{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03495321460911561, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010141865378810745, 'mean_word_length': 5.2938829787234045, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Globalisation and its Effects on Educational Leadership, Higher Education and Educational Policy

Almost twenty years ago, as the first author of this chapter was driving from Guadalajara, Mexico to Mexico City, he stopped outside a small Mexican town to stretch his legs at a scenic overlook on some backcountry highway that ran through the forested hills of Michoacan state. There he saw a man, a vendor, who happened to be wearing a playera, a t-shirt, bearing the logo of the author’s alma mater, The University of Michigan. Amazed and a bit homesick, he asked the man how he had come by the shirt, explaining in Spanish that he had gone to school there, hoping to make some small human connection. But the man was ignorant of the significance of what he was wearing, especially for our author. To him, it was simply a shirt. Much has changed in the past twenty years, though much remains the same. As through history, people still engage in commerce, among themselves and their kind, and between different peoples. However, the rapidity of transactions (e.g., ‘ecommerce’); the depth of penetration of non-indigenous goods, cultural artefacts, and life ways into far flung locales; and, indeed, the rate of change itself stand in stark contrast to the ways these goods and ideas were exchanged previously, and the contexts, conditions and meanings of those exchanges. In this chapter, we examine the effects of globalisation on higher education and educational leadership, and policy changes associated with these domains. By necessity, portions of our discussion will be more general, more global in nature – especially those portions having to do with large-scale trends and theoretical applications. Other portions of our discussion will be much more focused – when considering particular phenomena or institutions – and, hence, more local and specialised.

Other intercultural contact has been occasioned by mass migrations of people, either due to political or economic upheaval. Refugees, victims of various diasporas, and massive legal and illegal immigration force intercultural contact on the peoples of different regions who had not had to deal with it previously. Such large movements of people evoke official and non-official (i.e., reactionary) responses by governments and citizens, some hospitable and some less so. Macro ageing and birth trends have prompted previously closed societies to open themselves up to 'guest workers' (e.g., Japan, Saudi Arabia, the US, and various European countries). These global trends have consequences for the provision of public services, including education.
There are other complex phenomena that occur with globalisation. Hargreaves (1995) noted increased tribalism as an unintended consequence of globalisation. Others have noted how the global and the local interact, causing Beck (2000;as cited in Sugrue & Furlong, 2002, p. 191) to coin the term glocal to capture the interaction of the global with the local. Ultimately, all global phenomena are mediated locally. One could even say that global phenomena are mediated individually.

GLOBALISATION VS. AMERICANISATION
Multinational corporations contribute to globalisation. By definition, multinational corporations are not strictly American. There are several multinational corporations that originated in the US or that have their headquarters there; but state control of multinational corporations is problematic, given today's geopolitical/economic climate. Nation states today serve as ineffectual stewards of the corporations either begun within their borders or which have penetrated their markets.
Historically, business, religion, and the state were the three major controlling influences in peoples' lives and were responsible, to a large degree, for macro historical social trends. In the past (and seen over long periods of time), each of these social institutions served as a check on the power and influence of the others. Some historical epochs can be characterised by a relatively disproportional degree of power or influence of one or the other of these major social institutions. For example, the Enlightenment saw the decline of the power of the Catholic Church relative to the state (Sale, 1990). We contend that today, of the three, business is the most powerful, left relatively unchecked by the state or religion. ii Economic entrepreneurialism and the penetration of local markets and the cultural changes that these forces might occasion emanate from numerous, different countries and peoples. Inglehart and Baker (Austin American-Statesman, March 19, 2000, G8) claim, for example, that 'if any societies exemplify the cutting edge of cultural change it seems to be the Nordic cultures.' It must be acknowledged, though, that these different businesses, economic concerns and their initiatives leave different 'footprints' on the local country or market.

Economic, business, management and organisational trends.
The world is seldom rational. It is both rational and non-rational, too (Waite, 2002b). Macro trends usually trump micro-managerial initiatives and projects. In many cases, change at the local level is more often reactive than proactive.
