Contrasting Values in American Education

Contrasting Values in American Education | May 2008 | Foundations of Education Course | History of American Education

American education through the centuries has been driven by many complex forces including but not limited to social needs, political ambitions, economic pressures, moral and ethical standards and cultural norms. It represents what most any broad-reaching education system in a growing democracy might be and in that it provides a great learning ground for anyone interested in education. Volumes have been written from varying perspectives on different aspects of its history and while each perspective has an intriguing story to tell, there is one that is most compelling to me.  Every major event, reform and movement in American education is at its very root grounded in one of two contrasting values. On one hand we have the growth of America into the powerful democracy that it is and the need to educate its citizens in a manner that will fuel the democracy and its economy, in doing so bring success to the nation and in turn the citizens it educated. On the other hand is the perspective that education first and foremost must pay attention to the needs of the individual child, nurture her inner goodness, allow her to follow her natural curiosity and consequently hope for her to grow into the responsible citizen of a powerful democracy. Both values have related goals but the priorities of the goals are at different and they are often at odds with each other. At the same time, it is fascinating to note that while both of these perspectives have in practice been at odds with each other, they are deeply inter-connected because without the individual there cannot be a society and without the society, the individual has nothing to be a part of.

The majority of movements that have shaped the majority of American education lay emphasis on the needs of the nation and its economy above the needs of the individual. They have however been influenced, nudged and reluctantly shaped by the thinking of radical progressives who have fought to bring to front-and-center the need to honor the individual.

This report captures the major ideas and movements in American education with a commentary on whether the emphasis on societal need or individual needs shaped a particular movement. In doing so, this report lays the foundation for a greater exploration on the topic of the role and value of education.

For the sake of brevity, this report focuses on the period of American education starting mid-nineteenth century, with the Common School movement. A perspective on the Common School movement is essential in understanding the birth of public schools, which are the primary educational institutions of America. Following the Common School movement there was a “progressive” era which led to the clear division between movements that either focused on the nation or those that focused on the individual. These movements are chronicled in a manner that provides clarity on the goals, practices and results of the two contrasting value systems that have shaped American education.

Common School Movement (1840 – 1900)

To understand the birth of the mid-nineteenth century Common School, we need to briefly investigate the state of schooling in America in the years leading up to the Common School movement. In eighteenth century colonial America, most children attended school for ten to twelve weeks in a year, spending the rest of their time focused on primarily agrarian familial responsibilities. In those days, for the most part education was the responsibility of the adults in a family, the larger community and the church.

After the revolution, the founding leaders of the nation questioned whether the highly localized, unregulated and non-uniform model of education was appropriate for the health of the young nation. They insisted upon a more systematized mode of learning that was governed by centrally appointed superintendents who would ensure a uniform dispensing of education in order to create worthy, reliable, citizens who would play their part in the growth of the nation. The growing population of east coast cities and the fast-paced social and economic changes of the time leant force to the movement to create the Common School. It was a time that demanded order, a way to inculturate the growing immigrant population and a means to keep them under control. The Common School was seen as a means to control poverty, by creating “educated” workers who could grow the economy and work themselves out of poverty. It was also seen as a way to rid the poor populations of vices and to grow them into morally good citizens. The movement was met with resistance from the government-fearing citizens who found security in having local community control over the education of their children. Their fears were well founded as the Common School deemphasized community-specific values and norms including the sectarian religious practices that it replaced with a more generalized Protestant version of Christianity. The concept of the Common School was debated for nearly two decades. It finally took root in 1840 and by 1860 had created the position of the state superintendent who worked to publicize educational causes and create exemplary practices. Property taxes were levied to support what became the founding Public Schools of America. Common Schools gained more strength with the Compulsory Attendance Act of 1852 supported by Horace Mann, Secretary of Massachusetts State Board of Education that required all children between the ages of eight and fourteen to attend school for at least three months of the year. With required attendance, there came a means to enforce education in the way that the centralized authorities considered best. This was the first law to enforce education.

