#te 901

Two Hundred Years in Fifteen Pages: Education in Greg’s Nutshell 

Over the course of American history, public education has seen its share of new ideologies, changes, advancements, and mistakes.  The task for this paper is to summarize the content covered within this Teacher Education 901 course, tie together common themes, and elaborate upon any pieces of brilliant insight gained throughout the experience.  With that in mind, I have set my goals of this paper as follows: (1) provide an overview of two hundred years of education within the United States, (2) expand on key pieces of this evolution, and (3) discuss how these pieces persist in today’s educational climate.  While I understand that the individual authors can speak for me, I expect to include a fair amount of editorializing within the text below.  Shall we begin?

OVERVIEW

The history of education, within the United States, can be traced back to the late 18th century and our “founding fathers.”  Thomas Jefferson - as told by Spring (2014) and Tozer, Senese, and Viola (2009) - was in favor of three years education for any non-slave child, at no cost to their family.  From this group, Jefferson suggested moving the best and brightest into the next level of schooling.  This idea for education was intended to provide the result that George Washington sought when suggesting the establishment of a national university, a training program for the next generation of politicians.  In the views of both Jefferson and Washington, the United States needed to find a way to train future political leaders and help establish a national culture (Spring, 2014).  Spring (2014) explained that Washington’s goals were seen as “elitist,” as only the rich would have access to this new university.  Jefferson’s plan, however, sought to avoid the same label by including all non-slave students in his schooling plans.    

Since Jefferson, three school models have governed the bulk of American education - common-school model, the sorting-machine model, and the high-stakes testing model (Spring 2014).  Jefferson’s plan, on some level, but particularly Horace Mann’s approach to education, fall into the common-school model.  This model is characterized by a common curriculum taught to all students.  In Jefferson’s case, reading writing and arithmetic were the tenants, Mann would add orthography and geography to this common curriculum.  In addition, each displayed a desire, through education, to strengthen the political and cultural climate of the United States (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al, 2009).  In either case, common-schools were intended to prepare students for the socioeconomic competition that would come outside the classroom, presumably after a student completes their schooling (Spring, 2014).

Tozer et al. (2009) describe a time-line between the implementation of the common-school model to the turn of the 19th century, covering roughly six decades.  During this time, the United States went through a major civil war, followed by The Reconstruction and Redemption eras.  With the freeing of slaves, combined with a continued immigrant population and a desire to re-establish a culture of dominance and comfort, a new model for schooling was developed and gained traction in the years leading up to the 20th century.  The progressive era of education brought the sorting-machine model to schools across the United States.  A sorting-machine model, according to Spring (2014), is characterized by an effort to divide students into tracks based on teacher and counselor assessments, as well as standardized testing IQ testing.  Once divided, students would receive education needed for that track, establishing a student’s social position prior to graduation.

The common-school ideology comes out of an established belief that a system of public education was a necessity for this blossoming country.  As mentioned above, Washington, Jefferson, Mann all had a part to play in the establishment of this school culture.  Washington and Jefferson both believed that, for the benefit of the United States, there needed to be a way to groom future political leaders.  Washington sought the creation “an aristocracy of the educated” (Spring, 2014, p. 11) for the purpose of leading the United States away from the “hereditary aristocracy” found across Europe, and in particular, England.  In his proposal, criticized as elitist, Washington would call for all political leaders to possess a college education, a requirement only the wealthy could afford (Spring, 2014).

Jefferson, conversely, looked to the American populous as a whole, believing that any American citizen could become part of this political elite.  Tozer et al. (2009) outline Jefferson’s plan, and within his ideas of public education, the seeds of the common-school can be seen.  Jefferson desired a system of schooling that would form wards measuring about five square miles.  Within each ward, an elementary school will be established which will provide all non-slave children three years of free schooling.  This free schooling will allow the students to study reading, writing, and common arithmetic, allowing each student a level of education deemed necessary for one to operate in society (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  Tozer et al. (2009) further explain that from each elementary school, one male would be selected to continue on to grammar school for potentially two more years of schooling.  Through grammar school, the best student would be selected  and retained after each school year, the remainder dismissed.  

Tozer et al. (2009) go on to explain that the proposed plan was a departure from the aristocracies described above, leaning more on a student’s merit to award station and prestige, than their birthright or level of parental success.  Through hard work, any male, non-slave student could move into a governing position.  This allowed for the discovery of a generation’s political and cultural leaders from all American populations, the elite and common alike (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  Women, on the other hand, were not seen by Jefferson as anything beyond “a wife, homemaker, bearer of children and delight to her husband — period” (Tozer et al., 2009, p. 46).   In summarizing Jefferson’s idea, Spring (2014) writes:

The details of Jefferson’s plan are not as important as the idea, which has become ingrained in American social thought, that schooling is the best means of identifying democratic leadership.  This idea assumes that the educational system is fair in its judgments.  Fairness of selection assumes that judgment is based solely on talent demonstrated in schools [and gender] and not on other social factors such as race, religion, dress, and social class (p. 11).

