|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 10issue 11series Year mods:caption 20022002Month January1Day 3131mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-01-31
1 of 14 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 11January 31, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .Women in Managerial Positions in Greek Education: Evidence of Inequality Anastasia Athanassoula-Reppa Technical and Vocational Teacher Training Institute of Greece Manolis Koutouzis Hellenic Open University GreeceCitation: Athanassoula-Reppa, A. & Koutouzis, M. (2 002, January 31). Women in managerial positions in Greek education: Evidence of inequalit y. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (11). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n 11.html/.AbstractThis article deals with the under-representation of women in managerial positions in Greece. While substantial progress has been made in terms of the legal framework that ensures equal rights to both men and women in the country, evidence shows that there are barri ers that inhibit women from pursuing and taking such positions, resulting to covert discrimination. This occurs despite the dominance o f women in Greek education. We regard that kind of discrimination as a democratic deficit; it contradicts the notion of "democratic citizenshi p." Although we do not
2 of 14advocate a quota system, we stand for implementatio n of basic democratic principles, which could prevent such dis crimination. IntroductionThe dawn of the 21st century has brought once again the issue of citize nship to the front of socio-political arguments. The failure, within t he context of globalization, of both social-democratic "statism" and Thatcherite free-ma rket economies to resolve burning issues such as unemployment and social exclusion, h as led to the reconsideration of the "Civil Society" and the post-modern "Citizen" (Cohe n & Arato, 1992). Traditionally, citizenship has been considered to have two princip al dimensions: the civic, concerned primarily with the fundamental freedoms of speech, thought and religion, and the political, concernedwith participation in political developmen ts and the right to vote and be elected (Marshall, 1995, Tilly, 1995).However, the realization that crucial decisions abo ut the development of postmodern globalized societies are made without the actual pa rticipation of the citizens and that large sectors of these societies are excluded from fundamental social rights has sensitized citizens to the issues of participation and exclusion. Thus, another dimension has been added to the concept of "citizenship," nam ely, the social dimension. It includes fundamental social rights such as access to health, work, welfare and participation in decision-making mechanisms. These rights, when exce rsized on an equal basis by all members of the society, are now considered to be at the heart of democracy. Recent developments in Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa illus trate the reaction caused when parts of the (globalized) society feel deprived of the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. Arguably, access to the rights that constitute the social dimension of citizenship has not been gained simultaneously by both men and women; i ndeed, it has been considered a "male-privilege" for many societies. For many years liberal democracy had built the notion of "citizenship" using male stereotypes as a basis (James, 1996, Walby, 1994, Kavounidi, 1998). Issues such as occupational choic e and access to various professions, participation in decision-making positions at work or in other aspects of social life, promotion criteria, are traditionally not only dete rmined by personal preference and psychological motives, but also related to historic al, sociopolitical, ideological and cultural mechanisms. According to researchers, thes e mechanisms have been gender biased, at least to a certain extent. (Kassimati, 1 989, Eliou, 1993, Vassilou Papageorgiou, 1995, Kaltsogia-Tournavitou, 1997). I n other words, women have not had equal access to these rights. Undoubtedly, however, research and analysis of such phenomena of inequality and their origins pose subs tantial difficulties and certainly go beyond the scope of the research reported here.In this article, we focus on the observed under-rep resentation of women in decision making mechanisms of the Greek educational system, and more specifically in school management. We attempt to identify the reasons behi nd that phenomenon, which we consider a clear example of the limited development of the social dimension of citizenship in Greece. The data used for this research were pr ovided by the Greek Ministry of Education and have been analyzed by the authors.
