About the Blog

I will post a new entry every few weeks. Some will be new writing and some will be past work that has relevance today. The writing will deal in some way with the themes that have been part of my teaching and writing life for decades:

•teaching and learning;
•educational opportunity;
•the importance of public education in a democracy;
•definitions of intelligence and the many manifestations of intelligence in school, work, and everyday life; and
•the creation of a robust and humane philosophy of education.

If I had to sum up the philosophical thread that runs through my work, it would be this: A deep belief in the ability of the common person, a commitment to educational, occupational, and cultural opportunity to develop that ability, and an affirmation of public institutions and the public sphere as vehicles for nurturing and expressing that ability.

My hope is that this blog will foster an online community that brings people together to continue the discussion.

Subscribe

Google Groups
Email Me Blog Updates
Email:
Visit this group
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Remembering Two Historians: David Tyack and Michael Katz


            If we’ve ever needed clarity of thought, and a respect for knowledge, and an ethical commitment to understanding history and its consequences—if we’ve ever needed these virtues, we need them now. Two historians of education whose work embodies intellectual rigor and moral sensibility died before the 2016 presidential election, David Tyack in October, 2016 and Michael Katz several years earlier in August, 2014. David would be appalled at the nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education, and Michael, who wrote brilliantly on urban history and on poverty as well as on education, would have observed with horror the prospect of rolling back protections for the vulnerable to pre-FDR levels. And both would have much to say about a looming Second Gilded Age. As we prepare for the next few years, it could help us to keep these historians’ books close at hand.



            In my blog of August 25, 2014, I posted a eulogy for Michael Katz as well as an earlier commentary I wrote when he updated his fine book, The Undeserving Poor. You can access that post here http://mikerosebooks.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-tribute-to-historian-michael-b-katz.html, and I also quote some of it now to give you a feel for what makes The Undeserving Poor so terribly fitting for our time:

The Undeserving Poor [I wrote] is not so much a history of poverty in the United States as a history of ideas about poverty, and the ideas are complex and, for the most part, troubling. I began to understand how it is that poor people are so often categorized and characterized in such one-dimensional and insidious ways: as shirkers, or passive, or morally defective, or stupid—as people responsible for their poverty because of some damning personal or cultural quality. I also began to understand the reasons behind various interventions aimed at poverty—or refusals to intervene. I had never read a book quite like this, one that demonstrated just how much the ideas and language in the air matter in the construction of public policy.



            I read the first edition of The Undeserving Poor in the early 1990s and wrote Michael Katz a long fan letter that sparked a lasting friendship. My introduction to David Tyack began in an even more personal way.

           

            Though my first year of college was pretty bumpy, I eventually found my way with the help of some exceptional teachers, and was fortunate to be in the running for a fellowship awarded by a national foundation. The process involved an interview, which was scheduled in a hotel in downtown Los Angeles, several bus transfers from my home. I was green as chlorophyll, and this world of high-powered academics and high-stakes interviews in hotels I had never seen from the inside was new territory for me. To make matters worse, the buses were running late, so I showed up at my interviewer’s door in a sweat and nervous. Thank God the interviewer was David Tyack, then a young professor from Reed College. I didn’t know anything about him, let alone about Reed College, but the guy couldn’t have been nicer. He put me at ease immediately, and we talked for over an hour. (Anybody reading this who knew David wouldn’t be at all surprised.) Years later when I was trying to educate myself about the history of American education, I kept running across this David Tyack fellow. The little educational history I had read up to that point was mostly in textbooks, and, to be honest, was dry and antiseptic. Tyack’s rendering was vivid, human, full of memorable characters and events, richly interpreted.  I wrote David Tyack a letter reintroducing myself and the result was another long-lasting friendship.



            David wrote or co-authored so many fine articles and books, it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll limit myself to four: The One Best System: A History of Urban Education; Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820-1980 and Learning Together: A History of Coeducation in American Public Schools (these last two are co-authored with the political scientist Elisabeth Hansot, David’s wife); and, with Larry Cuban, Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. David took on big topics and always looked at the societal and systems level of things in his analysis of schooling—though his analysis is also laden with specific detail, with classroom scenes, with quotations from administrators and teachers and parents, and with snapshots of communities. A reader comes to understand both the particulars of time and place and the many forces that influence those particulars. One of the many things I appreciate about David’s work is his refusal to simplify. You come away from his books with a rich and complex understanding of schooling. He avoids simplification in the lessons we can take from history, though he very much wants us to benefit from what history can teach us. “The way we understand [the] past,” he writes in the Prologue to The One Best System, “profoundly shapes how we make choices today.” He also deeply believed in the civic purpose of the public school, its central place in a democracy. Yet, and here’s the nuance again, he was clear-eyed as well about the ways our schools have historically contributed to inequality.

