par Amy Martinelli Il y a 12 années
414
Plus de détails
Reese, William J. The Origins of the American High School, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Argument(s):
In this volume William J. Reese traces the “controversial” history of the American high school. He argues that although contemporary education reformers seek to return to a fabled golden age of education, most do not understand the political and social reasons for the foundation of high schools. Indeed, Reese aligns himself as a “revisionist” writer and situates the high school as an elitist institution that enhanced middle class ideals, often at the expense of the poor and minorities. This was present in the creation of the first high school, the English Classical School in Boston. Although reformers touted the school as the beginning of a free system of schooling, students could only attend if they passed a test and were white males. The free public schools were not meant to challenge the growth of republican ideals but to strengthen them and the society at large. Reese identifies the critics of education reform as: “the very rich, the very poor, private school people (academy leaders and elite college presidents), sectarians (usually Catholics), rural people, southerners, and Democrats” (p. 61) yet is skeptical about the reality of this oppression. In spite of economic depression school districts (particularly in the Northeast) erected massive and imposing structures to accommodate students; this is yet another example of the aristocratic nature of high schools. Finally, Reese argues that the methods of teaching, (through textbooks, recitation and carefully calculated attendance), proliferated Republican moral and social ideals. Reese concludes by warning contemporary leaders in education to avoid the elitism of the past instead of praying for a return to an educational fantasy.
Critique
This book represents a thorough analysis of the multifaceted nature of high schools. Reese accounted for political reformers, teachers, students, methods of instruction and those who opposed high schools. Reese claims that he focuses on the formal institution because “understanding the deliberate and formal ways a society educates illuminates one’s picture of the wider society.” (p. xv) However, the volume is littered with personal accounts and examples from magazines and journals that are not necessarily linked directly to formal education. Thus, he represents the inextricable nature of education and society. In his account of the different experiences between students in high schools, Reese illuminates that sons and daughters of rich parents often had greater advantages than those of less wealthy means. For example, rich students had quiet study areas in the home and parental supervision over lessons while many others could not afford such help. This example highlighted the general absence of the parental voice in this narrative. If teachers and students’ voices were heard so clearly, then should parents’ not be considered as well? As with other texts, the book’s focus remains in the Eastern , Southern and Midwestern United States. Occasionally Reese includes a fact from California, but the paucity of examples from the Western United States is salient. Reese hopes to argue against the dominant, mythical beliefs about education’s link to democracy at the start of the nation but seemingly neglects a portion of that nation. Thus, it is relevant to wonder what happened in that part of the country at this time? Perhaps a different story could be told from that perspective. While Reese has left some gaps open, this narrative is a lively read with a clear point of view.
Scott Gelber, “The Crux and the Magic: The Political History of Boston Magnet Schools, 1968-1989.” Equity and Excellence in Education, 41 (2008): 453-466.
In his article “The Crux and the Magic”: The Political History of Boston Magnet Schools, 1968-1989,” Scott Gelber investigated the use of magnet schools as a basis for voluntary racial integration through busing in the Boston city public schools. Boston, the site of tense racial strife during the initial mandate for busing is an interesting case study because it was also the first urban area, according to Gelber, to use magnet schools as a tool for integration. Gelber argues that the political drive to initiate integration programs that utilized magnet schools is particularly appealing to political and judicial figureheads because of their seemingly “magical” ability to demonstrate that integration could occur without racial strife. Whereas mandated busing disturbed the social order, magnet schools relied on voluntary busing. Through analysis of parental perceptions of the magnet initiative in Boston, however, Gelber revealed that the symbolic advantages of magnet schools remained merely symbolic. In practice, parents’ perceptions of magnet schools ranged from as elitist institutions that came to symbolize the very inequalities they purported to assuage, academically inferior, and/or racially unjust. Gelber demonstrated that these perceptions forced the Massachusetts Department of Education to alter their public relation campaigns for magnet schools to meet the demands of parents, who, in the swells of forced busing, came to revere academic quality over racial equality.
This case study is an excellent example of the kind of work that remains to be done in understanding the profound impact that magnet schools have on the educational landscape of our nation. The setting of Boston is somewhat unique because of its local dynamics, but follows a similar pattern of racial integration reflected elsewhere in the nation. To the extent that Gelber uses parental perception as a tool to indicate that magnet schools are not the “crux and the magic” that political leaders purport them to be, the article is successful. Gelber does present a class and racial divide among parent perceptions of magnet schools and argues that because desegregation destroyed alliances to neighborhood schools, parents shifted their perception of schools from nostalgia to academia. While this may be true, Gelber’s analysis is limited because his data does not address the variety of cultural backgrounds of the neighborhoods and the parents who lived there. Drawing heavily on the work of Ronald P. Formisino, Gelber seems to take for granted that this change of public perception occurred without providing adequate data. So, while the argument is persuasive, a further breakdown of social, economic, and racial lines would strengthen it greatly. Parental perception is an appropriate lens through which to assess public perception of schools, especially in the case of voluntary busing. Parents have the power to choose which schools their children attend. This study, however, provides an opportunity for more scholarship on the subject of magnet schools as it ignores the voices of those who would operate and attend the schools. Administrators, students, and teachers perspectives on the schools are important because this article suggests much about public perception of the schools but does little to describe the ways that magnet schools did or did not differ qualitatively to traditional public schools. Finally, while Gelber provides some distinctions for the types of magnet schools present in the Boston city public schools, the magnets are all addressed as one. It is possible that through a more thorough breakdown of the particular schools, Gelber could potray a fuller portrait of the tensions over magnet schools in Boston.
Kliebard, Herbert M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958. Boston: Routeledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.
Argument:
In this book, Herbert Kliebard argues that the public schools in the United States arose as the result of contests between competing conflicting class and interest groups. He argues that the terms “Progressivism” and the “Progressive movement” do not actually exist. The term itself is too broad and the reformers and movements it alludes to are too diverse, and often contradictory, to be considered one cohesive movement. Instead, Kliebard identifies four dominant forces that influenced education in the U.S. Those forces included: 1) The Humanists who wanted to maintain the classical notions of education; 2) The Child-Study/ Developmentalists, who believed that education of the child should be informed by science in relation to children’s development, the nature of learning and the notion of adolescence; 3) Social Efficiency educators who sought to create a smoothly run society based on efficiency and 4) the Social meliorists who believed that schools could shape society and inform social justice. Kliebard argues that none of these forces became altogether dominant in shaping schools; rather, contemporary social and economic issues largely informed the type of education available in the U.S. Notably, Kliebard maintains throughout the book that John Dewey, though related to all four movements he identified was set apart and “above” the other movements. Dewey’s conception of education was too difficult to implement and did not fit into any of the above categories.
Critique:
In the prologue, Kliebard notes that he does not align himself with either the radical revisionist or traditional historians who have accounted for the history of education in the U.S. before him. However, he concedes that all sides are right in their own ways. Instead, Kliebard sets out to write a thoroughly moderate book that makes neither heroes nor villains out of educational reformers--save, of course, John Dewey, whom Kliebard seems to elevate to deity status. As for the rest of the big names such as G. Stanley Hall and Herbert Spencer, Kliebard approaches each reformer as he believes they hoped to be understood instead. The book focuses mainly on these big-named education reformers and their context within society. But by choosing to focus on the same white men that many historians have Kliebard seems to only add another perception on these people without giving credence to others in society. However, social forces really seem to dictate the type of education that is prioritized in society. For instance, the onset of the Great Depression brought about a resurgence of the social meliorist perspective. So perhaps it is not the movements or the people behind them that need attention but the greater picture of society. Kliebard does this well by incorporating the social and economic setting. Perhaps it is because I have read so much about the Progressive Era lately, but Kliebard’s conclusion that there is no such thing as the “Progressive movement” seems a bit like common sense.
Veysey, Laurence, R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Argument:
In his book, Laurence Veysey explores the beginnings of the American university between 1865 and 1910. Through this massive book, (which developed from his even larger dissertation), Veysey articulates his argument that it was during this time period that the American university developed into the types of institutions that are now common. The book is in two parts. The first part explores the diversity of purpose that different white, male university leaders had while establishing universities. These competing ideals included “discipline and piety”, “utility”, “research”, and “liberal culture.” This part of the book seeks to establish the reasons behind the creation of universities from ultimately varied perspectives. These influences ultimately blended together to create the structural organization of the university. The second part highlights the inner workings of these new universities. In the second part Veysey includes detail of the organizational life of the university but also highlights differences between the beliefs of administrators and university leaders and other key constituents, such as students. He concludes that the American university situated itself as an institution that uplifts and promotes the ideals of the advancement in the society through competition.
Critique:
This book is mammoth and incredibly detailed. However, Veysey’s voice is clearly evident throughout the volume, and his “excitement” for the material develops nicely in his narrative. The book is very well researched; Veysey consulted just under eighty manuscript collections (evidently there were more in the original dissertation version) to create his depiction of the development of the American university. Interestingly, Veysey seems to almost judge some of the manuscripts based on how “exciting” they are. For instance, his reference to the Edward A. Ross collection indicates that the collection includes four boxes of correspondence that “include much exciting material.” (p. 459) Veysey’s book focuses on the administrators of twelve universities. Though he may have left something out by doing so, the universities he chose represented something of a geographic (if not sociological) spectrum by drawing from Midwestern, Western and Northeastern universities. The major item left out of this book is attention to issues of ethnicity or gender in relation to the development of the American university. Veysey describes the conditions of the university entirely in terms of middle class white Americans, mostly male. The inclusion of other groups may have led him to come to a different conclusion about the American university as an American institution.
Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.
John Thelin’s book presents a history of colleges and universities in the British American colonies (primarily) and the United States. He argues that Frederick Randolph’s 1962 book The American College and University: A History left out many institutions that contribute to the history of higher education in America. In particular, Thelin includes institutions such as community colleges, women’s colleges and historically black colleges into the scheme of America’s history of higher education. Additionally, Thelin represents the groups and organizations, as well as state, local and federal governments that contributed to the successes and failures of higher education. Admittedly, Thelin’s book represents a broad spectrum of time (from the colonial period to 2000), and is not meant to be a comprehensive account of every minute detail of higher education. However, Thelin does refute previous beliefs about higher education by re-evaluating statistics and economics, and by taking into account broader sources to illustrate that the “official” word was not always representative of the higher education experience.
Thelin’s book is an immensely enjoyable and digestible read. He inserts pictures and personal accounts from students and others that elevate the reader’s understanding of the subjects he writes about. His treatment of women throughout the book is remarkable. Thelin does not segregate women into their own chapter but integrates their role in higher education. He categorizes women’s inclusion into higher education as a constant struggle for equality. But Thelin reframes traditional arguments throughout the book. In relation to women, a poignant example was that although less women are accepted into graduate programs than men, they also tend to apply to programs with a lower acceptance rate (liberal arts, humanities, etc.) than math and science related programs. Thelin suggests that the problem may not be with higher education or women, but with primary education where women are not encouraged to continue their math and science ambitions. This is just one example that Thelin uses to alter the perspective on higher education. To inform his narrative, Thelin utilizes not only traditional and official sources but also writings from the common man, pictures, post cards and other interesting artifacts. These representations are fascinating but do not necessarily prove that one interpretation is better than the other. He simply asserts that the historical lens of the past may be too limited and offers historians the ability to find new lenses by taking a new approach to research. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
The revisionist movement in the History of Education railed against traditional accounts of the formation of schools as progressive and democratic. Instead, these book framed the formation of schooling as imposed upon citizens who did not desire education. Rather, these historians portray schools as inherently racist, elitist, and as a means of acculturation, rather than as liberating. This marks a BIG shift from the way that hisotrians had discussed this formation.
Heavily criticized, its influence is certainly seen today through the historical body.
Spring, Joel. Education and the Rise of the Corporate State. Boston: Beacon Press, 1972.
Introduction:
“The purpose of this book is to explore the exact meaning Progressives gave to public education during its most formative period at the beginning of the 20th century.”
-Defines progressives as: leaders who adopted as the image of the good society a hightly organized and smoothly working corporate structure. These people include:
• Labor leaders
• Corporation heads
• Financiers
• Politicians
• Political philosophers
• Educators
“The image of society played an influential role in shaping the form and direction of American public education in the 20th century.”
Education reacted to the mechanized view of industrial society in two ways:
1. Education trained people who would work effectively in the industrialized world.
2. School was one institution that worked with others to produce citizens with specialized skills that they would take into “societal niches”
a. Vocational guidance
b. Junior high school
Businesses supported these reforms because they created an ideal business man—one who is content, can work with others and is organized.
Individualism was defined in relation to the society as a whole. How do YOU contribute to society?
This book is distinct because it shows a relationship between Progressive concepts of corporation and school administration.
Chapter 1: The Philosophy of the Corporate State
“The corporate image of society turned American schools into a central social institution for the production of men and women who conformed to the needs and expectations of a corporate and technocratic world.” The image appealed to the elite in various fields and supported the organizational framework for dealing with a changing society. This happened because of social and economic reasons:
1. Economic: modern technology and industrialization
2. Poverty, crime, government monopolies.
Schools were developed in the eye of the corporate model to protect interests of elites. Social cooperation was necessary and individualism was frowned upon. Factory workers could produce more if they each focused on one component rather than the entire organism. Businesses also looked to the model of working individually but as a collective. The new frame of individualism seated the individual directly within the organization; they were not separate.
Chapter 2: Factory Life and Education
The development of modern industrial systems shaped the direction of public schooling in a variety of ways:
• The factory manager had an interest in his workers’ social lives (social organization.
o Industrial programs were created
o Education took on the models in their instruction and classes
• Home economics
• Demands on the schools to make workers with correct social attitudes and skills
• Employers took a paternalistic role over workers
o Women who were viewed as “immoral” could be fired
o When not at work they were in “self-improvement programs”
o This happened because
• To avoid a concentration of working class slums
• It was good business
• A problem of big corporations was the loss of the “personal touch” between workers and bosses
o The Suggestion System: make the factory appealing to raise morale.
o Conventions
o Company periodicals
o Social secretary—link with the company
o Social engagements
• Christmas parties
• Picnics
o Much of this came out of fear of unionism
o These programs were all created to make a “company man”
• Efficiency—Two views
o Time efficiency—get the work done ASAP
o Moral effieciency
• Education was offered in the factories
• Physical education
• Cooking classes
• Etc
• Schools and factory life:
o Schools freed parents to go to work at the factory
o Kindergartens—gave the moms time to focus on housework.
o Education was important to facilitate the proliferation of workers
Chapter 3—the Classroom as Factory and Community
Education needed to foster integration of the social aspects of life with education as opposed to the industrialized education standards like the Lancasterian model, which promoted too much individualism and not enough socialization.
The treatment of Dewey is suspect. Spring doesn’t once mention the notion of democracy in relation to Dewey. Instead, he focuses solely on the idea of socialization in order to promote good “habits” within children and learning in social situations. Though he does admit that Dewey did not hope for conformity to group practices and beliefs.
Colin Scott wanted to organize the classroom around group activities in order to facilitate group cooperation, therefore the role of the school was to make sure that people got along and could work together well.
“The ultimate failure of the goal of social education in the classroom was that it wanted to impose a sense of unity rather than have the feeling of community grow out of the work. The result of this form of group education was an “organization man” who functioned well in the new corporate state because of “social likemindedness” and not social imagination.
Chapter 4—Extending the Social Role of the School
The role of schools extended as they took the social role of family and churches. One main factor in this was the increasing number of immigrants who needed to be “Americanized.” Immigrant education led to the development of “evening centers” where immigrants would gather in schools in the evening for Americanization education.
The rise of schools was also due to a strong “anti-urban feeling”—schools needed to save students from the perils of the city.
Katz, Michael B. The Irony of Early School Reform, Educational Innovation in Mid-Nineteenth Century Massachusetts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
Argument:
Katz’s analysis of early school reform in Massachusetts argues that educational reformers essentially imposed their beliefs onto the lower classes through schools. He seeks to de-mystify the belief that education in America came forth as a result of great humanitarian ideals of the people. Instead, he asserts that schools were an imposition of by the elitist classes in America who sought to protect their perception of society. Katz supports his argument by highlighting specific cases from urban Massachusetts and by utilizing statistical and sociological as well as historical methods of interpretation. The result is a system of education that sought to control the burgeoning immigrant lower class and to reconcile the consequences of industrialism. “We have still to see a movement driven by a desire to bring joy and delight to the life of the individual, to enrich experience solely for the purpose of making life more full and lovely” (p. 214) Instead, Katz argues that all attempts at education reform have been fueled by a desire to “fix” societal and economic problems. He concludes that our country has never known a truly democratic urban school. Because of this we should not look to the past in order to reform, instead we should look to the past in order to avoid previous mistakes.
Critique:
This book is a clear refutation of the “mythical” belief that education in urban America came about through an altruistic or humanitarian effort of the people. Rather, he asserts that lower classes were imposed upon by the reformers’ movements. His clear and unfiltered bias against school reformers is evident throughout the book. However, Katz’ research is difficult to deny. He utilized state and local statistical information as well as manuscripts of education and political bigwigs. He also utilized local school reports—an under used source of information, according to Katz. In the bibliographical note, Katz recognizes the limitations of such documents but argues that they provide insight into the specific problems faced by local boards. To address Katz’s argument that no education reform movement has actually begun out of altruistic goals is paramount. The question of why we educate the masses is important to address. His observation that no reform movement has served to inspire “joy” or “making life more lovely” can be countered. What he suggests is a fundamentally different approach to education than this country has ever seen on a large scale. Is the role of education to make life fulfilling or to advance an individual’s place in society? So, even if we agree with Katz that urban education has always promoted some while limiting others, he doesn’t present a clear alternative. Perhaps this is outside of the scope of this book, but the question of why and how we should educate is not clearly addressed. Katz bases his argument solely on the experiences he researched in Massachusetts. This state is a fundamental part of the history of education in America, but in focusing solely on one state’s urban centers, his argument could be viewed as too generalized. Finally, the focus on urban centers warrants discussion. Can we generalize about the origins of schools by only looking at urban areas and not rural?