3 of 14 Women in the Greek Labor MarketConsider the general picture of Greek labor market and the position of women in it. According to 1996 statistics, the workforce in Gree ce is about 4.3 million persons, of which 2.6 million are men (60%) and 1.6 million are women (40%). The percentage of women in high-ranking positions, however, does not match the above overall distribution. Only one of the political-parties has a woman as a leader (the Greek Communist Party), while only 5.6% of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and 16% of the Euro-MPs are women. Women in governmental posit ions have never exceeded 12%. Furthermore, although 36% of the people working in the media are women, only 10% are in managerial positions. To put it plainly, wom en are not proportionally represented in high-ranking, prestigious positions. According t o Damoulianou (1998), despite the fact that for more than 15years there are more wome n than men studying in the Greek Universities, this predominance of women in higher education is not reflected in the labor market, where inequality is observable in qua ntitative as well as qualitative terms. The above examples are just quantitative evidence t hat inequality persists in the Greek society and institutions, as in other Western Europ ean countries. According to Eurobarometer (1998), within the EU, t he level of female participation in positions of "high responsibility" is considerably low. The reasons according to the same source include following: Lack of time, due to family responsibilities; The working environment is male-dominated and does not "trust" women; Women are not "ready to fight" for their careers; Women do not always possess the necessary psycholog ical characteristics to cope with the pressures of such a male-dominated environ ment; Women are "not interested" in such positions. While the above are said to be typical of all the E U countries, they are definitely valid for Greece, as relevant studies have shown. In the following paragraphs, we hope to demonstrate that the profession of education eviden ces clearly the validity of the above argument. What is noteworthy is that the domain of education is not male dominated in Greece, as it is shown in the following paragraphs.Women in EducationIt has been suggested by numerous researchers and b y statistical data, that in most developed countries women are over-represented in p re-primary and primary education as well as in general secondary education as oppose d to technical and vocational secondary education. (Wilson, 1997). In Greece, the same pattern is evidenced as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Women in Greek Education (1997-1998) Number ofTeachers Number of Women Percentage of Women
4 of 14 TeachersTeachers Nursing Schools8,7858,60497.9Primary Education45,81425,57255.8General Secondary49,73329,22558.8Technical-VocationalSecondary 19,0698,08342.4 TOTAL123,40171,48457.9Source: Ministry of Education, Annual Statistics, 1 998Numerous research projects and authors have tried t o explain the phenomenon of high representation of women in the teaching profession (both in primary and secondary education), not only in Greece but in Western socie ties in general (Vassilou Papageorgiou, 1992, Bucher & Saran, 1995, Cowan & K outouzis, 1997, Dimitropoulos, 1997, Neave, 1998). We shall not repeat the argumen ts here. Briefly however, teaching (especially in primary and lower secondary educatio n) has been considered to be the continuation of childcare and child-rearing, which in turn has been associated with women in the above societies. Given these facts, ho wever, one would expect a strong representation of women in managerial positions in the Greek educational system.Women in Managerial PositionsThe Case of GreeceThere are four kinds of managerial positions in the Greek educational system: Heads of Schools, Heads of Regional Educational Office (Local Educational Authorities), School Advisors, andfinally Heads of Greek Educational Offices Abroad What has to be noted however, is that the responsibilities o f all the above are limited compared to related positions in other educational systems. The highly centralized nature of the system is mainly responsible for the limited author ity of the above positions. For all schools, the center has: defined the conten t of the national curriculum; recommended appropriate teaching methods; published textbooks; allocated funding; legislated for participation by various stakeholder s in schooling; determined student examinations and has taken full responsibility for the organization of schools, including all aspects of staffing (OECD, 2001 p. 79).Traditionally, within the highly centralized and bu reaucratized Greek educational system, Heads of Schools have been administrators e xpected to follow and implement decisions made at the central level, i.e., the Mini stry of Education. The same could be argued for the Heads of Regional Education Offices (HREOs). They are the "link" between central government and local schools, and t hey coordinate the schools in their area of responsibility. They are responsible for al locating staff to the schools of the region for which they are responsible. However, the Ministry of Education allocates the staff to the region. In essence they do not decide the number of teachers; they merely administer the decision made at the central level.School Advisors (SA) have a slightly different role They are experienced subject specialists, often holding post-graduate degrees, a nd they assist teachers by offering