           

            Reading David Tyack and Michael Katz provides models for interpreting complicated, even baffling, phenomena, models as to how to systematically sort through a flurry of information, how to shape a careful argument, how to weigh and honor evidence that contradicts that argument, and, finally, how to do all this in the service of telling a story about the world we live or have lived in, a story that is as intellectually and morally legitimate as we can make it.

You can share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader through the "share" function located at the top left-hand corner of the blog.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Déjà Vu All Over Again: A Lesson from the History of School Reform

This was posted on Valerie Strauss's "The Answer Sheet" in The Washington Post on March 27, 2011. I repost it here.


“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana


In the early decades of the twentieth century, public schools came under severe attack, with magazines like Saturday Evening Post and Ladies’ Home Journal leading the way. Schools were assailed as being antiquated and inefficient. “[T]he American public-school system…,” wrote one critic, “is an absolute and total failure.”

Modern business was in ascendance, and this was the era of scientific management and the efficiency expert. The nation was abuzz with talk of economizing and making more efficient everything from factory work to running a household to the practice of the ministry. So it was the notion of efficiency that shaped both the direction and language of the school reform of the time.

School administrators began to see themselves as “school executives.” There was a call for “‘educational engineers’ to study this huge business of preparing youth for life.” Precise standards and metrics were developed to help teachers determine their efficiency: “Having these definite tasks laid upon her, [the teacher] can know at all times whether she is accomplishing the things expected of her or not.” Anyone falling short would be “unmistakably shown to be a weak teacher.” There were further suggestions to cut costs by cutting salaries while increasing class size and teaching load. The principles of efficiency were brought to the curriculum itself. An influential superintendant devised a system to calculate the dollar value of different subjects: for example 5.9 pupil-recitations in Greek are of the same value as 23.8 recitations in French. Since Greek recitations are so much more costly than French, “the price must go down, or we shall invest in something else.”

I remember being flabbergasted when, as a graduate student, I read all this in historian Raymond Callahan’s Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Many of these reform recommendations got pretty absurd – and I only gave you a taste of the absurdity with that Greek recitation business – before they collapsed under their own weight. (Though, sadly, the ethos of administrative pseudo-science would stay with us for a long time.) But what was sobering was the fact that many of these efficiency advocates were leaders in education, high-profile smart people caught up in what seemed like the best new managerial science of the time. Counting, measuring, quantifying – no matter how intricate the phenomenon – would provide the answer to the previous era’s vexing problems.

Fast forward to our time.

Once again, there is a powerful and concerted attempt assisted by mass media to portray public education as a catastrophic failure. Once again the business framework and business people play a huge role in contemporary school reform – actually, more so today. Once again reformers are equipped with what seems like the best new science – the economist’s way of framing problems, cutting-edge statistical models – and a technocratic language that sounds precise, definitive, and action-oriented. We will “incentivize”, “scale up”, “move the needle.” Since teachers are – when it comes down to it – the problem, we are busy devising systems and techniques to direct them. And we believe we have objective statistical procedures to measure their effectiveness.

This managerial approach to education took another step forward last November when Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, “The New Normal: Doing More with Less,” in which he encouraged educators to “improve the productivity of our education system.” What was remarkable about the speech was that the Secretary was not only talking about productivity in administration and maintenance – which makes sense – but productivity inside the classroom as well. In one of many moments of doublespeak, he decried the “century-old, industrial-age factory model of education” while calling for the application of a management science mindset to teaching and learning.

It would be a healthy thing for current reformers to look back at their early twentieth century predecessors. That is a history we don’t need to repeat. Unfortunately, it is a characteristic of reform movements – especially with the kind of momentum this one has – for its participants to feel they are on the edge of history, solving with new ideas and new tools the problems that flummoxed everyone before. Rather than the philosopher Santayana, the reformers more likely align with industrialist Henry Ford: “History is…bunk…the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we made today.” And someday another historian like the author of Education and the Cult of Efficiency will write that history.