The Common School movement was grounded in the value for creating a successful and healthy nation by having a means to create a uniform, predictable citizenry that could be counted upon to play designated roles in a fast-growing nation. The very notion of having a uniform mode of education placed emphasis on societal needs above those of the individual. This was the first significant movement to deemphasize the individual in favor of the “greater good”.

The “Progressive” Era and the birth of the two paths (1890 – 1950 and onwards)

Rampant industrialization of the early 20th century brought unprecedented success to the growing American economy. It put new demands on the growing population in the form of refined and regulated educational practices. Leaders all over looked to the education system to churn out the right population to ride the tide of success. The “Progressive” Era of American schools born in these times was fraught with two contrasting modes of Progressivism, each one rooted in the contrasting values that are the focus of this report. On the one hand were the technocratic, bureaucrats pushing for uniform curricula based on the science of education. On the other were the Dewey and Dewey-like clan who believed in radical democracy as conceptualized by Jefferson that would lead to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people. They kept the interests of the individual at the heart of education.

Conservative Progressivism that brought us to the No Child Left Behind Act

The birth of Conservative Progressivism can be traced back to Declaration of Independence and the interpretation of the American Dream. At the time of the revolution there wasn’t a ‘united’ front to the colonial forces. The unification was created by a group of aristocrats in an effort to gain independence. Upon independence, this group of aristocrats worked to create a political system that would maintain the class-based social hierarchy that had existed until then. They painted their efforts in a positive light by holding on to the ideals in the declaration of independence, seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only for the merited few, specifically, the white men of the country. They sought to enforce a “hierarchical meritocratic system” (Beach, 2006) through which as Jefferson said, “the best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish” (Beach, 2006). The education system was meant to foster the values they so praised, namely, “self-reliance, hard work, frugality, dutiful industry, success, and prosperity” (Beach, 2006), which are also the founding principles of capitalism. In doing so, they used the education system to ensure the continuance of separating the privileged from the disadvantaged.

In addition to maintaining a social hierarchy through their efforts, the conservatives also had their eye on the need for America to maintain an economic edge in the global market. Towards the end of both the nineteenth and the twentieth century, there were alliances established between business, political and education leaders to determine how the school system could be reformed to produce a workforce that could grow the nation in economic prosperity. At both these times a push was made to introduce more vocational training that involved more hands-on learning and less academic work. In this regard the effort of the conservatives was connected in philosophy to those of the radical progressives who believed in “learning by doing” as promoted by Dewey.

Pre-WWI American business leaders worried that Germany was leading in the global market because of its technical education. An alliance was created between business, political and educational leaders. Business leaders touted corporate success as being reliant on efficiency and professional management. They emphasized that the application of corporate management strategies would lead to great success in reforming the education
system. To begin with, this changed how school boards were elected. The
hereunto political system of appointing school board members was
modified into being a non-partisan election-based process. School
boards like corporate boards were seen as needing experts as members
instead of the lay community members it had been comprised of so far.
Experts were seen as being the ones who knew how to run and manage
schools. In this way, local community involvement was de-emphasized.
The experts on the boards were often former CEOs and retired military
officials and less often educators. This first alliance started the
process of running schools like corporations were run.

Video of Progressive Education in the 1940s

In the mid-1970s declining workplace productivity, a loss in global market share to Japan, rising unemployment and swift changes in technology raised concerns amongst national leaders. In their search for answers they turned to looking at the education system and found that high school graduates were for the workplace, they scored poorly on national tests, violence was on the rise in urban schools and white Americans were fleeing to the suburbs. Poor public schooling was seen as the cause. Business Roundtables were run to fix schools.

In 1983 a commission appointed by President Reagan produced the “A Nation at Risk” report that at its core established a direct causal relationship between poor test scores and poor performance in the workplace. Consequently, state after state raised high school graduation requirements, lengthened the school year and introduced more standardized tests.