Reese, William J. America’s Public Schools: From the Common School to “No Child Left Behind.” Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
Argument(s)
Reese’s history of public education in the United States traces the country’s past from its Common School roots to the current issues of the day. The narrative illuminates themes about public education that are so pervasive they continue to prevail. Namely, that American citizens and politicians have continuously looked to education as a panacea for many, if not all, of society’s ills. Educational reformers not only hoped that public schools would establish the American culture but also preserve it. Education was supposed to cure poverty, immigration issues, and racial tensions, among many other social problems in society but couldn’t. In addition to the high stakes set upon public education, the decentralized nature of public education has made it difficult to achieve the task of equalizing education for all in America. Despite historic evidence to the contrary, trends in education still tend to put so much faith in public education that we may never see the results that schools promise.
Critique
William J. Reese’s America’s Public Schools: From the Common School to “No Child Left Behind” is a compelling and thorough placement of schools in society. Reese relies upon a multitude of secondary sources to inform much of his understanding of the historical and political spectrum. The primary resources Reese uses are somewhat traditional and include school journals, annual reports of significant leaders, pamphlets, speeches, debates and public opinion polls. Reese does not utilize sources such as personal letters that might add personalization to the narrative. One issue that stands out is Reese’s treatment of and placement of minorities. Reese certainly goes out of his way to include both Latinos and African Americans into his narrative. However, these inclusions sometimes seem incidental and not connected to the larger story. Overall, the book weaves a complex, yet straightforward argument.
Graham, Hugh D. The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
Argument:
In The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years, Hugh Davis Graham recounts presidents Kennedy and Johnson's efforts toward educational policy making. Thus, the book centers on the role of the federal government (in particular the executive branch) in education policy making. The federal aid programs created during the Johnson administration represented an unprecedented amount of attention and money toward education from the federal government. Since most educational matters are dealt with at the state and local level, this book is fascinating and unique. Kennedy's experience with federal influence over education mainly featured disappointment. His attempts in 1961 and 1962 to pass federal aid for education legislation failed largely in part to varied constituents' viewpoints on social issues ranging from race to religion. These struggles highlight the balancing act that politicians must perform in order to maintain or gain election. However, most of the book focuses on President Johnson's use of secret internal and external task forces that would assess and address various social problems including education. These problems included addressing handicapped children and African American colleges. In the end, Graham argues, the task forces themselves became yet another constituent to please. Graham portrays the process of policy making for education as difficult and limited by actual political maneuvering.
Critique:
This book is incredibly well researched. Graham utilized the archives of the Johnson and Kennedy libraries, the National Archives, and the office of Education Archives at the National institute of education. Additionally, Graham conducted interviews and consulted oral histories to inform his research. Unquestionably, the book is rooted in sound historical research. Unfortunately, although Graham demonstrates the limited effects of federal policies in actual classrooms the book doesn’t offer much evidence to support the claim. In essence, missing from the book is schools. Because of the nature of the research, including schools may have been difficult or even beyond the scope of this particular book. However, The Uncertain Triumph casts a shadow of doubt on federal implementation of education aid. Graham clearly demonstrates that politics and education reform are unfortunate partners. Ultimately, this book is more about arguments about education than about actual events going on in schools as a result of these policies. Still, this book provides excellent insight into the political process in education. Indeed, it reminded me very much of my thesis because it highlighted political figures and groups to explain educational trends.
This book offers a balance between the overly zealous praise of school reformers and the radical revisionist thread that argued that schools are overtly oppressive.
William A. Link, The Paradox of Southern Progressivism, 1880-1930, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1992).
In this book, William A. Link traverses the period between 1900-1930, when in the United States social and political institutions experienced a fundamental restructuring. This change brought about bureaucratic intervention into institutions, like schools, that had previously been driven by traditional governance. The reformers, progressives, who imposed these changes emphasized “expertise” and “efficiency” as the primary objectives of these social and political institutions. This study argues that this trend toward progressivism was in sharp conflict with the southern region of the United States. There, traditional southerners, who were mostly rural people, understood community in a local context. The values that these traditionalists embodied rejected the notion of outside interference, and were thus, anti-government. In particular, he demonstrates how reformers’ paternalism clashed with the traditionalists who preferred local control. The paradox of Southern progressivism, refers to how southern progressives, at once, advocated for social uplift, but did so in paternalistic and controlling ways. In particular, Link’s discussion of education reform reflects the patterns of southern Progressivism well. School reformers, who were most often middle-class females, believed that through social action the problems of schooling in the South could be rectified. These southern reformers eventually allied with northern philanthropists to solve these problems with efficiency. The problems, had to do mostly with sanitation, facilities and teacher training. However, traditional southerners resisted these improvements by limiting attendance and resisting taxation for the creation and continuance of consolidated schools.
This narrative is an important one for understanding progressivism in a region that did not accept outsiders or government imposition. The progressive campaigns for a more controlled world certainly came to the South, but the influence of progressive reformers were severely checked by locals who preferred local control to governmental or bureaucratic agency control. I found the structure of the argument compelling and understandable. By considering the competing worldviews of reformers, who believed in social uplift through control, and local traditionalists who believed in local control, the dialectic between these two competing groups is clear. The book is well-known as one of the most important books written about southern progressivism. It is well written, reflecting a large amount of primary research. It is thorough, and engaging as well. However, there is one issue that hinders the premise of the book, which is that Link claims to assess the two competing forces in the South: progressives and traditionalists. The primary documents, however, focus almost solely on the progressive reformers. The voice of the reformer, then, speaks also for the local person. Considering that this book is set up on the premise of a dialectic, it is a shame that there were no sources that reflected the voices of those doing the resisting.
Pillars of the Republic
Common Schools and American Society
1780-1860
by
Carl F Kaestle
________________________________________
Great Resource
________________________________________
Preface
During the three decades prior to Civil War, the North created common school systems. Their goal was an improved and unified school system. Included in this mix are: rural district schools, urban charity schools, battles waged by reformers, teacher's institutes and graded schools. There wasn't opposition to schooling, just how it would be achieved. It was a republican govt, of Protestant culture, with the development of capitalism. These ideologies rankled the non-North, non- Protestant, non-capitalist communities. MULTI-CULTURALISM OF TODAY!! However, these opposing ideas helped form the shape and content of American common schooling by 1860. Schools were the principal agent providing the cognitive and moral teaching in America. Society educates in many ways: family, church, community; but the state educates through the school.
"Common School" means elementary school intended to serve all the children. It was not "free school." Parents were often required to pay part of the cost for common school. The history of common school is complicated by local variation.
Great quote: "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some to be chewed and digested."
1 Prologue: The Founding Fathers and Education
Begins the discussion about education in America. Rudimentary learning was widespread in revolutionary America, the British fostered education. Early education saw the Bible as an early book for salvation. They valued education accomplished through parental initiative and informal, local control of institutions. Attendance was voluntary and funded locally. Much education came through family, church and the workplace. Education did not come from above. The Founding fathers (FF) worried about the republic falling into anarchy. They pinned their hopes on the creation of a republic. Education could be important in reconciling freedom and order. Education was important to prepare men to vote and women to train their sons. Moral training produced virtuous citizens. More than the 3R's: ethics, principles of law, commerce, money, and govt were necessary. The natural virtue could not be assumed. America looked to schools to do this.
Education was crucial in departing from corrupt Europe. Jefferson tried to establish a step system in VA. Rush in PA. Webster was concerned with a common language and culture. Samuel Harrison Smith, a Washington editor, wrote:
• An enlightened nation is always most tenacious of its rights.
• It is not in the interest of such a society to perpetuate error.
• In a republic the sources of happiness are open to all without injuring any.
• If happiness be made at all to depend on the improvement of the mind and the collision of mind with mind, the happiness of an individual will greatly depend upon the general diffusion of knowledge.
• Under the republic, man feels as strong a bias to improvement as under a despotism he feels an impulse to ignorance and depression.
Writers like Smith stressed liberty and unfettered intelligence. Others stressed moral training for the survival of republican institutions. They reconciled freedom and order in different ways. Gov Clinton of NY warned that the war had created a "chasm in education" in 1782 and urged schooling for its citizens. Robt Coram of Del thought schools outside large towns were despicable and that teachers were shamefully deficient. These opinions prompted prominent men to push for state laws requiring free local schools. Jefferson pushed the three-tiered system. Rush in PA too. Reason for failure in both VA and PA was because of "ignorance, malice, egoism, fanaticism, religious, political, and local perversities." Also a resistance to new taxes and control outside local community: the very tenets of the war.
By 1795, three North states had three distinct approaches. In 1789 Mass required towns of 50+ to provide school for 6 months. 200+ had to add classical languages. Since 1784, NY had a Regents and money did reach the local level. 37% of all children reported receiving funds. The most impressive was in CT of 1795. CT sold its western land for $1.2 million which created a school fund. They collected $2 per $1000 assessed value. This interest paid for teachers. this led to using local taxes for common schools. rather than consider top down we should 1)ask what kind of schooling did ordinary people want and 2)what were the results of the institution? What did they want and what did they get?
