Kostas Kokogiannis<\/p>\n
(Doctor of Sociology of Education<\/em>\u00a0 (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki \u2013 Greece<\/em>)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n FINAL PAPER<\/em><\/p>\n for<\/em><\/p>\n ESREA Life History and Biography Network: 2006 Conference<\/p>\n TRANSITIONAL SPACES, TRANSITIONAL PROCESSES and RESEARCH<\/p>\n Volos, Greece, 2-5 March 2006<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n THEME<\/u><\/em>:<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cRe-negotiating the aims of the hierarchically structured education: transformable power and pedagogic identity\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n SUB-UNITS<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Abstract<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Indeed, in our days, the administrative organization of education unfortunately imposes the operation of an \"advantageous observatory\" through which we can finally gaze one<\/em> and unique meaning<\/em> of the educational phenomena: more particularly, the educational phenomena function as a \u201cwell-orderly factory\u201d of foreseeable and consequently controllable situations. This \"well-orderly factory\u201d, that is strengthened by the discourse of homogeneity<\/em>, supports itself onto the two basic structural elements of educational system: a) the center of control <\/em>(everything is being regulated and formed by the ministry of education, as it happens mainly in Greece) and b) the aims of the educational organization<\/em>, which are supported by a central system of values that is found in the top of educational system (and, consequently, everything else inside the system should be considered as a specialization and application of these values).<\/p>\n Besides, the lower position of the educator within the hierarchical scale and the control (legislative, bureaucratic\u2026) that is exerted upon him led to the perception that the educator isn\u2019t less than an executive body<\/em> (particularly in Greece) - a perception that affected and affects upon his \u201cself-image\u201d and social prestige negatively.<\/p>\n Moreover, the administrative norms (despite they reproductively reflect the government owned power) simultaneously create a complex mesh of practices<\/em> that assist the production of new forms of power within the pedagogic relations. According to the Foucault, the disciplinary coercions \u201chave their own particular discourse and create same systems of knowledge and various cognitive fields<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n Therefore, the fact that the power within the transitional educational space is today exerted via, on the one hand, the legal frame of the educational politics and, on the other hand, the techniques of discipline (\"standard'\" codes of behavior that produce and reproduce power in the context of educational administrative model), as well as the fact that the fermentations of \u201cstandardization\u201d increasingly dominate on the legal processes, finally interpret the lack of initiative and creativity of all that they work and live in the school, explain the emaciation of the right to be different, justify the annihilation of each \u201cself-administrative experience\u201d through the free experimentation. The pedagogic identity of educator is permanently found in a conflicting process\u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n THE SCHOOL AS MECHANISM OF THE GOVERNMENT OWNED POWER<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trying to clarify the role of the state as economic entity<\/em> we would finally stress out that his being first work (and objective) is to legalize, to ensure, to promote and to maintain the conditions or relations of production, which allow, maintain and ensure the accumulation of capital (Harris, 2002<\/em>). Certainly, the fact that the state always attains to be presented as a \"total of neutral institutions\" that serves the common interest is indeed remarkable. (Holloway<\/em>, <\/em>Picciotto<\/em>, 1978<\/em>). According to Jessop (1978: 45<\/em>), the more effective method for a state to be presented in this way is: \u201cthe use of democratic and collective elements within a program that encourages the government owned intervention for the benefit of the accumulation of the capital\u201d. Then, the \u201clogic\u201d, and the administrative model of the capital are also conveyed into the school <\/em>(one of the \"neutral\" institutions for the sake of the common interest), as long as we simultaneously encounter the state to be presented as the basic protagonist at all the cases of mapping out the educational policy (Dale,<\/em> 1992<\/em>).