Horace Mann, the father of public schools, centered his educational reform efforts in Massachusetts, where he would serve as secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  Through his education reform, Mann pushed for the development of common footing for all students, one allowing each students access to the same information and instruction, upon which to build their life (Spring, 2014).  Mann’s efforts are generally considered the beginning of the Common-school Era of education, within the United States.  The intent was to create an educational experience that was common amongst all students, and Mann effectively implemented this ideal across Massachusetts (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  

Mann believed “that all children in society [should] attend the same type of school” (Spring, 2014, p. 12).  In these schools, Mann believed the common curriculum, stated only one time in 1842, would include reading, writing, and arithmetics, similar to Jefferson (Tozer et al., 2009).  Mann’s ideal minimum education would add orthography and geography.  Furthermore, Mann desired the inclusion of educational goals related to the teaching of a common political philosophy or ideology, producing citizens that felt an obligation to vote (Spring, 2014).  He viewed this addition to the elementary school curriculum as a vital part in maintaining a healthy democracy.

Mann’s common-school system drew students from a variety of backgrounds and possessing a variety of resources and privilege.  The schools, then, worked to bring each student to the same level of knowledge and ability by the end of their schooling.  This would allow for graduating students an equal starting position from which they may begin their lifelong socioeconomic competition (Spring, 2014).  In doing so, Mann wished to instill a common set of morals (Tozer et al., 2009), as well as a general agreement related to political values (Spring, 2014).  I believe Mann’s vision for each student’s education can be summed up by the words “the same,” though another might consider “assimilation” to be a better descriptor.  

The end of the Common-School Era is generally marked by the beginning of the Civil War.  At the war’s conclusion, the United States went through a Reconstruction and Redemption Era in which both the North and South worked to rebuild the country, then regain control of their respective societies within the structure of new laws.  As the United States moved into the 20th century, education became an issue of increasing importance due to several quickly evolving factors.  With the move from rural to urban areas, the growth of industry and increased immigration, schooling within the United States had to be revised and ultimately was re-invented in order to address the new needs of a quickly changing country (Tozer et al., (2009).

“While we cannot hold all children to the same standard of school progress, we can at least prevent the kind of retardation which involves failure and the repetition of a school grade” (Terman, 1916, p. 4).  Terman’s writing demonstrated a belief that students have differing abilities, and holding one to the standards of a “normal” student may lead to this repetition of grade levels, and that such failure is detrimental to a student’s academic efforts and tend to wreak havoc on their self-confidence.  Allowing for alternate tracks of education would alleviate the strain on the lower third or half of the student population (Terman, 1916).  If the different tracks exist, it is important that students are appropriately filed into each track.  This was done via scientifically standardized IQ testing of students as young as 6- or 7- years of age.  Terman (1916) suggested “our main reliance must always be in mental tests, properly used and properly interpreted” (p. 5), offering both support to the scientific knowledge upon which the test was created, but also a warning about its misuse.  

Other solutions for public education included the building of larger school structures, allowing a student to “learn by doing,” and providing more options for educating all students, the high and low achievers alike (Tozer et al., 2009).  These redesigned schools became institutions whose goal was to create and reproduce, not unlike an assembly line, well rounded and productive members of American society; individuals who possessed an understanding of their role and an ability to contribute to the betterment of the United States (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  Some educators, such a John Dewey, saw an opportunity to use these factory school buildings to turn the schoolhouse into a center for social and political activities within the community (Spring, 2014).  Given the increase to the size of an average school and the school’s generally central location within the ward, this idea makes perfect sense.

In summarizing other aspects of Dewey’s educational beliefs, Tozer et al. (2009) revealed a desire for schools be centered around needs and interests of the student, as opposed to basing one’s education on archaic values or societal desires.  The purpose was to allow a student some control in their education, to be an active participant throughout their learning process, and to allow students to explore social issues within the schooling process.  This last portion would allow for graduating students to immediately step into their chosen societal roles with a significant level of confidence and understanding.  Mann had a similar desire for all students through their common-school experience (Spring, 2014).

Other progressive educators believed in the building of efficiency through rote memorization and drill (Thorndike, 1922; Tozer et al. 2009).  For Thorndike, the student who understood mathematics could do calculations quickly and accurately, and memorization and drill represented the best way to build the stimulus-response bonds needed for such knowledge.  