The gulf of two extremes: need for order yet avoiding anarchy (chaos) were the concerns of the Founding Fathers.
________________________________________
2 Rural Schools in the Early Republic
Were the rule. Most Americans lived in small rural towns. 95% of pop in 1790 lived in communities of 2500 or fewer. 91% in 1830. Schools were controlled by a small locality and financed by property taxes, fuel contributions, tuition payments, and state aid.
Schools were not "little red schoolhouses." They were unpainted log or clapboard buildings on non-idyllic locations. The only requisite was to have in the center most location. 60-70 scholars in room for 30. School was a day care center with kids under 2 attending. Young kids went to get out from under foot. They were called "abecedarians" who did the alphabet twice a day for 5 minutes each session. Study was memorizing the alphabet then one syllable words and vowel exercises. They started writing on slates and then with quills in copy books. Texts came from home and were John Dilworth's, an Englishman, until Noah Webster developed his Blue Back Speller. The Bible was the reading book. Foreign languages were often taught. Religious exercise was reflective of the locality.
Urban schools used older students, "monitors," to assist in educating the younger scholars. This was not done in rural schools. On corporal punishment: Some teachers were simply compassionate, gentle people; some may use some corporal punishment; some felt discipline was crucial. THINK HOLOFERNES IN LLL. Idea was Govern from a sense of right and justice when you can, from a feeling of fear when you must For early 19th Cent teachers did not stay at it long, wages were low, and the short sessions required teachers to get a second job. Teacher certification began to be considered at this time. Parents had considerable power in the early days because the teachers stayed in the houses of the scholars unless the teacher's parent lived in the town. This was good for two reasons: parents could influence the teacher to their ways and see the character of the teacher and the teacher could get to know the parents.
Girl's education was added because they were capable of education like the boys, but more importantly as mothers they had to educate their kids, esp sons, at home. Girls education was segregated. District schools were tightly tied to communities by being inexpensive and under tight local control.
________________________________________
3 Urban Education and the Expansion of Charity Schooling
Changes in the organization and funding were the key developments in urban schools. Rural schools were funded by local govt and parents. Under represented group were day-laborers. Wealthy found tutors or boarding schools. Another form of common pay schools were "dame" schools operated by women in their homes. Education also came from apprenticeship or church charity schools. Rural Americans ignored republican theorists to advocated a school system to save the nation who saw problems from resourceless and aliens. In 1791 a NY newspaper wrote about schooling for the poor: "exposing them to innumerable temptations to become not only useless, but hurtful members of the community who seldom keep any govt in their families so their children contract bad habits of idleness and mischief and wickedness." Thus began the indictment of the urban poor. Thomas eddy of NY said: "the great preventative of offenses is doubtless an early attention to moral and religious instruction." Although many looked to England for moral change, they did not have the same passion in educating the poor. How could reformers look to England when it chose to improve American education? Heck we just separated from them and they maintained status levels of people, a hierarchy and they believed education would cause disorder. To the Americans "Prevention was better than punishment and cheaper." Charity schools provided a moral education, which many believe crucial in a republic. Americans believed in education for social stability, they feared ignorance. Mass education was not opposed in America because we did not have a formal nobility and no powerful church hierarchy. America did not fear a literate public. Charity schools laid the basis for a free school system. Quakers were a leading religious group in education esp with free Blacks. A problem was the educated Black had no future after a good education. Reformers wanted to save the children from their parents which made all parents seem bad. Where is the balance? Thus the NY Free School Society was born in 1805.
Joseph Lancaster introduced a plan which found older scholars drilling younger scholars. This "monoitorial" system emphasized recitation. This monitorial system had all students in an active learning mode. AN EARLY FORM OF CONSTRUCTIVISM This became very popular and became known as the Lancasterian system. A large number of scholars could be schooled by a few or with little effort. It seemed a panacea which provided cheap, efficient, elementary education. It allowed pupils to advance according to industry and application to their studies and were not held back by the duller scholars.
Sunday schools and infant schools also thrived. Sunday schools were not religious, they just met on Sunday a day kids were not in school. It was trying to use al possible time to educate. In trying to save the kids from their parents, infant schools emerged. Kids @ 2 were admitted and cared for. It also got the kids from underfoot. Young children needed kindness more than discipline; curiosity more than authority, and real words more than words. CONSTRUCTIVISTS The early part of the 19th Century was a time of outreach for the poor and everyone pitched in.
Private and public did no mean in 1830 what they mean today in education. Eventually educational leaders consolidated various charity schools under one organization. In NYC they created The NY Free School society in 1805. Using the Lancasterian system and other things the Society became the largest school org in NYC in 1835. This consolidation occurred in many big cities as well as in smaller cities.
________________________________________
4 Social Change and Education in the American Northeast, 1830- 1860
Schools began because of local custom not state initiative or policy. Thus schools sessions were brief, facilities were crude, and teachers were one step ahead of the kids. Uniformity was only in the strong Protestant religion, by popularity of certain texts, and informal traditions. America did not have a school system. Many believed in having one: Jefferson in VA, Rush in PA, Gideon Hawley of NY, and James Carter in MA. New reformers appeared after 1830 as did cotton, which changed everything. Technological change came to the countryside, capitalism boomed, new non-English immigrants came in. Pop increased by 35% from 1840 - 1850. Everything became unequal, inequitable and classes formed. Capitalism was associated with increasing literacy and learning. Publishing became important and newspapers increased from 138 - 387 from 1840 - 1860. The role of the schoolmaster was changing also. Less corporal punishment. Moral persuasion was encouraged and stressed.
There were four significant developments in moral discipline:
• moral discipline became associated with schooling.
• the state, through local committees, asserted the authority of teachers over children in competition with parents.
• new pedagogies, like Lancaster, challenged old , traditional ways.
• public saw relationship between personal morality and social order.
Prevention became big as did capitalism. Promptness and industry were crucial capitalistic mores instilled in education. Work discipline would lead to self-help as well as stability. SUCCESS BREEDS SUCCESS Also discipline was needed for the order in schools and parents wanted their children to behave and be obedient. Capitalism, which fostered commerce, geography, and communications, schooling created literate students in math and other intellectual skills. SCHOOL TO WORK, TECH PREP, VE Americans were worried about disorder and looked to schools to provide common language, common social mores, equality, and popular economic conditions. Urban schools began to adopt graded schools with standardized curricula and supervisory personnel. Cultural uniformity and educational uniformity went hand in hand. Noah Webster was important in this. Immigrant groups split on issues of assimilation and cultural pride. Public schools responded as the public looked to public education to resolve cultural conflict. Thus assimilation became the central preoccupation of educators.
Another bone was teacher education. Prussia had a model the Americans liked. The Prussians trained and certified their teachers.
________________________________________
5 The Idealogy of Antebellum Common-School Reform
With a quickly changing society, educators advocated moral education and good citizenship. All were confident that improved public education could alleviate a host of problems.
Ideology is used in this book to mean a set of apparently compatible propositions about human nature and society that help an individual to interpret complex human problems and take action that the individual believes is in his or her best interest and the best interests of the society as a whole. Ideology is the aspect of culture that attempts to justify and defend a set of social relations and institutions of the dominant social group. The author introduced a variant of the ideology: cosmopolitan which advocates govt action to improve economy, shape the morals, and unify the culture. From protestantism, republicanism, and capitalism; cosmopolitanism justified the govt interventions. This thrust needed to be more aggressive as more people entered America. America was growing more complex and the need for "cosmopolitan" methods were necessary. But still there was opposition to centralization and state regulation from "localists." The sacredness of the Republic required local control and participation in institutions. The survival of the republic depended upon the morality of the people. This was seen in Benjamin Rush's "republican machine": the citizen. However, growing fear came from: manufacturing, immigration, the decline of landholding, fragmenting of Protestant religion, and growth of cities. With a growing democracy and a growing diversity self-sacrifice and sub-ordination seemed more relevant. In schoolbooks and popular essays the image of the republican citizen is of a man who is constructive, on occasion critical, but always cautious and respectful. They taught liberty but ... Horace Mann suggested schools should not allow controversial issues to be taught.
Schooling should stress unity, obedience, restraint, self- sacrifice, and the careful exercise of intelligence. The parts made up the whole: the citizens created society, therefore the individuals education was crucial. The general thought was this: "the child uneducated in knowledge and virtue is educated in the school of depravity. And what is true of the individual is true of communities." All needed moral education.
Alongside the related virtues of self-control, self-sacrifice, and restraint stood industry. Hard work is very important. With industry also came the indolent and their children had to be rescued. Jacob Abbott created a character named Rollo who was a symbol for industry. Women were expected to cater to their husband in the form of domestic tranquillity, a good husband, and care of children. Women had 3 roles: as wife create a sanctuary at home from work, as homemaker manage a frugal and healthy home, as mother nurture and instruct children. This created a liberating and constraining effect: if mother was to teach she would have to learn, and if she were to maintain the home she needed to be taught. Many school texts were geared in this education of the women. Angell's Select reader discussed this. Washington Irving's "The Wife" provided guidance. However Catharine Beecher's Treatise on Domestic Economy was the most important source and this and others tried to promote dignity, complexity, and importance to housework. The education of children fell to mothers. Too much intellectual training for girls was frowned on. They required more home economics instruction. Between 1750 and 1850 children were viewed as innocent and vulnerable and the role of mother was very important. However, if you were born to a thief, then cultivation could help but the character never removed. You could cultivate a potato but you can't turn a potato into an apple. This was an argument in keeping Blacks from schools. Human potential was still fettered in racial and national stereotypes. "Soft pedagogy" wants children to internalize discipline rather than having authority imposed, to have teachers rule by "moral suasion" rather than by coercion.
