台湾]华欣文化事业中心.教育组织与专业精神[M].1982.21.
[110] James W. Guthrie & Rodney J. Reed. Educational Administration and Policy [M]. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon, 307.
[111] 吴清山.美国教育组织舆行政[M].台湾:五南图书出版公司,民83年.178.
[112] Joel Spring. American Education[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, nc. 1994. 76.
[113] Joanna Richardson. California Foundation urges new approach to labor negotiations[J]. Education Week, 1994. May. 4-8.
[114] Tom Loveless, Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform [M]. Brookings Institution Press, 2000.11.
[115] Tom Loveless, Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform [M]. Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 28.
[116] L. Dean Webb, Paul A. Montello& M. Scott Norton. Human Resources Administration: Personnel Issue and Needs in Education [M]. New York: Maxwell Macmillan Intemational, 1994. 319.
[117] James W. Guthrie & Rodney J. Reed. Educational Administration and Policy [M]. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon, 314-315.
[118] R. R. Rech & B. G. Long. Win Win Negotiator[M]. Kalamazoo, M1: Spartan Publications, 1987. 105-106.
[119] R. W. Rebore. Personal Administration in Education: A Management Approach [M]. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1991. 292.
[120] John T. Seytarth. Personal Management for Effective Schools[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 121.
[121] S. M. Johnson. Unionism and collective, bargaining in the public schools. In N. J. Boyan(Ed.). Handbook of Research on Educational Administration[M]. New York: Longman, 1988. 619.
[122] John T. Seytarth. Personal Management for Effective Schools[M]. Boston:Allyn and Bacon, 1991P. 257.
[123] James W. Guthrie & Rodney J. Reed. Educational Administration and Policy[M]. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon, 320.
[124] U.S. News &World. Why teacher don't teach [J], Feb. 26. 61-71.
[125] http://www.nea.org/nr/old/nr980416.html 2005.12.6
[126] Tom Loveless. "Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform[M]." Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 50 from Baugh, William H. and Joe A. Stone. 1982. "Teachers, Unions, and Wages in the 1970s: Unionism Now Pays." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 35: 368-765.
[127] Tom Loveless. "Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform[M]." Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 50.
[128] 郭朝红.影响教师政策的中介组织研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2004.4.
[129] Gary A. Griffin. The Education of teachers-The Ninety-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part I[M], The University of Chicago Press, (1999), 97.
[130] 张德锐.师资培训舆教育革新研究[M]塞湾:五南圊害出版有限公司,1999.72.
[131] 许明.美国教师教育专业标准概述——美国教师队伍质量保证机制研究之二[ED/OL].http://www.xhedu.sh.cn/cms/data/html/doc/2003-10/15/34778/index.html2006-3-31.
[132] Tom Loveless. Conflicting Missions? Teacher Unions and Educational Reform[M]. Brookings Institution Press, 2000. 70.
[133] 公立还是私立?美国家长为孩子择校的烦恼[ED/OL]http://article.topstudy.com.cn/jichujiaoyu/silizhongxiaoxue/zixunzhongxin/200506/27311.html 2006-3-28.
[134] 徐双荣.美国特许学校面面观[J].教学与管理,2000,(9):73-75.
[135] 赵中建:今日美国特许学校[J].教育发展研究,2000,(7):69-71.
[136] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[137] 杨慧敏.美国基础教育[M].广东教育出版社,2004.128.
[138] 文新华、鲁莉、张洪华等.关于“教育券”的分析,教育发展研究[J].2003,(1):60-65.
[139] Vouchers http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html [EB/OL]2006. 3. 28
[140][141] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[142] West, Allan M., the National Education Association, the Power Base for Education [M], the Free Press, 3.
[143] 瞿葆奎.教育学文集·美国教育改革[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.61.
[144] Wesley, Edgar B.,NEA: the First Hundred Years[M]Harper & Brothers ublishers, 1957. 162.
[145] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher unions and education policy: retrenchment or reform?. Amsterdam: Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004. 125.
[146] Trends in bargaining, the NEA 1994 Almanac of Higher Education[Z]. Washington D. C.: NEA. 59-78.
[147] Ronald D. Henderson, Wayne J. Urban, Paul Wolman. Teacher nions and education policy: retrenchment or reform?. Amsterdam;Boston: Elsevier JAI, c2004.125.
[148] Ladd &Lipset. Professors, Unions, and American higher education[J]. Washington DC: Carnegie Foundation, 1973. 74-76.
[149] U. S. Supreme Cottrt NLRB v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, 444 U. S. 672 (1980) [EB/OL] http://www.jusfia.us/us/444/672/2006.3.29.
[150] Urban, Wayne J., Gender. Race and the National Education Association: Professionalism and its limitations [M], New York: Roufledge Falmer. 2000. 267.
[151] 龚兵.从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2005.4.
[152] 联合国教科文组织总部中文科译.教育——财富蕴藏其中[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1996.137—138.
[153] 袁振国.中国教育政策评论2001[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2000.88.
[154] 陈永明等.教师教育研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社2003.385.
[155] 周南照,杨典求.简明国际教育百科全书——教育管理教育科学出版社1992.57.
[156] 吴遵民.关于建立我国科学的基础教育决策机制的思考[J].教育发展研究,2002.12.
[157] 郭朝红.影响教师政策的中介组织研究.[D]:博士学位论文.上海:华东师范大学.2004.4.
[158] 公共政策编写组.MPA公共政策(上)[M].中国国际广播出版社,2002.8.
[159] 孙孔懿.教育失误论[M].江苏教育出版社,1997.273.