<\/p>\n At the same time, this conveyance of the \u201clogic\u201d of the capital is more effectively attained via the form\u00a0 <\/em>(organizational and administrative frame) of the school program than only via the content of the provided knowledge (Apple, 1993<\/em>). More specifically, the control of behavior, the resolution of conflicts and the repression that is frequently appeared in the schools are being developed due to the sovereign processes of school program and less than it seems due to the content of knowledge which is transmitted by the school (1993: 59<\/em>). The education, in other words, constitutes a government owned mechanism for the distribution of sovereign ideology and the \u201cproduction\u201d of persons who have the suitable knowledge and values in order to serve the needs of the running model of production (\u0395<\/em>rben and Cleesen, 1977<\/em>). At the same time, however, the schools help in the legalization of the new knowledge and the new values and also contribute to the configuration of the ideology of new arising classes (Williams, 1977<\/em>). In any case, the issue is that \u201ceach aspect of education is closely tied up both to the economical and the cultural side of its character. The schools produce workforce and legalize knowledge, but they simultaneously produce knowledge and legalize the faculties which come on the students\u201d (Apple, 1993: 71<\/em>). We understand, therefore, that the state (whose mechanism is the education) presents itself as the most important factor of understanding the role of schools.<\/p>\n However, on the other hand, we owe to pose some certain pointings out, which are necessary in order to comprehend the relation between the state and the educational policy. According to the recent sociology of policy, we will be in error if we consider that the social policy and practice are operations with unique direction from the top to the base. \u00a0More specifically, the educational practice does not incorporate and simply follows the goals and directions of the policy that political and executive sector of the state \u201cdictates\u201d. As long as the nature of policy contains the conflict, that is an essential element (Bowe and<\/em> Ball, 1992<\/em>), the\u00a0 policy\u00a0 is always expressed\u00a0 like a\u00a0 text\u00a0 which\u00a0 is\u00a0 available to an\u00a0 abundance of\u00a0 readers (and also multiple readings) and\u00a0 consequently\u00a0 to\u00a0 an\u00a0 abundance of\u00a0 practices (Codd, 1988<\/em>). Since the educational practice cannot be exclusively comprehended as linear consequence of power<\/em> which is being imposed by the political and executive sector of the state we should finally wonder weather an abstractive approach of government owned power (which commences from the center and is extended to the educational base) could convincingly interpret all the multiple phenomena, techniques and processes of the power that emerge from the educational practices. To this point, I consider that the contribution of Foucault is important.<\/p>\n More particularly, Foucault (2002: 46<\/em>) emphaticly stressed out that the power shouldn\u2019t be considered as massive and homogeneous phenomenon of imposition. It isn\u2019t something that others possess and also distribute at exclusivity and others do not possess but undergo. It is analyzed as something that circulates <\/em>and functions <\/em>on an assembly line. It\u2019s practiced in the network and the individuals do not simply circulate within it, but they permanently go through the power and at the same time they exercise the power over others. Consequently, if we consider the bureaucratic organization of education as a compact and complex network we will easily understand that the multifarious nuances of power relations which are developed within the school practice can be interpreted by means of the dynamics of the bureaucratic model itself and not by means of the government owned power (from above and from a distance). Michael Pusey (1976<\/em>) analyzing the educational system from the viewpoint of sociology of organizations observed that the bureaucratic organizations (the educational organizations are also included) tend to be self-strengthened, to stand up to the changes and to demur at their own objectives.<\/p>\n It\u2019s worth mentioning that the power which derives from the administrative organization of the education couldn\u2019t be understood if it wasn\u2019t included in the context of the government owned administration. Moreover, we should point out that the government owned power undertook and also imposed the organized education establishing the public school<\/em> (\u201cmass education\u201d), in the context of the\u00a0 \u201cindustrialized\u201d society with new needs of job market and a continuous \u201cdemocratization\u201d of the societies (Kokogiannis,<\/em> 2005<\/em>). Besides, we should not forget that the legal regulations that determine the structure and operation of the education as organism result from the political decisions of each government owned power and, on this account, school is an important political institution, although we know that school dosen\u2019t finally practice policy according to the narrow meaning of the term (Kostantinou,<\/em> 1994: 19<\/em>). The school, therefore, is a mechanism of reproduction of the government owned power, not however by virtue of the over-simplified and one-dimensional explanatory terms. The school is not simply a surface of linear reflection of each government owned power, but it is also a bureaucratic (\"rational\") organism that is self-strengthened via the production of power.