By the 1990s states mandated curricular and performance standards and used tests to established teachers and principals accountability for student performance. They also emphasized rigorous academic coursework, a shift away from vocational training. More than ever, business practices were seen as being effective in controlling and managing schools. Schools were seen as being in a marketplace much like the economic marketplace. It was asserted that public schools would be better if they competed with each other. This could be made possible if parents chose the schools that their children went to. It was determined that students would do better in the growing information-based economy if they did better at academic coursework. Finally, standardized tests were seen as being the way to measure what had been learned and to predict how students might fare in the eventual workplace.

The application of three major business principles were at the heart of these changes – first to set goals, next to measure against those goals and then to reward and punish based on the measurement. In keeping with these principles, private companies now run public schools, they set and impose the goals for educators and school administrators. Standardized tests, conducted and reported often that measure student performance are used as accountability instruments for controlling educator behavior and in turn student learning experiences. Finally, those that succeed against the goals set are rewarded with cash payments and those that fail see their schools closed.

It is this climate and method of progressivism that led to the birth of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. This practice of progressivism, that started as the “Administrative Progressivism” of the early twentieth century has led to little change in the actual teaching practices of teachers. If anything it has led to a departure from the hands-on learning approach pushed for in the era of vocational training to a more academic focus that with the overwhelming pressure of testing has led to a more teacher-led, authoritative classroom environment. Such an environment cannot produce critical thinking, creative citizens who feel a sense of responsibility towards their community and nation. Further, the economic goals that this mode of education was meant to achieve are not being realized. The few studies that have been done to correlate performance on tests with workplace effectiveness show little or no connection between the two.

Given that the economy driven model of education is the dominant one today, it leaves us with more questions about the role and value of education and how its goals are connected to those of the nation. And, in the midst of all this, what of the individual?

Radical Progressivism that is the future

The radical progressives were led by John Dewey, who later came to be considered the “father of Progressive education”. As stated in a report by the University of Vermont’s John Dewey Project on Progressive Education,

“Dewey’s vision for the school was inextricably tied to his larger vision of the good society, wherein education–as a deliberately conducted practice of investigation, of problem solving, and of both personal and community growth–was the wellspring of democracy itself. Because each classroom represented a microcosm of the human relationships that constituted the larger community, Dewey believed that the school, as a “little democracy,” could create a “more lovely society.”

Dewey’s emphasis on the relationships in a classroom, which he believed would flower into the relationships between the citizens of a democracy, shifted the focus from the needs of society to those of the individual children in a classroom. Dewey’s child-centered principles of education were similar to those of Jacques Rousseau who believed in the natural goodness of children and letting that be the guide for learning. Dewey partnered with others like Frank Palmer both of whom founded schools focusing on children and their needs. This was in complete contrast to the conservative progressive schools that emphasized conformance and a black-box uniform mode for treating all children.

The efforts of Dewey and other radical progressives have been criticized for not articulating the practical societal impact of their child-centered approaches (Weiler, n.d.). Some view the impact of their approach as being limited. While radical progressive schools like the Laboratory School started by Dewey did not become mainstream, one might say that they were not meant to, by their very design to become replicable models that could be mass produced like everything else in an industrialized society. They have however had a lasting impact on how we have come to think about education. 

Following the Dewey-era of radical progressivism, the concepts of progressive education came to have several interpretations in the 1930s and 40s. In 1955 the publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read brought into question the reading ability; reading being considered one of the basic academic skills of an educated student; of progressively educated students. This created a backlash against radical progressive schooling. That along with the conservative environment of the McCarther era brought into question the liberal roots of radical progressivism. The 1958 launch of Sputnik by the Soviets further deemphasized radically progressive education as the political pressure mounted for the United States to measure up to the Russian scientific progress. This meant greater emphasis on Math and Science in schools. The 1950s were slow years for radically progressive education.