Owning property was an important element of stability and virtue. Property and education were powerful tools in America. Equality of opportunity was associated with property.
These opportunities are open to white native males, not women, blacks, or immigrants. It was expected that the children would follow in their families steps. They stayed in the same station of life.
The superiority of Protestantism and the special destiny of America blinded them to many forms of equality and justice. They saw republicanism associated with Christianity. They were fanatic zealots. God justified much of their behavior.
There was widespread consensus for common schooling. Schools should instill a "humanizing culture." Reformers asked for authority mixed with affection, discipline more internal than imposed, morality by example than precept, and lessons emphasizing understanding more than rote memorization. To make GOOD CITIZENS not precocious scholars. Jews acquiesced, but Catholics did not. The Prot-Cath rift was not good. The increase of immigrants demonstrated that Americans did not share a common culture and that it was up to schools to deal with the problem. Noah Webster attempted consolidation of language in his texts. "When foreigners are in the habit of congregating together, they retain their national customs.
Intellectual education did not receive as high a priority as moral education in discussion. However a great deal of intellectual work was done.
Here then are the native protestant tenets:
• republican govt depends on indiv char.
• flaws in indiv char are responsible for poverty.
• dev of proper char depends on women.
• Christianity supports lots of things: domestic female subordination and private property.
• private property spurs industry.
• Christianity is the same as democratic republican govt.
It called for govt to provide schooling that would be common, more equal, more dedicated to public policy and centering on Protestantism, republicanism, and capitalism.
________________________________________
6 The Common-School Reform Program
In Gettysburg in 1826 Thaddeus Stevens said: "Education. May the film be removed from the eyes of PA and she learn to dread ignorance more than taxation. European examples spurred PA to develop state-sponsored schools. Still many opposed taxation for education. calvin Stowe of Ohio: "The whole world seems to be awake and combining in one simultaneous effort for the spread of education, and sad indeed will be the condition of that community which lags behind in the universal march." In 1840, Gov Wm Seward of NY: "a reform of the educational system has been too long 'postponed, omitted, and forgotten.' He introduced legislation to establish a state superintendent of instruction, county superintendents, state-aided libraries, and improved education for blacks." free school advocates aimed for more schooling for each child, more state involvement, more uniformity, and more pervasive public purpose for schooling. They called their work a "crusade" and communicated often with each other, imitated each other's innovative ideas, and devised ways to disseminate and publicize their methods. Although new england was the core of the reform, elsewhere in America reformers looked to Europe. CONSIDER VE!! The common school phenomenon was all the rage.
Reformers used the reports of schools to push their reforms: short terms, irregular attendance, bad facilities, shortsighted and penurious district control, poor teachers, insufficient supervision, lack of uniformity, indifferent parental support. The many studies of the time show children between 5-15 were the core of kids to attend school. Attendance was a crucial element in the reform movement and focused on slums and tenements. In factory towns children followed their parents to the factory. The Peltz Committee in 1837, reported on children in Phil PA's cotton mills. 11-14 hrs of work, 1/5 employees under 12, no education, 1/3 under 18 could read. A shorter work day would harm business. the committee argued in a republic education of the citizens is more important. CERTAINLY WE SEE THAT NOW: DETROIT ETC. These investigations led to child labor laws which meant employees did not hire children or ignored the laws. Families needed the additional income. However it wasn't the working wafe which bothered the reformers as much as it was the street-wandering youth. They also discouraged kids under 4 to attend.
Enrollment says nothing to the quality or quantity of education received. Irregular attendance was more harmful than lack of uniformed texts. By lengthening the school year, officials expected to make it a habit and to make teaching a profession. The quality was also in question. Local control misused expenditures, teacher training, and organization of schools. The move from district control looked like a better move. the effort was to centralize: consolidating districts into town systems, develop mechanisms for state supervision and regulation, and encouraging the transition from private to public control. Consolidation would both raise and equalize school expenditures; it would make for better teacher hiring practices, too. Small districts were the paradise of ignorant teachers. "Union schools brought kids together from many districts. this was not a problem for urban schools so consolidation was a rural issue. Reformers established the office of superintendent to oversee the schools and to control state funds. Although Horace Mann was successful in MASS his success was not transferable as seen in NC. Reform depended on social structure, politics, demography, and resources. The office of superintendents were to persuade and not coerce. They were to promote educational concepts in essays, mollify parents, involve parents, unify texts used and generally bring uniformity and quality to state education initiatives.
A third reform was against private schooling. Private schools drew off the most intelligent men, complained Horace Mann, this is not republican. Private schools also soaked up resources. There was a trend which saw public schools push private schools out. Not until after the Civil War would public schools see competition, but from Catholic schools. Although a group of wealthy folks continued to support private schools, public schools improved. However, private schools provided transition to college and to the education of leaders, thus high schools needed to evolve. And this depended on the support of the poor and middle class. They were established in NYC in 1849 and were called the "splendid crown of our Common School system." High schools were an urban thing. 1821 saw Eng HS in Boston as the 1st hs. It was more symbolic since attendance was real low. These high schools fostered intergenerational change from manual to non-manual occupations.
This reform movement put considerable financial strain on local school districts. Per pupil costs became a benchmark. Female teachers were preferred because they were cheaper and because of their natural superiority as instructors of young children. The system saw male "principal teachers" with 6-8 female assistants. It worked because in the newly highly organized school, reformers wished to bridge the gap between family culture and school culture with females. Hiring females made sense. In 1800 most teachers were male, in 1900 most were female. This improved the quality of life for most women. Emma Willard was an early advocate.
Reformers pushed for longer terms for year-round employment, better wages, improved teacher training, more communications through professional journals, and improved hiring practices. There was a move to make teaching a more honorable profession. Journals proliferated either as independent or as superintendent generated. Though subscription rates were low, shared copies probably reached many more teachers than was suspected. These journals were important nonetheless. Another way to disseminate educational reform ideas was via the teacher's institute. Prussian schools were a model for teacher training. Teacher training was accomplished in four ways: 1)through the example of the instructor; 2) through his incidental remarks about teaching methods during regular lessons; 3)through his weekly lectures on the art of teaching; and 4)through practice teaching in a model school. Grading students became another of the reformers concepts. This created levels of achievement and competition. This grading began to organize kids by age. Educators lauded this idea of grading, but also warned not to make it personal. Grading spurred industry, thus it was morally sound. The merit system evolved from this.
Reformers were not for lock-step, they were for innovation, change, and the adaptation to local circumstances. Uniformity of texts was still a difficult matter thereby undermining efficiency and professional expertise. Much was accomplished and established in education by these reformers from 1820 to 1860.
________________________________________
7 Ins and Outs: Acquiescence, Ambivalence, and Resistance to Common-School Reform
Common-school reform was not easy. It as a battle with many skirmishes on separate issues. Opponents to reform were not: political madmen, ignorant demagogues, hack politicians, penny- pinching bumpkins, unassimilated foreigners, and undemocratic elitists. Did middle-class imposed education on working class to maintain control. Workingmen's associations supported tax- supported common schools from 1825-35. They wanted better than charity schools, demanding a fair shake. They knew a separation in education would separate the classes and we would be like the Europe we just left. Workingmen were hard workers, frugal, moral, and enterprising. They were the stuff of Horatio Alger stories. Knowledge is power. Opponents spoke of self-help, self-educated successes from the past and present. Self-made men were admirable: Ben Franklin? Supporting a more egalitarian public school system, workingmen groups which formed unions became more concerned with their own working conditions and their influence became less, but their legacy of less privileged education lived on. Everyone shared the view of morality, respectability, and self-improvement.
Robert Owen was a critic of the capitalistic element in education. he had definite socialistic educational views, which he published, about education. Following the Pestalozzian philosophy, Maclure added his own brand to Owen's New Harmony. Traditional schools killed time and imprisoned children for 4-5 hours only to release them for 8 hours of retaliation and havoc. In his schools, children would constantly be occupied in useful things, they would get a practical education, converting life itself into a play. SEE MANN. New Harmony failed!! One reason may be that it attacked or threatened Protestantism or Christianity in general because of its atheistic ways.