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n THE SCHOOL AS MECHANISM OF TRANSFORMABLE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>The school as government owned organism has certain concrete attributes through which the school reality is portrayed: determined goals<\/em>, determined role <\/em>of the members of the organism, control <\/em>for the concretization of the objectives of the organism, conflicts <\/em>resulted from the diversity of the opinions of the members (Konstantinou, 1994: 18-19<\/em>). As long as the school is responsible for the processes of education and learning is also characterized as \"pedagogic\" organism. The characterization \"pedagogic\" is typical of\u2019 course if we think about that the school [as integral part of the government owned administration with intensely bureaucratic characteristics as: specialized and selected personnel on the strength of specific qualifications, the hierarchical and centralized system of power, the uniformity (Banks, 1987:327<\/em>) and, moreover (especially in Greece) the projection of a neutral objectivity (Pan-hellenic Examinations) and the establishment of one linguistic code (Anthogalidou, 1979<\/em>)] stops each trace of initiative emanating from under and impedes the growth of the feeling of responsibility (Gotovos, 1985<\/em>). Indeed, the impetus of the administrative organization is so strong that N. Poylantza's (19842: 323<\/em>) considers that the center of weight of the modern states has been shifted from the legislative power to the executive and at extension to the administration. \u00a0The laws that are voted by the Parliament are usually laws \u2013 frames which aren\u2019t brought into force till afterwards the relative decrees, decisions and encyclicals have been set forth by the administration (19842<\/sup>: 314-315<\/em>).<\/p>\n We, therefore, confront a \u201ctechnocratic administrationism\u201d in the education and depending on the predominance of the \u201ctechnocrats\u201d or \u201cbureaucrats\u201d within the government owned mechanism and the resistance of teachers (Dale, 1982<\/em>) we usually pay regard to the technical or bureaucratic control of educators respectively, whereas the aims, the content, the method, the evaluation and the planning of\u00a0 teaching seem to be an exclusive work\u00a0 of the \u201cspecialists\u201d as concerns the conception,\u00a0 in contrast with educators who finally\u00a0 apply and simply carry out\u00a0 whatever has been programmed\u00a0 by the others (Maurogiorgos,<\/em> 1985<\/em>). At the same time, in the context of the \u201cbureaucratization\u201d of education, the imposition of \u201crationalization that the government owned superior knows what it is equitable and desirable for all those who are inferior in the hierarchy to think and to do\u201d (Gotovos\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 e.l 1983<\/em>) results in that all educators who don\u2019t conformed to the administrative norms aren\u2019t only amenable to the law but also to their hierarchically administrative superiors. Certainly, the legal and functional power of the encyclical contributes to the above pointing out by far, as long as the encyclical also involves the administrative mechanism in the process of conformity (1983: 51<\/em>).<\/p>\n The process, consequently, of conformity to the education is encouraged by this rationally administrative planning, which is immediately influenced by a type of \u201cscientism\u201d or \u201ctechnicism\u201d.\u00a0 Initially, the scientism (namely, all the things are being considered as appropriate objects for empiric and systematic research) led to the optimistic idea that planning e.g. of curriculum can become science or that the effectiveness of school is unbreakably connected with the performances of the students. (Standish,<\/em> 2002<\/em>) \u2013 provided that, of course, the regular conformity of the educator is controllably ensured on the strength of the pre-mentioned administrative model. Respectively, the \u201ctechnicism\u201d \u2013 namely, the common acknowledgement that all the hindrances that concern the acquisition of dexterities, qualifications, as well as the attainment of learning, can be overtaken by means of a technical solution (2002:.64)\u00a0 \u2013 reveals at the same time the disadvantage of the educational aims that are appeared from outside and above: the restriction of the \u201cemancipatory\u201d activity of the students, in other words an activity that education owes to incorporate in its body (Dewey, 1916: 108<\/em>).