In the 1960s radical progressives reacted to the push back they received. The result was the emergence of several progressive approaches throughout the 60s and 70s. Hippy socialization gave further impetus to this re-emergence of radical progressivism. Major thinkers of that time included Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Jonathan Kozol and others humanistic educators and philosophers. Their beliefs were rooted back in Rousseau’s romanticism of the inner goodness of all beings. They believed that the ultimate goal of all human thought and action was the enhancement of human development, well-being and dignity. They believed in treating a child as a “whole” person and so too life as a “whole”, not segregated and taught to in many academic parts. As Whitehead said, “there is only one subject matter for education and that is life in all its manifestations”. It was the leadership of these humanistic thinkers that fueled the rebirth of the radical progressive movement.

Free Schools and Open Plan Schools were amongst some of the major progressive initiatives of that time. Free Schools, most often known as “Free Skools” were based on the anarchist tradition of collectivism, autonomy and self-reliance. They had no curriculum, no classes, no grades and were most often small. Students were provided an environment in which they could freely express and pursue their interests. They were trusted to learn what was essential by following their own curiosity. Teachers were in a non-authoritarian role, playing more the role of facilitators. The Sudbury Valley School in Framingham Massachusetts is one of the longest standing free schools in the country. It was founded on the belief that real democratic citizens grow out of a truly democratic school. Students at Sudbury are an integral part of running the democratic organization of the school.

They vote on all school matters including the hiring and re-hiring of teachers. They have committees for disciplinary action. Students request learning opportunities based on their interests and are not required to take any classes.

Another approach that gained much momentum, especially in the 70s was that of the Open Plan Schools. A 1970 conference report on Open Plan Schools describes such a school as “a group of large, open areas which have few, if any, fixed walls and which feature individualized instruction”. The physical layout of an Open Plan School was meant to reflect a deeper belief in freedom, dignity of the individual, group learning, free exchange amongst varying aged children and the removal of segregation. At the heart was an understanding of the rapid changes that the United States was experiencing in the 70s, both in terms of the growing availability of information and an increase in the number of people under the age of 25. The founders of the Open Plan Schools recognized that an unknown future, in which information was so abundantly available demanded that the rote memorization mode of learning practiced hereunto had to end and that children needed to have the freedom to follow individual passions and ways of finding greater meaning in their lives. The emphasis on finding meaning came from a possible motion from the President to introduce a 35 hour work week which would result in greater leisure time and hence the need for people to find greater meaning in their lives.

The re-birth of progressive education from the 60s and 70s has lingered on to this day. There are now several Sudbury Valley Schools and other Free Schools. Other democratic and humanistic education schools have seen a resurgence in recent years in reaction to the 2002 No Child Left Behind legislation. As always, even today, there are multiple interpretations to progressive education, which in many ways goes to the heart of the movement, it being one that is meant to be open to many interpretations because there is no one way to bring about good schooling, there are as many ways as there are individuals.

Conclusion

Today, the world of education is riding on an edge. The traditional methods of Conservative Progressivism dominate American public education. At the same time, the reality of having abundant information available at fingertips in a globally shrinking world that is facing critical environmental issues is putting new demands on how we think about our existence and hence what we teach our children about thinking and learning. Thought leaders like Sir Ken Robinson and Daniel Pink are calling for the cultivation of creativity and more “right-brain skills” so the citizens of tomorrow can deal with the change-driven world they will live in. What happens next rests in our hands. We have a choice to make — we can either keep with what is known or embrace our changing world and teach to be able to live in it.

References:

(1970). The Open Plan School. Report of a National Seminar. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://archone.tamu.edu/CRS/engine/archive_files/EFL/6000.0205.pdf

Beach, J. M. (2007). The Ideology of the American Dream: Two Competing Philosophies in Education. Educational Studies, 148-164.

Mondal, S., Patton, S. B. (Eds.) (2001). School: The Story of American Public Education. Location: Boston Publisher: Beacon Press.

Weiler, Kathleen (n.d.). What Can We Learn from Progressive Education?. Radical Teacher, 69, 4-10.