5 of 14 advice and disseminating good practices. The area o f responsibility of each School Advisor depends on the number of teachers teaching the specific subject in each region. For instance there is only one Advisor for Art Educ ation for the whole of the country, but several for Mathematics (34) and Language & Lit erature (98). Their role is also centrally determined.Despite the limitations posed by the educational sy stem, all three positions enjoy a certain degree of prestige and status in Greek soci ety, with the HREO and the SAs placed higher in the "ranking." This can be explain ed by the crucial role of the schools in the early stages of the formation of Greek society, and also by the participation of HREO and SA in various Assessment and Selection Committe es. As discussed below, these positions, irrespective of their status in the soci ety, are key to the successful operation of the system and thus, important for the Ministry (an d the Minister) of Education. Perhaps the most prestigious, but definitely the mo st attractive and well-paid positions, are the Heads of Greek Educational Offices Abroad ( HGEOA). Their role is advisory, managerial, and controlling In essence, they represent the Greek Ministry of Education in their area of responsibility. Occasionally, HGEO A have to negotiate with authorities of the host country on issues of organization and a dministration of the Greek schools, while they also play an important role in the socia l life of the Greek Diaspora. We could argue, therefore, that their role is also political There are 26 such positions around the world: 13 in Western Europe and 13 in other contine nts (USA, Canada, Argentina, Egypt, South Africa, Ukraine, Turkey and 6 in Austr alia). HGEOA enjoy greater autonomy than their counterparts in Greece, as it i s difficult for the Ministry to interfere in everyday aspects of Greek education in these are as. Their selection, however, is centrally administered by the Ministry of Education According to Table 2, 41% of Primary Heads are wome n, although almost 56% of primary teachers are women. Table 2 Percentage of Women in School Management in Europea n Countries CountryPrimary EducationSecondary Education Teachers (%) Heads (%) Teachers (%) Heads (%) England andWales 81494926 France79645630Greece56415936Hungary85339730Ireland78465429Italy93466330Netherlands7613337
6 of 14 Norway74403922Spain74475020(Source: Wilson, 1997)What is interesting in the above table is that Gree ce stands among the countries with the highest representation of women in School Managemen t positions, indicating that the reasons for the observed under-representation are n ot country-specific. Rather they come as a result of the reasons stated above by the Euro barometer study. The relatively high percentage of women appointed a s Heads of schools in Greece does not in any case mean that equality has been achieve d, or that women have equal access to such positions. It just shows that the phenomeno n of under-representation of women in managerial positions is not unique to Greece.If we now turn to the more prestigious and, arguabl y, more influential positions of Heads of Regional Education Offices and School Counselors the phenomenon of inequality and under-representation is clearly demonstrated. A ccording to Tables 3 and 4, during the last selection process in 1998, only 11 women p rimary teachers out of 443 candidates expressed an interest in becoming Heads of Regional Office. In secondary education, the numbers were 13 out of 466. Table 3 Heads of Regional Education Offices (Primary Educat ion) TotalWomen% of Women Candidates433112.48Selected19963.01Source: Ministry of Education, Annual Statistics, 1 998Table 4 Heads of Regional Education Offices (Secondary Educ ation) TotalWomen% of Women Candidates466132.78Selected191136.81Source: Ministry of Education, Annual Statistics, 1 998What is interesting to note is that all 13 women se lected in secondary education were Greek language and literature teachers.Moving to the School Advisors (Table 5), we notice that in Primary Education there were only 72 out of 512 women candidates, and in Se condary Education 148 out of 625.