<\/p>\n According to above, it\u2019s time for bringing forward a crucial query: how much the educational aims, that are strictly structured on an abstract rational base and respond to the technocratic administrationism of the school, have finally meaning as to the process of education for the life and also the growth of personal character of the student by virtue of the interests of concrete practices and the effectuation of this proceeding.<\/p>\n I think Hirst (2002: 200-202<\/em>) gives a satisfactory answer to the above question who emphaticly condemns each knowledge (as well as its dominating imposition as equitable via concrete rational aims) that is exclusively conceived by intellectual abstraction. In this case, the knowledge is rendered limited in the field of the application and importance in parallel with a decrease in its value as concerns the determination of complicated decisions, and the enormous sectors of human experience. The understanding of the educational aims and the consequent accomplishment of choices on generalized rational bases concern in effect the quest of universal proposed truths, abstractly and in advance. However, we shouldn\u2019t forget that the concepts, the proposals, the rules and the principles that we structure, have simultaneously thymic <\/em>and volitive <\/em>meaning -\u00a0 beyond\u00a0 cognitive<\/em> (2002: 204-205<\/em>).<\/p>\n The multi-dimensional, therefore, meaning of the above principles and rules (as this meaning is being expressed by means of the educational aims) does not seem to be applied on the grounds of the current technocratic administrationism of the school that is finally characterized by the following features: the imposition of the predetermined hierarchy and the delimitation of the instructive matter, the imposition of one and exclusive textbook (as it happens mainly in Greece) and the imposition of one kind of examinations which don\u2019t function as a means of diagnosis but as a means of classification and selection of the students. (Iliou, 1982<\/em>). In this, consequently, legal-normative frame the educators, on the other hand, as government owned employees, are being subject to explicit engagements in respect of their pedagogic role. It\u2019s worth mentioning that the educators usually tend to \u201cideologize\u201d their engagements by far, so they construct a clerical bureaucratic conscience in which the ideology of neutrality and objectivity, as well as the ideology of duty and faith in specified roles register (\u0391<\/em>nthogalidou, 1990: 66<\/em>).<\/p>\n According to this case of \u201cbureaucratization\u201d of consciences and roles, the pointings out of\u00a0 Foucault (vitally well-aimed and penetratingly precise, I would complement)\u00a0 contribute by far to the understanding of the phenomenon. In particular, Foucault refers to a mesh of power relations and more specifically to the disciplinary coercions (as it\u2019s said: mechanics of discipline<\/em>) which are expressed by virtue of the administrative model\u00a0 \u2013\u00a0 attempting to convey the latter thesis into our own subject of negotiation, over and above he juxtaposes the disciplinary technique <\/em>to the\u00a0 right of sovereignty<\/em>, as it is expressed by virtue of the legal-normative frame \u2013 that we previously stressed out.\u00a0 According to Foucault (2002:57<\/em>) we do not have, on the one hand, \u201cthe wordy and explicit legal system of sovereignty and on the other hand\u00a0 certain wordless disciplinary coercions, that work underground, covertly and recommend the tacit background of the major mechanics of power<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 the disciplinary coercions \u201chave their own particular discourse and create same systems of knowledge and various cognitive fields<\/em>\u201d. Therefore, the fact that the power within the transitional educational space is today exerted via, on the one hand, the legal frame of the educational politics and, on the other hand, the techniques of discipline (\"standard'\" codes of behavior that produce and reproduce power in the context of educational administrative model), as well as the fact that the fermentations of \u201cstandardization\u201d increasingly dominate on the legal processes, finally interpret the lack of initiative and creativity of all that they work and live in the school, explain the emaciation of the right to be different, justify the annihilation of each \u201cself-administrative experience\u201d through the free experimentation (Bergidis, 1983<\/em>). The fermentations of \u201cstandardization\u201d, moreover, interpret the mechanisms that \u201carmour\u201d the administrative, instructive and ideological legacy via its own reproduction (Gotovos, Maurogiorgos 1986<\/em>), as well as the present objective of disciplinary power<\/em> to \u201cconstruct\u201d convenient and obedient individuals to its exertion. Apart from that, \u00a0the pointings out of\u00a0 Foucault (1991: <\/em>\u00a0177-178<\/em>) that, on the one hand, the envisagement of the disciplinary society is \u201cthe automation of individuation<\/em>\u201d and, on the other hand, the particular envisagement is being attained \u201cwhen the individual<\/em> internalizes all the submissive techniques of the power (which\u00a0 renders the exterior coercions inoperative and leads the individual to produce his required obedience and conformity in his own right\u201d)<\/em> are,\u00a0 I think,\u00a0 masterfully\u00a0 adaptable\u00a0 and\u00a0 functionally\u00a0 exploitable\u00a0 to our own\u00a0\u00a0 subject of\u00a0 negotiation, \u00a0if\u00a0 we at the same time include in the latter comment two\u00a0 important\u00a0 disciplinary\u00a0 means of\u00a0 imposition\u00a0 in the\u00a0 frameworks of\u00a0\u00a0 the educational\u00a0 administrative\u00a0 model:\u00a0 a)\u00a0 the hierarchical\u00a0 surveillance\u00a0 and\u00a0 b)\u00a0 the\u00a0 imposition\u00a0\u00a0 of a norm\u00a0 which\u00a0 differentiates both educators and students by virtue of the binary opposites of\u00a0 good\u00a0 <\/em>and evil<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE MODEL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PEDAGOGIC IDENTITY<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Initially, the specific administrative model and the pre-mentioned disciplinary means of imposition encourage by far the \u201cbisected view\u201d of all those who participate in the educational act. This kind of view allocates the participants into two general, completely distinct, categories: \u201c those that do also those that are done, those that mold also those that are molded, the schoolteachers and the students, the educators and the educated, the instructors and the guided<\/em>\u201d (Bauman, 2002:242<\/em>). Automatically, a mesh of power relations is evolved that causes a result of sovereignty (Foucault, 1987: 128-129<\/em>) within the pyramidal administrative frame of the subsuming relations of interdependence. Certainly, with regard to this point, we have to stress out that the power is not discipline, \u201cis<\/em> mainly a likely way of energy of power<\/em>\u201d and further more \u201cthere are assenting disciplines<\/em>\u201d as it happens in the pedagogic relation (the relation of teaching) many times, that is to say the transition from someone who knows more to someone who knows less (1987: 130<\/em>). The query that results, however, in the particular case is whether the administrative model of education (that we examine and that it uses the discipline as basic way of energy of power) imposes a pre-decided model of consent<\/em>, in brief, whether this model\u00a0 facilitates\u00a0 teachers\u00a0 and\u00a0 students to wonder about the contingent proportion of\u00a0 not-consent\u00a0 that\u00a0 is included\u00a0 in\u00a0 their\u00a0 relations and, more specifically, to wonder how much this degree of not-consent is\u00a0 necessary.<\/p>\n The current, therefore, administrative organization of the education unfortunately imposes a pre-decided consent, a consent that only a \u201cturned into implement\u201d informative discourse can anticipate in the frameworks of the educational politics (done by virtue of this discourse). As Mills mentions (1997: 183-185<\/em>), the extreme \u201cturned into implement\u201d use of language (as well as the latter is being strengthened in the context of the \u201cstandardized\u201d administrative organization of education) downgrades its holistic and proportional dimension\u00a0 \u2013 namely, its contextual character. The issue is that due to this kind of character language is being interlinked with the culture, the memory, the unsaid feeling, with whatever promotes its transition from a shrunken system of points (broken away from the polymorph of human experience) into a language of \u201cwords and things\u201d.\u00a0 The language, however, that is being evolved in the frameworks of a homogeneous bureaucratic educational model functions as apologetic discourse of homogeneity, as well as its notional dimension is being overemphasized and its interdrastic-communicative dimension is simultaneously downgraded (Xristidis, 1999:155<\/em>).