Issues of control, centralization, and bureaucratization became an issue when Beverley, MA which was still in the district mode chose to close its high school. An ensuing battle waged. Eventually the school was reinstated, but this showed the weakness of the centralized system because those in power were insiders and the dissenters were outsiders. Opposition to consolidation and increased cost of education was based on tradition, parent's prerogatives, minority rights, religious freedom, and theories of limited govt. Taxation was a great issue. There was much resistance to the paternal arm of the state in educating the willing and the unwilling and using tax money to do it. HENCE VOUCHERS ARE EQUITABLE. Centralized control, avidly pursued by professional educators and spokesmen for 'progress' was the most controversial of antebellum reforms. Opponents emphasized it removed educational control "one step farther from the people." Politics hampered effective BOE's as did religious beliefs. Reformers saw the struggle as one of enlightenment over ignorance. They failed to see there were principles on the other side. Essentially to professionalize, homogenize, and organize schooling threatened local control. Local control left much to parents. parents would decide when and for how long, and they paid. parents had much control over the selection of the teacher. There was and is much animosity between teacher and parent. In general, parents wanted schools to train their children in basic skills and attitudes. They lost authority and control over their children's education. this was the trade-off. The resistance came from whites. The immigrants accepted this as a way to learn English, math, and American society seemed a benefit not to be missed. The school was considered the filter to the immigrant waves. catholics in particular became the rogues and Catholic schools popped up. What was happening was that parents were being seen by their children as bad and this angered the non-Protestant groups. Public schools taught children to feel ashamed of the creed of their forefathers." Non-English Protestants were assailed as were non- English speaking immigrants. Reformers worked on the premise that the dominant culture ruled and all others should assimilate.
The question of blacks in education is pervaded by conflict and disappointment. Blacks couldn't vote, opportunities for higher ed and jobs was denied them. Education did not help blacks in the job market. African schools cropped up and were segregated. Blacks accepted this so they could get an education. When some black leaders began to press for truly common schools they met resistance from: white segregationists and from black separatists. Without equality of opportunity there will be class oppression and class war. MASS instituted integration in 1855. NYC and PA responded by making segregation okay.
American Indians faced a policy of extinction and removal, not assimilation. Hispanics not considered. Women the largest out group crossed racial, religious, ethnic, and class lines. Catholics forced some concessions. Manual laborers were not served well. However, state school systems prevailed, professional training started, there was a shift from private to public admin, and a shift from district control to centralization. Reforms prevailed gradually and imperfectly because they served the dominant group and their ideology: republicanism, Protestantism, and capitalism.
________________________________________
8 Regional Differences in Common-School Development
The Midwest followed those of the Northeast pretty much. Schools in the South did not copy the Northeast. Public purse provided elementary ed for poor white only. All others fended for themselves. The missionary effort failed in the South. Slavery, sparse pop, periodic economic crisis, and aristocratic attitudes foiled New England reformers. Midwest profited by large Northeast migration. Why did reform succeed in the North and fail in the South? The Midwest followed the laws of the Northwest Ordinances of 1785-87. It provided for common schooling. Education did not prosper in the new lands because the settlers had more immediate concerns, like shelter, clearing lands, growing food, etc. Schooling was local, voluntary, and entrepreneurial. The NE public-school model was a myth, the ordinances of 1785-87 were ineffective, and use of state taxes for ed were in the future. The real models were early local controlled NE models. Schoolhouses built became a center of activity in day and night. In sum the story of the Midwest is much like the East.
In the South there was much less enthusiasm for local common schools and more successful resistance to state systems. Academies were most dominant. Religious groups also prospered in the South. "Old-field" schools, so-called, because they occupied old log cabins in fields left to fallow were started by small communities and taught elementary education or subjects as needed. Some benevolent societies created charity schools but not as in the Northern cities. The Lancasterian system was used in some areas, but it was not widespread. No slaves were educated except those on plantations used for tutoring. Quakers were a major educational force of slaves in the South. Slaveholders saw a correlation between education and freedom. A very republican concept, so they discouraged educating slaves. Southern states created laws designed to prohibit teaching slaves to read. Some slaveholders believed the best slave was one who could read the Bible. It seems ironic that VA, home of Jefferson, should be considered "the banner state of ignorance." The Southern states established a Literary fund which needed to be applied for to get funds to support a local school. Few communities did so. Education was essentially for the poor and the rich. The middle class had to fend for themselves. Southerners displayed more reluctance than northerners to tax property for school costs. Slaves were property. Sparseness was one reason for poor educational initiatives, but so too was the point that the South was a one crop region: cotton. When it was good great, when not, then life was horrible. Civil War also interrupted education but this was later. Southern aristocratic ideas prevented education and they were always critical of Northern ways, so educational reform was criticized because it was Northern. Why educate when we had slaves, a superior work force. Since slaves were 3/5 votes, slaveholders had more votes than non slaveowners or smaller slaveholders. States were divided. Non- slaveowners continually pressed for middle class education. NC was an anomaly in antebellum south. It did enact a BOE with a Northerner in the head seat, Wiley. The South also wanted more homegrown teachers, texts, and curriculum. Racial justice was a liability in cosmopolitan school reform for Mann and for the Southern abolitionist, Henry Ruffner.
In the Midwest and South were heavily agricultural and sparsely populated. They had fewer cities and smaller ones. State lands and funds for education mismanaged. Yet by 1860 all Midwest states established state regulated, tax-based school systems while few southern states did. The Midwest's agricultural base was more diverse, the South was one crop. The South rejected most Northern concepts: republicanism, Protestantism, and capitalism, while the Midwest didn't.
________________________________________
9 Epilogue: The Legacy of Common Schooling
School reformers eventually won. It was difficult to be against progress and education fostered progress. This chapter needs to be reread often. Was it perfect, No. However most communities devoted some time and money to education. Women were crucial in the reform plan. Urban schools were highly structured. Common- schoolers believed schools could solve problems of diversity, instability, and equal opportunity. Cosmopolitan ideal proposes a more centrally directed and more standard application and delivery of curriculum.
________________________________________
For what it is worth, My opinion
Schools are the domain of the country. We rise and fall by our citizens. We are all responsible for the education of our citizens. We profit by the education of our citizens. I am glad to see our educators, business leaders, and politicians on the same page in regards to education. Education is in the forefront. Politicians are raising the standards and providing the monies for texts, hardware, and software. Businesses are involved in school- to-work programs, tech prep, Virtual Enterprises, and the like. Educators have come to find a balance between love of necessity of education. Teacher pay is still low, but all else is a lot better now than 6 years ago. I think one of the main contributing factors to this situation is the Internet. More on that later.
Kaestle, Carl F. The Evolution of an Urban School System: New York City, 1750-1850 Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1973.
Argument:
The Evolution of an Urban School System explains how, why, and when the schools in New York City became a formalized system of education. Kaestle argues that the school system did not arise due to the need for literacy or labor-related skills. Rather, social and cultural issues took place that demanded free education for the poor, especially immigrants. The desire for a cohesive society brought about the school system in New York City. Kaestle argues that the eastern cities in the early United States felt the impact of immigration and social population change in a very harsh manner. So, the system of education in New York City changed from a system largely run by families and church communities to a bureaucratic system with the goal of “Americanizing” immigrants and the poor. Thus, this book pushes forth the notion that schooling in America was used as an object of social and cultural control that could tame the onslaught of immigration.
Critique:
This book presents a persuasive narration of the systemization of the New York City school system in this book. What is surprising, yet significant, is the piecemeal nature of this bureaucratic turn in the use of schools. This book contributes to the notion that schools were not created for democratic reasons but in order to assimilate immigrants and to tame social ills. Perhaps the most persuasive point is that although the free system of education arose in New York, the people who attended were not from the upper classes. The school system was not created to educate the city, but to alter the social and moral behaviors of “others.”
Cremin, Lawrence, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1961.
Argument:
This narrative traces progressivism in American education in two parts, between 1876-1917 and 1917-1957. The first part describes the Progressive mindset that identified social needs and attempted to change them, mainly through education. Cremin characterized the reformers as moderate and humanitarian. Cremin highlights the varied nature of the Progressive movement and argues that there is no standard definition of progressive education. To be sure, he identifies many ways in which progressives sought to improve and democratize education. These included providing health, vocational, and quality of family life courses, applying new scientific and psychological research into pedagogy, tailoring education to the individual, and the belief that everyone could share the benefits of the new sciences and in the pursuit of the arts as well. He illuminates on the educational beliefs and influences of various reformers such as John Dewey, G. Stanley Hall, Herbert Spencer, Francis W. Parker, and many others. The second part of the book emphasizes the shift from educational progressivism to political Progressivism. The political shift altered the educational course from expressionism to a politically charged movement toward efficiency in education that relied heavily on various forms of testing. Cremin believed that the inherent contradictions within the movement led to its ultimate demise.
Critique:
The standard revisionist critique of this book would argue that Cremin relies too heavily on the “mythical” (to borrow a term from Katz) view of Progressive reformers as altruistic in their pursuit to change education. Indeed, the movement itself came from a desire to solve problems in society and lead citizens into an acceptable standard of living. This, in itself, is inherently biased and indicates that there was (is) one true and good way to live. In the last chapter, Cremin describes seven reasons for the Progressive movement’s failure. He highlights the seventh reason as most important: “progressive education collapsed because it failed to keep pace with the continuing transformation of American society.” (p. 350). In this sentence, Cremin articulated a problem that continues beset education reformers. Education cannot, or has not, been able to keep up with the changing world in America because the nation is ever-changing. The technological advances and influence of the media that Cremin identified in 1961 challenge educators now, perhaps to a greater extent than during the Progressive Era. So, the end of progressive education is not as surprising to me as it was to Cremin. However, it is poignant. It may be impossible to define the true purpose of education in America because history shows that education is incredibly influenced by political, economic, and social concerns as opposed to academic concerns.