The influence of business on education has been well documented (e.g., Callahan, 1962;Waite, Boone & McGhee, 2001;White, 2003). In primary and secondary schools especially, the overall global trend is of managerialism in schools, a relatively recent phenomenon captured by the term New Public Management (Dempster, Freakley & Parry, 2001;MacBeath, Moos & Riley, 1996, 1998Moos, 2000). New public management entails: a reduction in government's role in public service provision; the imposition of the strongest feasible framework of competition and accountability on public sector activity; explicit standards and measures of performance and clear definition of goals, targets or indicators of success, preferably in quantitative form; a greater emphasis on output controls-a stress on results, not processes; and a reduction in the self-regulating powers of the professions. (Dempster, Freakley & Parry, 2001, p. 2). For us, the issue is not whether new public management is a reality--for we readily accept that it is; the issue is how pervasive, how deep is its colonisation of the world of education, and, what further directions this might take. We are convinced that many social functions and their corresponding institutionseducation and schools, for example, or medicine and hospitals -are beset by what we term 'creeping managerialism.' Creeping managerialism reflects the manner in which a managerial mentality has, over time, permeated our social institutions, resulting in a domination of the managerial mindset over other possible ideologies or ways of operating (i.e., models of organisational operation). Creeping managerialism privileges decision making that is based on quantitative data, as though such decisions were value-neutral. (Schools in the US are encouraged to engage in 'data-driven decision making.') Such a model and those who apply it and/or are under its sway do not recognise it to be simply one episteme among many. Other models and modes of living/managing social institutions are outside the realm of consciousness, they are 'contained' (Popen, 2002). Sinclair (1995) reminds us that managerial accountability is one of five typesalong with political accountability, public accountability, professional accountability, and personal accountability. So the fact that managerial accountability is prevalent in education is unremarkable. What is remarkable is the degree to which managerialism has usurped the others. Managerialism, in this sense, has become hegemonic. Additionally, and as Dempster, Freakley and Parry (2001) acknowledge, educational organisations are increasingly prone to the forces of marketisation. Competition among schools is fast becoming the rule. This competition is exacerbated by publication of league tables or school test score data (Canaan, 2002;Gillborn & Youdell, 2000;Waite, Boone & McGhee, 2001). Provisions of the current Texas (USA) education code and the recently enacted federal legislation, "No Child Left Behind", permit students from so-called 'failing schools' to transfer to another school district, taking their federal funding with them.
Schools have begun to compete for these students and the federal dollars that follow them.
Education itself has continued a trend toward increased commodification, especially in higher education. Among other things, education has become more of a commodity -to be bought, sold, traded, and affected by other market forces. As an example, the US is pushing for higher education to be covered by the controversial General Agreement on Trade in Services, or GATS, treaties (CAUT-ACPPU, 2002). The US goal, according to Douglas Baker, deputy assistant secretary of the US Department of Commerce, is "'to create the conditions for international competition in education services with minimal government interference'". According to some critics of this proposal, trade in education, of the sort proposed, increases the already-strong influence of the private sector (as noted above) and removes such education from public accountability and absolves it of public responsibility. The commodification and marketisation of education, especially in higher education, may well result in its becoming simply another means of domination, especially by the USA -a part of what Lather (2003) terms 'academic capitalism,' and what we might refer to as academic imperialism.
These trends pose the question: If education is made a commodity and educational decisions are based on financial and market considerations, can schools under such conditions educate for higher purposes, for living a fulfilled life or for democratic purposes? The combination of the forces of maketisation, new public management, and commercialisation of education has severe ramifications for education worldwide. Government financial support for colleges and schools is being reduced. Political support for public schools, in the US at least, is being undermined. Services are evaporating. Budgetary constraints are forcing many schools to cut programs and services. The first of these to be cut are those deemed 'non-essential' -for example, programs in music and art, and even their extracurricular components. In Texas (USA), a plan was recently floated to delay purchase of social studies textbooks for public school students state-wide. Social studies texts were next in line for purchase in the state cycle, being now five years out of date. The delay was rationalised to save money during a severe state budgetary crisis as social studies is not tested through the state's accountability regime, and, therefore, the subject is deemed 'non-essential.' Pressure on higher education faculty to be more 'productive' is increasing, while, at the same time, resources are cut. For example, as a result of a recent program review at the first author's institution, the lead reviewer -the Dean of the College of Education of a highly-respected, US research university -declared that, as faculty could not expect the same level of support from higher education administrators and state legislatures, they ought to become more 'entrepreneurial.' This is in keeping with the thinking of Charles Handy (1994), who describes the future of work wherein one might use his/her office primarily as a home base, to collect mail, make telephone calls, and hold meetings. He describes organisations under current and future conditions as being donut-shaped, where the main work of an organisation is done by a core of workers and other work is done by contracted workers. Harvey (1989), likewise, describes such organisations, which he terms 'post-Fordist.' Such contracted workers are cheaper for the organisation, as they usually are not covered by benefits. However, in higher education, such contracted workers, sometimes referred to as adjuncts, do not assist with any faculty or organisational duties other than teaching. They do not assist with governance or student committee work, as examples, leaving the full-time core faculty to carry those burdens.