With all the ideas surrounding education during the early 20th century, three ideas were taken up to create the sorting-machine model rooted in social efficiency, standardized IQ testing, tracking, and an overemphasis on efficiency (Spring, 2014; Terman, 1916; Thorndike, 1922).  Tozer et al. (2009) describe social efficiency as “progress focused on achieving an orderly society in which political and economic institutions represented the interests of the governed through the application of the best principles of scientific knowledge and expertise” (p. 151).  The Progressive Era’s pursuit of social efficiency led to the sorting students into tracks and making sure they are efficient in their work, and represent cornerstones of our educational system, today.

The Progressive-Era of education brought a belief that a student could be measured, then sorted, based on the results of one exam (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  This effort, in turn, would assist all students because the low performing students would have a separate criteria by which to be judged and those who excelled on the assessment would be able to move forward, unobstructed (Terman, 1916).  The progressive ideology, though, was to test students as they enter school, separating six- and seven-year old students into their educational tracks, then create as efficient a body of knowledge as each track could handle.  

Around the middle of the 20th century, Ralph Tyler published a syllabus for one of his education courses at the University of Chicago.  This syllabus, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction - commonly knows as Tyler’s Rationale - produced a new vision of the role assessment should play in a student’s education.  Tyler (1969) established four questions that, he suggests, should be answered in the development of any new curricula or instructional plans.  No answers to any of the four are offered in Tyler’s Rationale, rather Tyler (1969) chooses to expand on how one might study following four questions:

(1) What educational purpose should the school seek to attain?

(2) What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

(3) How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

(4) How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained (p. 1)?

From these four questions, one can see an outline for our modern educational model - the High-Stakes Testing Model.  Starting with the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, it was required that each State establish or adopt educational standards for their student population (NCLB, 2001).  From those standards, curricula were designed and lesson chosen and ordered to focus on the experiences that can effectively meet the assigned standards.  Not to lose sight of the importance of “scientific” testing brought forth by the progressive era, we assess our students through the completion of yearly standardized tests beginning in third grade.  These test results are used in a variety of ways, including student progress and promotion, state and federal funding, and assessment of a teacher’s effectiveness (Spring, 2014).  

To this point in the paper, I have covered three models of education, spanning nearly two centuries of education policy.  I have attempted to kept my editorials, in relationship to each educational model, to a single paragraph.  These paragraphs were intended to point out how I see each model still influencing the modern educational ideology, as opposed to voicing my opinion related to the structure of the individual models.  Each model, each era of education, has both positive and negative characteristics.  At this point, looking back at this history, I find it frustrating that we, as a country, have chosen to implement the worst ideas or found the worst way to implement the better ideas outlined in the sections above.

Jefferson and Mann sought a common structure to education, allowing for students to rise from the rubble based on their demonstrated ability.  Students within the common-schools were also assimilated, in a manner of speaking, in an attempt to create a new generation of productive and democratic minded American citizens.  Both of these aspects, in theory, exist today, but neither in such an idealistic form.  Modern public schools are hardly equal.  There are inequities in the level of funding - largely based on property taxes; in every aspect of student population - increasing racial segregation between schools and programs within one school, differences in socioeconomic levels, and varied cultural values; and in the quality of teachers - highly qualified instructors versus experienced instructors versus alternate certification programs.  

Using race, as one example, Spring (2014) reveals that public schools in the 2003-04 school year are more segregated than those in the 1991-92 school year.  More specifically, the percentages of Black, Latin@, and Native American students in with a 50% to 100% minority population have all climbed during this 12 year span, by at least four percentage points (Spring, 2014).  Within a single school, students are subjected to second-generation segregation, which “refers to forms of racial segregation that are a result of school practices such as tracking, ability grouping and the misplacement of students in special education classes” (Spring, 2014, p.115).  The common-school ideology exists, in theory, as students are taught similar material and have an opportunity to excel based on their in school success.  In practice, however, we are failing students while pretending that we can teach each student the same content in the same order with the same materials, as though students are clones of one another.

The Progressive-Era of education did bring forth pretty new buildings, the potential for a better rounded education, and the possibility of a community center (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  The steps taken in the early 20th century allowed for a chance to center the life of one community around that of the schoolhouse, to have community input in what students are to learn, to “take a village to raise each child,” and making the educational experience student centered, as desired by Dewey  (Tozer et al., 2009).  Instead, we opt for the sorting-machine model, tracking students based on IQ scores and teacher and counselor opinions (Spring, 2014).  We decided to place students into educational paths that represent one’s opinion of “the best interest of the child” as opposed to the interests that child most desires to follow (Tozer et al., 2009).  What makes this most infuriating is that we make this decision, decide the fate of a child based on a single test at seven-years-old.  

