作为美国历史上最有影响力教育组织之一的全国教育协会在1880至1920年间经历了组织制度上的巨大变革，形成以代表大会制为形式的初级科层制。此次变革奠定了协会作为美国“公共教育领航者”地位的结构基础，同时在美国建立了一套从全国到地方的教师协会管理系统，在美国教育发展史上意义重大。但由于史料等客观因素限制，此前国内研究依然薄弱，本文依据协会会议记录、书信、传记、实时报刊等一手史料，基于国内外的已有研究，梳理全国教育协会此间变革始末，追问协会中不同教育群体围绕管理权的斗争博弈如何影响其组织制度变革，并以此为基点探究协会在美国教育场域中的角色历程。 论文总体按时间线索展开，辅以视角转换。诞生于公共学校运动洪流之下的全国教育协会在19世纪80年代逐渐成为汇聚各类教育人士的焦点平台，学术型教育精英、地方教育管理者、一线任课教师竞相登场，持不同理念的他们对协会有着不同的设计蓝图。学术型精英以全国教育委员会为阵地试图将协会打造为学术权威领导的集会，进而引导美国教育的发展；地方教育管理者坚信管理革命理念，推进科层化体制的实施；任课教师群体则希冀通过维护正式成员大会制来提高话语权。三方势力合作、对峙、抗衡，复杂交错的矛盾为协会民主化进程提供了动力，促使协会组织制度不断演变，并最终以1920年代表大会制的确立为落幕。 协会组织制度变革的背后是教育群体的权力更迭，四十年间，学术型精英的垄断地位被打破，任课教师从“无声”开始“呐喊”，管理型专家最终获取协会领导权，并通过逐步完善官僚制巩固其在协会中的主导地位。相对于教育管理者的主导地位，教师群体在协会中依然处于弱势，但管理者在利益上的适当让渡和策略的迂回委婉让协会避免分裂得以保持完整，并以各教育群体利益共同体的身份屹立于美国教育界，贯彻其对“美国教育领航者”角色的追求。

NEA experienced tremendous changes in organizational systems from 1880 to 1920, forming a junior bureaucracy based on the representative assembly system. This change laid the basic operating model of the association and established a set of teacher association systems from the national to the local, with wide-ranging influence and far-reaching significance. Based on the historical data of conference records, letters, biographies, real-time newspapers and the existing research, this paper takes the power struggle and game of interest groups as the starting point, sorts out the evolution of the organizational system of NEA, and tries to understand the development of American public education from the perspective of educational organization’ course. The paper generally based on time clues, supplemented by perspective conversion. Born under the torrent of public education movement, NEA had gradually become the focus of all types of educators in America since 1880s. The three interest groups of academic education elites, local education administrators, and classroom teachers competing debut. They hold different ideas and have different design blueprints for NEA’s organization system. Education elites used the NCE as position to try to make NEA as gathering of academic elites; and local education administrators firmly believe in the management of revolutionary ideas and promote bureaucratic management; the group of teachers hopes to maintain the formal membership system. The trilateral groups' cooperation, confrontation, countervailing, and complicated intertwined contradictions were the driving force for promoting NEA’s democratization process and constantly evolving and finally ended with the reform of the 1920 congress system. Behind the reform of organization system was the change of power of the education group. In 40 years, the monopoly status of the academic elite was broken, and the teacher began to "scream" from "silent", and education administrators finally became the leadership of NEA, consolidating the dominant position through the hierarchical system. Compared with the dominant position of educational administrators, teachers are still in a weak position, but the appropriate transfer of the interests that administrators made and detour of strategy make association avoid the division and remain intact. As a representative of various educational groups, NEA stands in American education sector and carries out its pursuit of the role of "American Education Leader"