Even if faculty wanted to become more entrepreneurial, there are hidden dangers along that path. For all the rhetoric of flattened organisational structures in the management discourse, universities are too bureaucratic and too inflexible (Bergquist, 1993) to adequately support post-industrial, postmodern entrepreneurs. Besides, entrepreneurialism left unchecked is dangerous-to the organisational members and to the society as a whole. Schools in China were encouraged to be entrepreneurial, owing to scarce resource allotment from the central government, with the result being a recent explosion in a primary school in Jiangxi Province that killed about forty-five children (Waite & Allen, in press). The children were being forced by their teachers to assemble fireworks to earn extra money for the teachers, the school, and the local Communist Party. This horrendous example of educators' entrepreneurial spirit was cited by Waite and Allen (in press) as one among many instances and types of corruption in education, including higher education, which they uncovered worldwide. (Other cases of corruption will be taken up later in this chapter).
That higher education administrators expect faculty to become more entrepreneurial begs another question: Who assumes the risk and who should benefit from any successful efforts? Besides the dangers we have mentioned, there is evidence to suggest that free-wheeling entrepreneurialism will perpetuate social inequities -with the rich simply getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Better schools (i.e., high status schools and those in more well-to-do neighbourhoods) will do well, poorer schools will fare badly under such systems.
If, as present trends seem to indicate, the state further devolves responsibility for resource generation and appropriation for institutions of higher education (that is, if states continue to under-fund higher education, to shift the burden to the local level), then we may soon see a day where faculty, for example, are required to 'bring your own salary' (B. Beatty, personal communication, March 2, 2003). Economic pressures on higher education may fundamentally alter the day-to-day operations of such institutions, if not their fundamental mission.
The phenomena associated with new public management are already being felt in institutions of higher education. Faculty are more and more coming under regimes of accountability similar to those we have seen in primary and secondary education. In Texas, certain higher education faculty are considering adopting accountability measures linked to student results on end of course exams. In parts of Australia, faculty raises are calculated as an actuarial exercise by a contracted accounting firm based on the number of publications faculty have in a given year (P. Gronn, personal communication, September 16, 2002). A similar pressure is felt by academics in Denmark, where the faculties' contracts with the Ministry of Education state research production goals for the year. If the faculties under-perform, it affects their resource allocation; if they surpass their production goal, there are no additional monies. This situation is especially draconian in a country like Denmark, because most of the outlets for research are published in English, with US, Australian, British or Canadian norms for research publication and for what is judged to be of worth.
Entrepreneurialistic 'educrats' are pushing for more distance or distributed education, most often provided through the Internet. Some educational business concerns have already begun providing 'courses' and whole 'programs' on line.
Most universities have at least some offerings on line. These marketing efforts seek to penetrate previously untapped markets; for example, by allowing those who are place bound, isolated, lazy, or who simply appreciate the convenience of doing course work from home to partake in this type of distance education. However, these projects represent potentially disastrous social experiments. Such efforts are driven by monetary concerns and are pedagogically suspect. Also, use of these technologies in this way allows the potential for yet another ideological penetration into our human life ways. Technologically-mediated pedagogy (or andragogy) is unlike personal, face-to-face instruction. Time-honoured pedagogical models -such as the lecture, the Socratic method, demonstration, and apprenticeships -always provide the learner with instruction in much more than the mental, cognitive, or intellectual disciplinary domain. Cultural anthropologists (e.g., Varenne & McDermott, 1999) have contributed to our understanding of learning as a process that is, above all, a social phenomenon. Exclusive or excessive computer use has been recently shown to result in various negative social adaptations (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmar, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay & Scherlis, 1998).