7 of 14 Table 5 School advisors in Greece CandidatesSelected TotalWomen%TotalWomen% Pre-Primary Education1041041004949100Primary Education5127214.13013210.6Special Education578141600Secondary Education62514823.72544718.5Total1,29833225.662012820.6Source: Ministry of Education, Annual Statistics, 1 998Finally, during the last selection process, for the position of Head of Greek Educational Offices Abroad, there were 199 candidates, 140 men and 59 women as we see in Table 6. Only 5 women were selected. Table 6 Heads of Greek Educational Offices Abroad TotalWomen% of Women Candidates1995929.6Selected26519.2 If we now compare the above figures with the percen tage of women teachers in Greece, we can easily reach the conclusion that female part icipation in managerial or other "crucial" positions in the Greek educational system is not as high as expected and does not reflect the composition of the teaching profess ion in the country. We see four interrelated reasons for this under-representation. There are three levels of overt or covert discrimination that result in the unequal re presentation of women in such high-status and highly responsible positions. Below we attempt to identify these levels of discrimination and the main reasons for them.Reasons for the low participation of women in manag erial positionsPersonalpsychological barriersResearch has shown that lack of interest on behalf of women in managerial or other highly responsibile positions can be explained by t he stress caused by role-conflict (Al Khalifa, 1992, Thompson, 1992). A woman teacher doe s not separate her working life from her "personal" life in the same way a man does Worrying that such a position and responsibility may absorb time dedicated to her fam ily, she is reluctant to apply for it. It is felt that having "two jobs" places a significant burden on womens shoulders no
8 of 14matter how helpful their partners are (Singleton, 1 993). In the Greek context, part of the responsibilities of some School Advisors is to travel and advise teachers from different areas, even prefectu res. If a woman takes on such a responsibility, given the family structures in Gree ce, she is definitely aware that such a decision would probably cause "disorder" within her family. Thus, she is intrinsically demotivated, and prefers to continue her career as an ordinary teacher. Research has shown that women feel more satisfied in the teachin g profession than men do, as they feel that there is no incompatibility between their personal and working life (Dimitropoulos, 1997).Psychological barriers are not expressed only in a lack of interest for managerial positions. It has also been argued that women feel they should also adopt "male behavior" in order to become accepted and appreciat ed in such positions (Shakeshaft, 1987). Such an argument, however, is not valid, as it has been heavily disputed by research evidence. According to Shakeshaft, (1987) and Robetrson, (1996), in schools headed by women academic achievement and morale is higher, there is less violence, and generally fewer discipline problems. Also, De L yon and Migniuolo (1989), confirming the above argument, suggest that it is w omens rather different approach to educational management that succeeds. Moreover, cur rent discussions about management and leadership in schools bring to the s urface the effectiveness of more democratic, flexible and participatory models of le adership (Koutouzis, 1999). Such models do not require the dominance of a male Headm aster but rather the skill to bring together views and opinions. "The very nature of ma nagement, dealing as it does with areas of uncertainty, negotiation and policy making draws on feminine qualities of intuition, aesthetic considerations, dependence on colleagues and so on" (Singleton, 1993, p.175). This is not to say that all women in relevant positions adopt such a leadership style. It indicates, however that the ma le stereotype is not the only way to efficiency and effectiveness.Institutional barriersBy the term "institutional barriers," we mean all b arriers related to the educational system, its structure and the way it is organized a nd managed. As mentioned above, all three positions are considered crucial in terms of political operation of the Greek educational system, given its highly centralized an d bureaucratized nature. We could argue, therefore, that authorities, irrespective of their political stand and ideology, seek to manipulate the crucial positions of the system b y defining the selection criteria and controlling the internal structure of the system. T he final aim is to be able to promote and realize educational policies determined at the center, i.e., the Ministry of Education. The fact that in every governmental change there is also an imposed change of persons in the abovementioned positions can only confirm the argument of political manipulation of the system and its key posts.Following the above argument it is safe to assert t hat such manipulation can be associated with gender issues. Let us be more speci fic. The selection criteria for all three key positions under discussion can be divided into two main categories: a) objective criteria, and b) subjective criteria.In the first category, all academic or other qualif ications, which can be proved by