We still utilize testing.  Based on this testing we sort students into tracks that best fit the “best interest of the child,” as opposed to a track that fits with the students’ desires.  Fortunately for our students, modern schools no longer make these decisions based on one IQ test given as they enter school.  We now wait until they are nine years of age to test students over academic standards approved by a political body (NCLB, 2001), so that is progress, I suppose.  It is this third grade year that marks the beginning of the high-stakes testing model we currently utilize.  Between third and eighth grade, students take exams covering reading and mathematics (sometimes writing, science, and social studies as well).  In some years, failing to pass the exam prevents the student’s promotion to the next grade.  Beyond promotion penalties, these tests are standardized, much like the IQ testing, and therefore used for student placement and tracking.  I personally taught a year-long recovery class for 8th grade students who did not pass the 7th grade exam.  In order to take my class, the students had to give up two elective classes, one each semester.  

Over two hundred years, the United States has seen three major eras of education, each built upon the prior era.  In doing so, the next reform movement decided to tweak the prior model, when possible, implementing a new educational educational system to fit the new needs.  The common-school model established a need for a democratic education and a meritocracy (Spring, 2014; Tozer et al., 2009).  This produced students who were knowledgeable about and  ready to take their positions within society, understood the importance of voting, and allowed for students to enter school at any level and advance to become a member of the nation’s educational elite.  

The sorting-machine model, established during the progressive era, also sought a democratic education, admitted that students may work their way to the elite, but would first be sorted based on ability.  Bemoaning the fact that students were allowed to enter into tracks for which they would be unsuccessful, Terman (1916) wrote “[t]ests and forethought must take the place of failure and patchwork” (p. 5).  Terman, and other progressive educators, believed that intervention prior to a student’s academic failure and careful placement would lead more student to be more successful.  We still have this “do what is in the best interest of this child” mentality.  We opt for deciding a student’s path, as opposed allowing an opportunity for that child to follow a course of study that is interesting to them.

Our current high-stakes testing model accepts the democratic education and meritocracy introduced in the common-school era, and does so in a more genuine way than progressive era policies did.  That said, we also inherited our reliance on standardized tests, and the policies surrounding such testing, and the desire to track students by ability or test results.  This progressive influence does make it improbable that a student’s merit will allow for the advancement into an elite class.  

Act, N. C. L. B. (36). of 2001. Public Law, (107-110), 115.

Spring, J. (2014) American education, sixteenth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Houghton Mifflin.

Thorndike, E. L. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. Macmillan.

Tozer, S., Violas, P. C., & Senese, G. B. (2009). School and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill.

This week we read 3/4 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Paulo Freire, 1996), which is brilliantly thought provoking.  As such, I’m attempting to not trivialize his work, but expand on an idea I am always intrigued by.

n)    Intertextuality: Put the article into relation with a text (e.g., book, movie, poem) that you particularly like, and write something (~250 words) that connects the two.

At the beginning of Chapter 3, Freire wrote 

“If it is in speaking their word that people, by naming the world, transform it, dialogue imposes itself as the way by which they achieve significance as human beings” (p. 69). 

Of this, I was intrigued by “people, by naming the world, transform it”.  The power of word is a very common thread throughout fantasy writings.  More specifically, “naming” something specific allows one freedom from or power over the object or individual.  

I understand that Freire was not intending that one individual take control over another, but that all individuals make the effort to “name” the world around them, problematize that which is named and then work to correct the injustice (at least, this is my understanding through one reading).  Without identifying the issue, i.e. “naming the world”, there would be no focus, no way of transforming the present issue. 

So, in a not so direct parallel, but with a clear connection in my mind, I jump to the genre of fantasy writing.  Specifically, I was reminded of Christopher Paolini’s “Inheritance Cycle” series.  This story centers around a boy, Eragon, who found a dragon’s egg, hatched it, and became a “dragon rider.”  The adventures of Eragon and his dragon, Saphira, then, become an effort to restore balance to a kingdom under the control of Galbatorix.  

Plot line aside, much is made of one’s “true name.”  In this land, it is important to find one’s true name, a description that encapsulates that being’s true essence.  One’s true name, then can be used entering into a binding, magical contract that is unbreakable.  A true name will also yield the speaker complete power/control over the being or object named.  

It is in this power of “naming” that the two writers link, both agreeing that identifying the actuality of “what is” makes it possible to act upon that which is named.  

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Publishing