A particularly troubling manifestation of marketisation in education was revealed to us by one of our informants, a high school teacher from San Antonio, Texas. Apparently, her school (and no doubt others as well) reworked its curricular offerings and courses of study for students, resulting in three diploma 'tracks' -a collegiate, a technological, and an entrepreneurship 'track.' The entrepreneurial 'track' consists of core courses plus specialisations in welding, cosmology, wood shop, and food production. Graduates of this 'track' are destined to fill low-level industrial, manufacturing and/or service jobs. This is hardly entrepreneurship as we understand it.
Though the signs of the times, the trends and rhetoric seem to indicate a move toward further marketisation, this movement is not totalising. There are other discourses abroad. For example, in the UK, where new public management is wellentrenched, Campbell, Gold and Lunt (in press) report that school leaders hold certain non-market values dear. According to these authors, these leaders' values spoke to the "wider educational, social and personal development of students, staff and local communities" and stressed "the need to develop 'empowering' and 'learning' relationships, combined with a commitment to social justice outcomes." These authors conclude, based upon their research, that: -While there have been concerns about shifts in education policy towards market forces and managerialism resulting in a values shift and possible conflict for school leaders in the UK . . . the school leaders interviewed for the present research remain committed to their personal, professional and educational values. A simple shift from 'welfarism' to 'new managerialism' was not evident.

CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER IN HIGHER EDUCATION
The underbelly of marketisation -operating according to business 'ethics'seldom receives attention, though it has perhaps always been with us. We speak of the phenomenon of corruption. In some ways, it would be fair to say that corrupt officials, whether educational administrators or other 'public' servants, are simply being entrepreneurial. Initial research into corruption and abuse of power in educational administration has been done by the lead author and colleagues (Waite, 2001;Waite & Allen, 2002; Waite & Allen, in press).
Corruption, broadly defined, seems to be inimical to educational administration, at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The cover story of a recent issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (2002) referred to corruption as a plague in higher education, though the report dealt mainly with corruption in institutions of higher education in developing countries (in Columbia, China, Georgia, and India). But corruption among educational administrators -in public and private, primary, secondary and tertiary-level institutions -is a global problem that not only affects so-called developing countries, but also those countries thought of as developed. Waite and colleagues have uncovered corruption in education in the US, the UK, Israel, Mexico, Albania, Latvia, Japan, Kenya, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, and Uganda, among others.
Basically, corruption can be defined as using one's professional position for private gain (Waite, 2001;Waite & Allen, 2002); though there are many more subtleties and nuances to the concept and practice of corruption than space permits for discussion here. Examples from education and educational administration include awarding academic positions (either for faculty or students) in exchange for bribes or other favours (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2002); the fraudulent obtaining of degrees for personal/professional advancement (Copans, 2001); plagiarism and/or falsification of research ( Austin American-Statesman, October 14, 2002); theft of institutional monies or goods; the theft of toe nails and finger nails from cadavers at a university medical centre for sale to research laboratories for experimental testing (Austin American-Statesman, February 28, 2003, B7); and the forced employment of school children to assemble fireworks for the financial gain of teachers, headmasters, and local Communist Party officials in China, discussed above.
Vicente Fox, the President of Mexico, said corruption is the 'evil of all evils' (Althaus, 2000, p. 2). A US Border Patrol agent, commenting on the corruption that is rampant on both sides of the US-Mexican border, notes how a corrupt official sucks the integrity out of an organisation (National Public Radio, September 12, 2002). Waite (2001) and Waite and Allen (2002, in press) have noticed a relation between bureaucratic organisational structures and corruption. Basically, modern bureaucratic structures are pyramidal, with more people on the 'bottom' and fewer on the 'top.' This characteristic of bureaucratic organisations lends itself to corruption, where, as in the case of the Mexican City police force (Althaus, 2000), graft -money, goods, and ill-gotten gains of all types -move upward in a multiplier effect. A little bribe, hardly worth mentioning, by many at the bottom can add up to millions of dollars to those at the top.