Bailyn, Bernard. Education in the Forming of American Society. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1960.
Bailyn’s addition to the Needs and Opportunities for Study series of the Early American History and Culture sought to take the great body of facts laid out by professionals (educators and administrators) and interpret them with a historian’s viewpoint. His thesis was that the body of knowledge about the history of education in American society had not been neglected; rather it was not connected into a thematic, historical discussion. The “history” of education served to promote the formal institutions and undermine the past—in particular the colonial period. This book first redefines education and situates the concept within the cultural spectrum. Education took place in the home, in churches and in society, and that foundation was integral to the creation of public and private institutions. Bailyn suggests that culture and education have a symbiotic relationship. Instead of narrowly focusing on formal institutions, Bailyn sought to acknowledge the various methods and purposes of educating during the 17th and 18th century. The nature of the early settlers’ harsh environment made the continuance of European societal ideals too difficult to maintain and what emerged was a new culture of education set upon creating and supporting an American culture through education.
Though this view is not currently controversial, Bailyn’s book was one of the first to put forward such an interpretation and is regarded as a seminal reading of the foundation of the History of Education field. Bailyn suggests that “What is needed…is not so much a projecting of new studies as a critique of the old…” (p. 4) So this book actually does two things. First, Bailyn outlines a new interpretation of old information. The new interpretation he outlines re-establishes the way that scholars might view the study of history of education. He shifts the focus from professionalism to understanding the problems of the past. This seems to have had a profound influence in the field because this connection seems inherent. However, even if the field of history of education has expanded its scope, this does not seem to have changed much for colleges of education in general. The second aspect of the book is a bibliographic essay that explains his use of a multitude of sources, (many of which are books written by the educators and administrators), and suggests tremendous need for reinterpretation of subjects directly and indirectly to education. The overarching theme of this book is that education should not be divorced from culture. Indeed, culture and education influence each other immensely, and this book sets the tone for historical exploration of education in the United States.
Gordon, Lynn D. Gender and Higher Education in the Progressive Era. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.
Argument:
This book details the experiences of women higher education between 1890 and 1920. Lynn Gordon examined a variety of sources including college newspapers, personal papers from students and alumnae to understand the “day-to-day operations of organizations and campus life.” (p. 9) The result is a series of case studies that included coeducational and female institutions from varied geographic regions and mindsets. Her study, as Lynn notes, does not establish breadth in this subject but demonstrates the diversity of experiences women found at the University of California Berkley, the University of Chicago, Vassar College, Agnes Scot College, and Sophie Newcomb College with reference to some other colleges as well. On campus, women in coeducational institutions often faced problems in their daily lives because of fears that women would taint the social and intellectual balance for men in place. They could not participate in many of the extra-curricular activities that were dominated by the male population. Women who attended female only colleges often found that they could participate freely on campus in various organizations and activities. However, once graduated, all women were held to the same problems when entering the workforce—rather they were generally excluded from the workforce. Beyond the problems on campus, women also faced social issues. Overall, the book addresses the dichotomy of the intellectual woman who finds difficulty striking a balance between her personal, work, and academic lives.
Critique:
Lynn D. Gordon used various sources to tell the tale of women in colleges across the United States very well. She details how the women at coeducational colleges managed to create their own place on campus (though often separate from the male culture). She illustrated the importance of (and exclusion of) women as faculty, which highlights the need for more women in higher education even today. She aptly demonstrates that though women desired equality on college campuses and beyond, they rarely found it. Surprisingly, none of the colleges she examined were from the New England area. This is a striking difference from most of the depictions education in the Progressive Era. But is this exclusion warranted? A common theme throughout the book is women’s persistence toward equality in their institutions. Gordon pays heed to various instances of racism directed toward African Americans, Jewish women and Catholics. The book acknowledges these social justice issues but does not include them in her final conclusion. Rather, she focuses on women in general—white Protestant women. The treatment of these women deserves attention as well. Even though women of other ethnicities are covered in this book, Gordon seemingly glosses over them in the end. Even so, Gordon appears to do much in order to represent a picture of gender in higher education during the Progressive Era. The book is informative, insightful, enraging, and even entertaining.
Eisenmann, Linda. Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945-1965. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Argument:
This book examines the activist efforts of women in education between 1945 and 1965. While previous accounts of this time period viewed the women in the postwar as “oddly quiet and even acquiescent,”(p. 1), Eisenmann argues that beliefs about what constitutes activism must be revisited to place these women in the context of their time period. The women in the postwar era were reluctant to be considered activists because of a host of negative connotations associated with feminism. However, through an analysis of continuing education programs and various organizations and commissions, Eisenmann maintains that the postwar era saw much activism from and on behalf of women in education, even if its nature was not as obvious as the work of suffragettes in the 1920s and other activists after the 1960s. Undoubtedly, there was no collective feminist movement in higher education; indeed, women faced a multitude of problems in higher education and in the workplace. However, Eisenmann elucidates that through the education programs designed for women and organizations and research on behalf of women, there was a collective theme. That theme, incidentally, was individualism. The common thread in this research explains that a woman’s best chance at success was to focus on her own fulfillment, apart from any collective (threatening) group. Hence, this book pays attention to the postwar efforts toward the advancement of women that were the foundation of more overt forms of women’s advocacy.
John Rury, Education and Women’s Work: Female Schooling and the Division of Labor in Urban America, 1870-1930. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).
In this book, John Rury details the development of women’s education in relation to labor in urban areas between 1870-1930. Prior to 1900, middle-class women entered into secondary education (high schools, in particular) when it was not yet associated with employment. Thus, the women who attended these institutions received the same type of education as males, and they did not necessarily aspire to gain employment as a result of their education. Indeed, girls outnumbered boys in public high schools and were, for the first time, potentially better educated than boys. At the turn of the century, however, more women were working, more students were attending schools, and the curriculum changed to reflect the labor market. Rury argues that after 1900 the general push toward more vocational education established distinctly female tracks of education that focused on professions that women could aspire to. Because of this, and because of the efforts of educators to use schools to reinforce existing sex roles, American secondary schools became the guardians of the general sexual division of labor in society. Thus, vocational education for women often focused on office work, teaching and other feminized professions.
This book offers important insight into the education of women in the United States. Rury demonstrates that although education for women is often associated with labor market demands, their reasons for becoming educated may not be so clear-cut. Rury’s book uses census data, statistical reports used by other historians, regional studies and some students’ diaries to construct his narrative. Generally, this approach allowed Rury to produce a sound and persuasive narrative. However, the diaries only constituted a small portion of the analysis. The diaries come from women who attended high school in the nineteenth century and Rury used them to show that women who engaged in secondary education did so for education’s inherent worth, rather than to take part in the labor force. This, for me, was an impressive part of the book and I had hoped for more analysis like this. As schools became more focused on vocationalism, Rury argues that gender equity within schools diminished. But Rury argues that women’s participation in education was not determined by it’s vocational link. This is a compelling argument that Rury thoughtfully demonstrated through a regional analysis of the types of curriculum available to women. In the North, Rury found an “industrial pattern” in the South, an “agricultural pattern,” in the West, a “white collar model,” adopted by schools. None of these, however, show a correspondence between educational training and workforce patterns.
Christine Woyshner, The National PTA, Race, and Civic Engagement, 1897-1970, (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2009).
This book is the first comprehensive “organizational history” of the National Parent Teacher’s Association. Using social theory, Woyshner considers the National PTA through the lens of women’s history and race to reveal the important ways that this national organization influenced American schools. The history of the national PTA begins in 1897, when a group of elite, “maternalistic,” white women who promoted women’s activism in education, but who did not engage in controversial issues such as women’s suffrage. From the beginning, the PTA was open to white and black women and drew on important African American reformers for some of its programs. However, this stance was mostly a rhetorical one because the national organization did not oversee local groups. In the South, this meant that blacks could be excluded without any kind of reprimand. This disparity resulted in the formation of the National Congress of Colored Parents and Teachers (NCCPT), which was separate from the national PTA, though the two organizations existed side-by-side. The two groups operated in similar ways, but the NCCPT’s membership comprised largely of teachers, whereas the PTA consisted of mothers. Also, the two organizations major goals were different, especially after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, because black groups focused more on racial equality, while the white PTAs focused on fundraising. After Brown vs. Board, the call for racial integration eventually reached the PTA and in 1970 the two groups merged into one. When this happened, Woyshner argues that this marked the end of the distinct organization of the NCCPT, as it was consumed into the national PTA.