9 of 14relevant degrees, certificates and the like are inc luded. Professional and other managerial experience is also included in it. In the second ca tegory, personal skills and qualities are included. Ability to lead and manage, general socia l activity, participation in local clubs are among the expected qualities, assessed b y the centrally appointed Selection Committee. The assessment of the Committe e is of utmost importance in cases where the qualifications presented are about equal.The composition of the Committee has always been ma le dominated. Given the persisting stereotypes in Greek society (see below) we would expect that in cases of equal qualifications, male candidates are preferred Socialcultural barriersIt is very crucial for our argument to appreciate t hat in Greece gender equality has been introduced into legislation fairly recently. The Co nstitution of 1975 established legal equality between men and women. According to it, me n and women in Greece enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in all aspects of social life (education, work, healthcare, etc.). However, it was only in 1983 that institutio nal and legal "barriers" were truly removed, establishing gender equality. For nearly a decade, these barriers, due to lack of subsequent relevant legislation, prohibited the rea lization of the constitutional right of equality (Kaltsogia-Tournavitou, 1997). "Jobs whils t not legally labeled 'for men' or 'for women' are still viewed by many people as just that "(Singleton, 1993, p.165). It would be safe to argue, therefore, that the proc ess of reaching gender equality in Greece started less than twenty years ago. The resu lts of the process and, more importantly, subsequent changes of attitudes and cu ltural norms, are not immediate; and evidence of inequality hidden rather than overt can be observed in many aspects of Greek social life even today. We observe in Greece, the phenomenon described elsewhere: substantial equality can not be achieved as long as "hidden" discrimination and preferences are reproduced. It is not enough to declared equality if you "do not feel very comfortable facing a woman in a authority posi tion" (Al Khalifa, 1992). In the area of educational management attitudes and perceptions, follow the patterns described above. "Somehow people assume that men po ssess the necessary qualities to do the job and this only changes when they demonstr ate otherwise, but with women, we have to prove over and over again that we can do th e job before our abilities are recognized" (Singleton, 1993, p.171) Quite simply educational management is considered a "male" job, not only by society in gen eral but also by teachers and even pupils. Research evidence confirms that pupils hold a preconception that effectiveness of the school is increased by having a male as Headtea cher, who tolerates less "mucking about" (Stanworth, 1984).Conclusion and ImplicationsDespite considerable progress made in various aspec ts of Greek political and social life in general, there is clear evidence of female under -representation in managerial positions of the Greek educational system. The reasons for th is are traced not solely to the socio-cultural barriers that persist in Greek socie ty. Personal as well as institutional barriers complete a picture of covert discriminatio n. The fact that the teaching profession is "dominated" by women has not resulted to equal r epresentation in positions of
10 of 14relatively higher status and responsibility. Such d iscrimination, as we stated in the beginning, is not just evidence of male-female ineq uality and unfair treatment. It goes far beyond that, and it is rather a clear sign of viola tion of democratic attitudes and practices in a democratic country. It demonstrates the exclus ion (overt or covered), of a significant part of the society from certain positions and the weakening of the social dimension of citizenship. The fact that the same phenomena are o bserved elsewhere in the western world does not weaken our argument. On the contrary it confirms the existence of a democratic deficit in the western world where large sectors of society are excluded from decision-making positions and mechanisms.In an era that calls for greater participation of a ll parts of society in social and political developments, in an era that has demonstrated that observed democratic deficits create tensions, the covert exclusion of majorities from d ecision-making mechanisms and positions is clearly not acceptable. While other au thors propose the use of quotas to improve the situation, we strongly advocate respect for fundamental democratic principles.ReferencesAl Khalifa, E. (1992). Management by halves: women teachers and school management. In Benett, N., Crawford, M. & Riches, C. (eds). (19 92). Managing Change in Education: Individual and Organizational Perspectiv es London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Andreou, A. & Papakonstantinou G., (1994), nr : n . r, Benett, N., Crawford, M. & Riches, C., (eds), (1992 ), Managing Change in Education: Individual and Organizational Perspectives London: Paul Chapman Publishing,. Bucher H. & Saran, R. (1995). Managing Teachers as Professionals in Schools. London: Kogan Page.Cohen, J.L. &Arato A. (1994). Civil Society and Political Theory Cambridge: MIT Press.Coleman, M., (1994). Women in Educational Managemen t. In Bush T. & West-Burnham J. (1994). Principles of Educational Management. London: Longman. Cowan B.J. & Koutouzis E. (1997). Mismanagement Amb iguity and Delusion: Training Primary Teachers in Greece Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 2 (2). Damoulianou, H., (1998) r r "r,22/2/1998. De Lyon, H. & Migniulo, F. (1989). Women Teachers .Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Dimitropoulos E., (1997), r rr&omi cron; r n n. :"#.