<\/p>\n In other words, the administrative organization of education unfortunately imposes the operation of an \"advantageous observatory\" through which we can finally gaze one<\/em> and unique meaning<\/em> of the educational phenomena: more particularly, the educational phenomena function as a \u201cwell-orderly factory\u201d of foreseeable and consequently controllable situations. This \"well-orderly factory\u201d, that is strengthened by the discourse of homogeneity<\/em>, supports itself onto the two basic structural elements of educational system: a) the center of control <\/em>(everything is being regulated and formed by the ministry of education, as it happens mainly in Greece) and b) the aims of the educational organization<\/em>, which are supported by a central system of values that is found in the top of educational system (and, consequently, everything else inside the system should be considered as a specialization and application of these values) (Bauman, <\/em>2002). Consequently, each effort of \u201cself-administrative\u201d experience and \u201copen\u201d subjectivity will be progressively absorbed by the system, as such effort simultaneously\u00a0\u00a0 functions as alibi of an oppressive society that\u00a0 wants to seem\u00a0 pluralist and also of\u00a0 a\u00a0 power\u00a0 that\u00a0 it seeks\u00a0 a\u00a0 human\u00a0 person. Besides, the lower position of the educator within the hierarchical scale and the control (legislative, bureaucratic\u2026) that is exerted upon him led to the perception that the educator isn\u2019t less than an executive body<\/em> (particularly in Greece) - a perception that affected and affects upon his \u201cself-image\u201d and social prestige negatively (Athanasiou, 1990<\/em>).<\/p>\n More specifically, the crucial query concerning the role of an educator is whether his pedagogic reciprocation <\/em>(by means of the self-perception about his pedagogic role) is being undermined by the claims of the administration. Many times, the opposition between the social expectations and the self-expectations that the educator has about his pedagogic agency\u00a0 <\/em>(due to the administrative specifications and claims that he comes up against) inevitably composes a perpetual conflicting situation (Pyrgiotakis, Xochelis, 1986<\/em>). In other words, the educator, as \u201ccivil servant\u201d simultaneously owes to teach<\/em>, to educate<\/em>, to evaluate<\/em>, to justify<\/em>, to consult <\/em>according to the government owned specifications (legal, administrative) that the educational power anticipates or imposes. This brings about the variance of the pedagogic agency<\/em> and the construction of a faddish pedagogic identity<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion:<\/em><\/p>\n Finally, the current administrative organization of the education imposes the canalization of such learning that does not escape from concrete cultural constants<\/em> and cultural models<\/em>. It\u2019s incumbent upon, in this way, the continuous improvement of <\/em>\u00a0\u00a0an objective in advance<\/em>, an improvement that is comprehended only as a linear course<\/em> to a \u201cbetter\u201d objective, according to the anticipated cultural constants and models.\u00a0 Moreover, the specific linear course, in a \u201ccycloteric\u201d way, refers to an improvement of the current administrative rules<\/em> and furthermore to an improvement of such knowledge<\/em> of the educators that on no account trample over the reproduction of the administrative model of power. Certainly, the issue is that the administrative<\/em> norms<\/em> (despite they reproductively reflect the government owned power) simultaneously create a complex mesh of practices<\/em> that assist the production of new forms of power within the pedagogic relations. According to the Foucault, the disciplinary coercions \u201chave their own particular discourse and create same systems of knowledge and various cognitive fields<\/em>\u201d. In parallel, it\u2019s worth mentioning that the administrative organization of the education serves and brings on the dissolution of any pattern of co-decision <\/em>between the schoolteachers and the students, undermining accordingly the autonomy of all those involved in the educational process and disembroiling completely the objectives of the education from\u00a0 the\u00a0 means\u00a0 that none other than education uses. Finally, we couldn\u2019t miss out that the capability of the educator to construct his pedagogic agency<\/em> and identity<\/em> and consequently to harmonize <\/em>the social expectations (that have economic, administrative, political and cultural character) depends on the construction of his personal <\/em>and social identity<\/em> and more widely of his socialization, which acquires meaning via the interpretation (key-word) of none other than the educator as concerns his role.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n REFERENCES <\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n ATHANASIOU, L. (1990). The evaluation of the educator in the school. <\/em>Scientific Yearbook of the University of\u00a0 Ioannina\u00a0 (Teachers Training College). p. 9-61.<\/p>\n\n