This book offers a look into an organization that had influence over American education. While the perception of the PTA is a positive one, this history reveals the underlying racial tensions that have riddled the organization’s past. These racial tensions mimicked those that occurred nationally within schools as well. Because the PTA was a nationally federated voluntary group, it could ultimately ignore racial politics at a local level, while maintaining racial inclusiveness rhetorically. This revelation underscores the need to understand organizations like the PTA that stand for one thing rhetorically, but in reality stand for another. Another important contribution that this book makes is the argument that through integration, the PTA actually had detrimental effects on its black constituents. Woyshner suggests that integration ultimately resulted in the demise of a thriving, yet separate black organization for women. When this happened, the result was a loss of community and authority, rather than a focus on political and social gains. This argument aligns itself with other scholarship that describes the demise of the black community as a result of racial integration. This is a compelling argument but it offers more questions. I find myself wondering where the women of the NCCPT went after their organization was integrated with the national PTA. Surely, these active women did continue in their role as social activists, but perhaps under more “anonymous” roles than in a national organization.
Fass, Paula, S. Outside In: Minorities and the Transformation of American Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Argument:
Inside Out: Minorities and the Transformation of American Education traces the history of particular minorities' experiences in American Education. Unlike many accounts of these particular minorities, (immigrants, African Americans, Catholics, Jews, and women), Fass argues that these minorities influenced American Education various ways. The influx of immigration during the Progressive Era forced education reformers to assess differences between different groups of people. This occurred in the form of IQ tests and scientific measurements that, rather than democratizing education, actually established curricular patterns that stratified the groups. Education for African Americans, Fass argues, was positively impacted by the Great Depression and World War II. In particular, African Americans in the war were given literacy training and this proved that they were educable and shed light on the inequalities they experienced in education. The chapter on women in higher education highlighted the focus placed on the role of liberal arts in education. Liberal Arts at once prepared women for work in the professional realm (albeit a limited realm for women) but also for life as a mother. So women influenced higher education because the curriculum needed to address the female "paradox" between marriage and work life. Catholic schools were set apart from public schools but they often followed the lead of public institutions by using intelligence testing and offering extra curricular and vocational education. However, because Catholic schools did not have to follow the rules of public institutions, and because they had control over admittance, Catholic schools were generally considered more academically inclined than the public schools. Through her analysis of these various groups at different periods in time, Fass concludes that although these minorities certainly experienced discrimination through American education, they also influenced American culture within the schools.
Critique:
The greatest attribute of this book is that it depicts minorities as multidimensional, rather than as merely victims of a racist regime. To be sure, Fass does not underestimate the discriminatory practices of schools but places minorities within them. Fass also demonstrates an admiral attempt at giving voice to the actual students she refers to. In particular, she addresses the participation of students in extra curricular activities through their year books. However, this book is not a comprehensive analysis of minorities in education. Fass covers a lot of ground and includes information from the Progressive Era to the mid-twentieth century. However, she does not include all minorities in her study. In particular, the absence of Native Americans and Latinos is striking. Certainly, Catholic education was prevalent in the western regions of America. However, I doubt that her conclusions about Catholic schools could be generalized to include those institutions. The groups that she covered with her specific examination do uphold her argument but this book is not easily generalized to include all minority experiences in American education. This is a fact that Fass herself recognizes. So there is still much ground to be covered. Despite these limitations, the book presents a new take on minority groups in America.
MacDonald, Victoria-Maria. Latino Education in the United States: A Narrated History from 1513-2000. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
Major Argument(s)
In Latino Education in the United States, Macdonald describes the often tumultuous and seemingly never ending road to equality for Latinos in the United States. MacDonald seeks to integrate the often neglected Latino American experience into history of the United States. The Latino experience in the United States is unique because of the diversity of peoples included in the group. In particular, this book chronicles the colonization and “Americanization” of Mexicans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans in the United States. MacDonald articulates the argument that though Latinos have struggled for a suitable system of education in the United States, education is paramount to the Latino culture despite country of origin. Latino resistance to “Americanization” in schools is a powerful thematic element of MacDonald’s argument. The struggle over language and culture is a battle that still rages on today, and it is one that typified the Latino experience in education. The Latino population’s ability to organize and unify assisted their progress toward equality through court cases, especially, underscores that this group could have a powerful impact in American society. The final implication of the book is that the Latino population in the United States is rapidly becoming the largest minority group in the country. MacDonald indicates that Latinos will have to remain unified and active for the destiny of their movement to avoid a backswing.
Critique
MacDonald’s book is an excellent narrative of Latino education in the United States. The topic is very personal to the author, and she highlights this by citing examples from her past to underscore her arguments. This is a blessing and a curse for MacDonald. It is difficult to divorce the writer from the material because she so blatantly displays her passion and even her own experiences that pushed her to do the research. The narrative is indeed personal, which did make it a wonderful read. She utilizes many different types of sources including legal documents, diaries, letters of correspondence, and even fictional narratives. In the introduction, MacDonald indicates that the use of less formal documents help to “balance” the narrative and create greater depth in the material. It is interesting that MacDonald includes many of her primary resources within the text. She seems to view this book as an opportunity for other scholars to delve into the wealth of history she believes scholars have yet to explore. Occasionally, MacDonald relies upon specific examples to relay a general point. However, she generally acknowledges other studies in conjunction with her examples. The book is essentially guidebook for future scholarship and MacDonald treats it that way by providing examples of issues that she could not fully resolve in her narrative.
Edward A. Krug, The Shaping of the American High School, (New York, Harper and Row: 1964).
In the first volume of The Shaping of the American High School, Edward A. Krug traverses the landscape of education in the United States as it took shape between 1880 and 1920. By doing so, Krug reveals the various forces that influenced the shaping of the American high school. Krug focuses on the work of the Committee of Ten, who proposed that schools ought to be more standardized to reflection national standards and larger. Though the Committee of Ten certainly heralded much attention, it was not the only proposal for education, and in fact, theirs served as a counter point for others who had different ideas about how schools should be run. In the book, Krug introduces the tensions between the desire for intellectual, classical, and vocational education. In doing so, it is clear that throughout the development of the American high school, the question of the overall purpose of school is highly relevant. Through the various perspectives presented, but mostly through the reports of administrators and college men, Krug shows how high schools changed according to the demands of the times. For example, the emphasis on social efficiency that grew in the 1910s placed a demand on subject areas to contain value in the society. In other words, school subjects could not longer be regarded as ends to themselves. Rather, subject areas needed to have some other worth for either industrial or collegiate means. In essence, this book covers the forces that shaped the structure and purpose of the high school in American society, which largely relied on compromise.
Though this book does not offer an astute argument about the shaping of the American high school, it does suggest a lot about how schools developed. The writing is interesting and reads almost like a novel, something that the reader appreciates in the vast sea of ideas and facts that the book contains. The book was written to show how the American high school went from an elitist institution to the comprehensive model that we are familiar with today. Chapter eight, in particular, addressed the “children of the plain people,” who crowded public high schools whether they were college bound or not. This chapter served as an excellent example of the ways that public schools developed because of the outside forces that drove the children of the poor into schools. The schools, then, had to take this new population into consideration. Eventually, social efficiency prevailed as the standard way of educating. While, Krug does an especially good job of accounting for the ways that the high school developed from the standpoint of those in charge, this volume pays little attention to those who were in the schools most, teachers and students. Also, I was impressed that Krug mentions the differences between urban and rural education, but this is not explored fully in this volume. Krug’s account, in essence, provides an excellent reference for the progression of the American high school but does not offer a lens from which to view it.
Edward A. Krug, The Shaping of the American High School, Volume 2: 1920-1941, (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1972.)
In the second volume of Edward A. Krug’s The Shaping of the American High School: 1920-1941, Krug begins in the roaring twenties. This volume is couched between two wars but covers a two decade span of peacetime, in which schooling and education became a high priority in public mind and in American culture. Krug describes two periods during these two decades that the American high school went through: “Before 1929 the high school was not taken seriously enough. After that it was taken too seriously.” In essence, the high school took a custodial role in society, along with other institutions aimed at controlling youth, as a result of the Great Depression. Major unemployment spurred unprecedented enrollment into the public high school, which placed greater social significance onto the high school. A significance it had never before experienced. This form of mass entrance into high school allowed the school to take a custodial, rather than intellectual place in society and thus the emergence of life adjustment education—an educational strategy that promoted distinct tracks for students who would pursue college or enter the workforce upon graduation. In essence, as high school became a pervasive part of American society, it took on a custodial role in that society.
In this volume, Krug is candid about his perspective on the events that took place during the two decades of change in the American high school. He believed that the emphasis on the custodial function of schools is a disservice to students who must fit into a prescribed notion of academic and social aptitude. He also believed that his notion of a perfect high school had not actually been attained, despite the efforts of men who Krug clearly admired, such as Charles Eliot. This perspective certainly colored this volume as he described the changes in curriculum, (often) public debates over subject areas, and the lives of students and teachers. The most compelling feature of this volume is the way that Krug consistently links the debates over education with social and economic changes. The Great Depression clearly impacted schools in major ways. But the American mindset also influenced education. Overall, this entire volume is valuable to the educational historian for its reference-like quality. Indeed, Krug considers a wide variety of forces that shaped the American high school including pop culture and the onset of film, radio, and distinct adolescent fashion and culture. Krug does not, however, grapple with issues of race. Though he acknowledges that racial segregation was the case, he does not include those who were not white in the context of shaping the American high school.