It is ironic that Max Weber (1946) understood the modern bureaucracy as doing away with privilege -at least privilege based on birth, title, class and caste, and patronage. The modern corrupt bureaucracy and the bureaucrats who use them to feather their nests are about nothing if not privilege.
Another way corrupt bureaucrats gain is through a process of siphoning off the resources budgeted to the organisation to fulfil its state or public function (Waite, 2001;Waite & Allen, 2002). This process can also be referred to as 'leakage.' It is understood among multinational aid organisations and in foreign aid circles that some siphoning off is likely to occur when large grants or loans are made to foreign governments and NGOs (non-governmental organisations).
It is also commonplace, at least in American universities that up to 50% of a federal grant awarded to any particular institution will go to 'overhead,' for operating and expenses. That is, up to 50% of a research grant gets siphoned off by the university administration for administrative costs and is unavailable for application to the research itself.
Another type of siphoning off is exorbitant CEO salaries (Tobias, 2003). What remains shocking, or at least remarkable, about business model application to education, is that CEO salary and perks in education are following the trend. Superintendents (i.e., school district CEOs) today can command salaries topping $400,000 in some cases. Among the private US university presidents, salaries are approaching $900,000 a year (Harris, 2003). Granted, average state university presidents' salaries are not as high (yet), though it is not uncommon for such administrators to earn upwards of $500,000 a year, plus perks.
These and other instances of what we call siphoning off are earmarks of a culture of corruption-understood as the way things are. Such corruption is aided by the pyramidal organisational structure of the modern bureaucratic institution, especially institutions of higher education.

DISCURSIVE DUALITIES
Policy is here understood to be the codification of discourses -ways of talking about, understanding, and perceiving the social world, in an attempt to impose structure upon it. Policy dictates how we organise ourselves, based upon our cultural understandings.
Everywhere we see discourses and counter-discourses. No one discourse is so monolithic, so total in its pre-eminence, that it is the only discourse in circulation at any one time, anywhere. We find dualities of discourse -or even what Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) referred to as dialogism, a type of polyvocality -shot through our social lives and institutions. How else can you explain why the dominant rhetoric of schools (in the US and elsewhere) has to do with democracy and local control, while accountability schemes centralise and tighten bureaucratic control over schools (Smyth, 1992;Waite, Boone & McGhee, 2001)?
We have written above that the world is both rational and non-rational. This applies to our organisations and social institutions too. Generally, we tend to operate as though our institutions and the policies that they both produce and are guided by are rational, objective, even value-neutral. But cultural anthropologists, symbolic interactionists, and social constructivists paint a different picture of organisations and their policies (Sutton & Levinson, 2001). New work on emotions in, for example, teaching (Hargreaves, 1998;Hargreaves, Beatty, Lasky, Schmidt & James-Wilson, S., in press) and educational leadership (Beatty, 2000) point out how schools and the people who populate them are fraught with seething emotions. iii Indeed, teachers and administrators engage in an inordinate amount of emotional labour while carrying out their tasks. The psychic toll exacted of administrators under strict accountability regimes is tremendous (Nelson, 2002). This psychic toll is more devastating for administrators concerned with social justice issues. That is, these administrators are torn between their institutional subordination to hegemonic testing regimes (and their control function) and the educational bureaucracies that perpetuate them, and their professional moral obligation to do what is in the best interests of their charges, children, when they daily witness the damage done to people-teachers and students-by out-of-control accountability/testing systems.
In addition to the work being done on the emotions in education and educational administration/leadership, exciting work is being done applying a psychoanalytic framework to teachers, teaching, and educational leadership (e.g., Britzman, 1999Britzman, , 2003McWilliam, 1999). The work on emotions in educational leadership and the research into its psychoanalytic dimensions, taken together with recent explorations into the spiritual aspects of educational leaders (Guare, 1995;Mayes & Mayes, 2002;Starratt, 1995), begins to round out our understanding of leaders and leadership. This literature serves as a counterbalance to the overly objectivist conceptions of leadership, policy making and implementation of policy, that have blinded us to the truly human, non-mechanistic and non-rational sides to our educational organisations and institutions.
