Reading the information presented on both the PBS site School: The Story of American Public Education and Gatto’s site The Makers of Modern Schooling left me feeling intrigued, inspired and infuriated all at once. It seems that, in examining the history of education in the US, there are so many factions involved in reform with divergent interests. Politicians, corporations and the public share both common and conflicting interests in the outcome of public schooling. I think that the intent of each of these stakeholders is what distinguishes an “innovator” in education from a “maker” of education.
Innovators in education are those who seek to affect change in the system to create greater educational opportunities for all American schoolchildren. Innovators may differ in their approach to implementing changes, but I believe a true innovator favors progress and access over standardization and efficiency. Describing the modern educational climate PBS put it this way, “The progressive side of the educational continuum champions intellectual freedom as the cornerstone of democratic society. Student autonomy, creativity, and curiosity are espoused as leading forces in a meaningful education. The “back to basics” advocates believe that curriculum should be standardized and students drilled on its content to ensure a basic level of skill.”
Some of the best representatives of innovation in American education are those like John Dewey or Deborah Meier. These reformers encouraged a student and community centered approach to education. Dewey is undoubtedly changed the landscape of the classroom by emphasizing the relevance of child development and the importance of experiential learning. These principals are now considered cornerstones in any teacher preparation program. It is my hope that Deborah Meier’s emphasis on the importance of teacher and school autonomy in meeting the needs of their individual communities will soon become foundational to school reform as well. Her focus on parental involvement is integral to making changes in today’s apathetic educational climate. Other innovators like Catherine Beecher, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois, Jose Angel Gutierrez, and the families of the plaintiffs of Brown vs. the Board of Education created reform by providing improved access to educational opportunities for previously marginalized groups of learners. Their contributions have left an indelible mark on the history of education.
In my personal opinion, some educators credited with innovation might be better categorized as what Gatto describes as a “maker” of public education. Gatto describes “makers” as those individuals who influenced society as a whole and created a system valuing “social efficiency.” This efficient system would drive consumerism and consolidate control in the hands of the government and corporations. Although I don’t take quite as sinister a view regarding the motives driving “makers” to reform public education, I do believe that efficiency, order and control were paramount in their reforms. With Gatto’s definition as a basis, some of the innovators mentioned on the PBS site like Horace Mann, Ellwood Cubberley, or E.D. Hirsch might be better described as “makers” than innovators.
Some of the “makers” that Gatto mentions are industrial giants like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford and Morgan. Another “maker” that he views as extremely influential in the movement toward standardization is Federick W. Taylor. I had not heard of Taylor before the article, so I decided to do a little research. Taylor was an American industrial engineer credited with creating “scientific management.” According to Gatto, Taylor’s emphasis on discrete task training has lead to a population of learners equipped to perform in only one capacity, constantly in need of corporate training and dependent on authority. Although I fairly sure that Taylor, in his scientific approach, did not intend to create a foundation for propaganda and mind control, Gatto insists that that is where his work has lead.
Although I personally find innovators to be much more inspiring as an educator, I have to admit that both “innovators” and “makers” have their place in shaping educational reform. I think education will probably continue to debate the merits of progress versus standardization for years to come. Already in our class discussions we have had to come to grips with the realities of standards, testing, and accountability. As educators I believe it is our duty to continually emphasize the value of student and teacher autonomy, creativity and inquiry in achieving optimal educational outcomes. We serve as a balance to a system that could easily streamline students into conformity, but we can only counterbalance such powerful forces if we are willing to take a stand and continue to voice our concerns. I, for one, will keep rocking the boat as long as I can!
No comments:
Post a Comment