11 of 14Eurobarometer, May, 1998Eliou, $., (1993), % rr^ 2; r nr&r 'r. : (n. Gray, H.L. (1989). Gender considerations in school management: masculine and feminine leadership styles. In Riches, C. & Morgan, C. (eds). (1989). Human Resource Management in Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. James, S., (1996), "!n r !nr n!: ) rr# n n! r r ", ', 8. Kavounidi, T., (1998), "nr&r# n!r#, *r# n n! r +!n" (r n nr&r r# r nr&r# n!r#, :, r&. Kaltsogia Tournavitou, N., (1997) a 4; 'n ) r#& tau; & r& r & n #!n & r#r .&. : n!. Kassimati, K., (1989) % r!n % !n : (r#&al pha; $n;: %%. Kontogiannopoulou Polydorides G., Zambeta, E. (19 97). Women in Educational Management in Greece. In Wilson M., (ed). (1997). Women in Educational Management: A European Perspective London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Koutouzis, M., (1999), /r Management. (: %!!r# nr# ( rrn. Marshall, T.H., (1995), *r# n (n! r nr&r : Gutenberg,. Ministry Of Education (Greece), Annual Statistics, 1998. Neave G., (1998), n &omi cron;. a 2;r : 0+. OECD, (2001), What Works in Innovation in EducationNew School M anagement Approaches. Paris:OECD. Preedy, M., (ed) (1993), Managing the Effective School London: Open University Paul Chapman Publishing.Robertson, H.,L., (1995), ") !r & rra 4; r r rr & n +!&", n Hargreaves, A., Fullan, M., ( r.), (1995), ) a 4;. (, Shakeshaft, C.. (1987). Women in Educational Administration Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Shakeshaft, C.. (1993). Women in educational manage ment in the United States. In Ouston, J. (ed.). Women in Education Management Boston: Longman.
12 of 14 Singleton, C.. (1993). Women Deputy Headteachers in Educational Management. In Preedy, M., (ed) (1993). Managing the Effective School Open University, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Stanworth, M.. (1984). Gender and Schooling London: Hutchinson &Co. Thompson, M. (1992). Appraisal and Equal Opportunit ies. In Benett, N., Crawford, M. & Riches, C. (eds). (1992). Managing Change in Education: Individual and Organizational Perspectives London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Tilly, C. (1995). Citizenship, identity and social history. International Review of Social History, 40 Supplement 3. Vasilou Papageorgiou V., (1992), "% r +!n: ) r n +!n n rra 2; n& r# &nr .& rdquo; n . & & $., (1995) %!!r % : (nn r # ; r %nr& mu;n, rn, Walby, S. (1994). Is citizenship gendered? Sociology, 28 (2). Wilson M. (ed). (1997). Women in Educational Management: A European Perspec tive London: Paul Chapman Publishing.About the AuthorsAnastasia Athanssoula ReppaTechnical & Vocational Teacher Training Institute o f Greece Athens, GreeceAnastasia Athanssoula Reppaholds a Ph.D. from Pante ion University, Athens. She teaches Educational Management and Administration i n Technical and Vocational Teacher Training Institute of Greece. She has also been an adjunct lecturer at the University of Athens and a tutor at the Hellenic Op en University. She has published a number of books and papers related to educational M anagement and administration. Her latest area of interest is gender issues in educati onal administration. Manolis KoutouzisNational Center for Educational ResearchAthens, GreeceEmail: firstname.lastname@example.orgManolis Koutouzis holds a Masters and Ph.D. from th e University of Reading, England. He is a Research Associate at the Center for Educat ional Research, Athens and a Tutor at the Hellenic Open University. He has worked as a country expert for the OECD project (2001): "What Works in Innovation in Educat ion: New School Management Approaches". His areas of interest include educatio nal management, educational planning and policy-making.Copyright 2002 by the Education Policy Analysis Archives
13 of 14The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, email@example.com or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov email@example.com Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton firstname.lastname@example.org Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State UniversityStanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven email@example.com Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez
14 of 14 Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico firstname.lastname@example.org Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.email@example.com Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx firstname.lastname@example.org Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica email@example.com Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00259
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 11 (January 31, 2002).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c January 31, 2002
Women in managerial positions in Greek education : evidence of inequality / Anastasia Athanassoula-Reppa [and] Manolis Koutouzis.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)