But, despite the tremendous strides we have made as a field in filling in the outlines of educational policy and leadership, there is still work to be done. Waite (2002a) directs our attention to three critical new areas of educational leadership, especially research in that field: the reintegration of the human subject, the ethnographic understanding of educational leadership, and the democratisation of educational organisations. In response to global trends, other work needs to be undertaken with all due urgency. Perhaps the most pressing area of study is that of the role of ideology, especially religious ideology, on policy and educational leadership.
Ideology is parasitical upon policy, as culture is upon intercultural exchange. Recent examples worthy of note come out of the US and the 'faith-based' initiatives of the Bush administration. Afghanistan experienced the effects of one type of an extreme religious ideological policy shift when the Taliban ruled that country. In the US, the Bush administration has exhibited similar inclinations. The Attorney General of the US under the Bush administration, John Ashcroft, has instituted daily morning prayer meetings in his office. The US Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, recently was quoted as saying that "he favours schools that appreciate 'the values of the Christian community'" (Austin American-Statesman, April 10, 2003, p. A2). The Bush administration is seeking to implement the so-called Mexico City rule as a condition on foreign aid. Basically, the Mexico City rule denies foreign aid for family planning programs that conduct, condone, or even mention abortion as one of their services. Given the catastrophic explosion of AIDS/HIV in developing countries and the relation between family planning, abortion, birth control and sex education, this religious-ideological criterion is noteworthy. Additionally, the Bush administration has been criticised for using ideology as a litmus test for federal appointments (Zitner, 2002).
From textbook adoption, to use of vouchers (i.e., chits permitting use of public funds to pay tuition at private, sometimes private religious, schools), to stacking boards of education -both local and state level -with ideologues, ideology infiltrates and influences education. In the heartland of the US, efforts with varying levels of success have been waged to require teachers in public schools to teach what is called creationism, alongside more conventional, accepted theories of evolution, especially in biology classes. (Creationism is a 'theory' based on the belief that a Christian god created the world, explaining such a creation in scientistic terms, through application of an adaptive timeline and other 'facts' of biology, geology, cosmology, etcetera, to support the 'theory'.) There exists a type of discursive duality, a tension, between the various models we might use to organise ourselves, especially for education. These models are seldom pure types, and are always influenced by other macro forces. Two models at play today are those of 1) the bureaucratic model (mentioned above), and 2) a community model (e.g., Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). Others have written of learning communities and, again from the business domain, learning organisations (Senge, 1990). The bureaucratic model has been much maligned of late (e.g., Clark & Meloy, 1989), but has proven itself to be nearly impervious to change. Clark and Meloy note how bureaucracies and their mores are barriers to educational reform. In his classic treatise on the topic, Max Weber (1946, p. 228) noted how: "Once it is fully established, bureaucracy is among the social structures which are the hardest to destroy". He continued, "bureaucracy has been and is a power instrument of the first order-for the one who controls the bureaucratic apparatus".
There are other types of social organisation, and some hybrids of types. Giddens (1991) cites the Boy Scouts, Alcoholic Anonymous, and high-tech work teams as alternate types. Hargreaves (1994) refers to a more post-modern type of organisation as a 'moving mosaic'. A recent social organisation type has arisen through advances in telecommunications (especially cell phones with text messaging) and the Internet. One social observer refers to groups organised for social action through these technologies for social action as 'smart mobs' (Rheingold, as cited in Taylor, 2003). Smart mobs have demonstrated their power and potential in helping to bring down the former Philippine President Joseph Estrada in 2001 through rapidly-organised massive demonstrations and in recent global anti-war demonstrations. Terrorist sleeper cells represent another type of organisational model -highly decentralised and independent.

CONCLUSION
Social life has become more complex of late, and that particular trend shows no signs of subsiding. Schools, education and educational policy function in an interdependent relation with these larger social trends -both influencing, and being influenced by them, in turn. We might remain pessimistic and cynical when, as social observers, it seems to us that a business/commercial/utilitarian ideology has gained pre-eminence globally. But, such matters are never settled, once and for all. We take heart in the numerous alternatives emerging to strictly technicist/commercial educational missions, goals and methods of organisation. These alternatives are always in play. We need only gravitate to them, seek them out, and nurture them to help foster more humane social institutions, including education.