America's Public Schools: From the Common School to "No Child Left Behind"

by William J. Reese

William J. Reese's history of public schools in America examines why citizens have repeatedly turned to the schools to improve society and how successive generations of reformers have tried to alter the curriculum and teaching practice to achieve their goals. Organized around two themes―education as the means for reforming American society and ongoing reform within the schools themselves―this study examines two centuries of American public education. It explores school and society in the nineteenth century, including public school growth in the antebellum and postbellum eras; competing visions of education and reform during the first half of the twentieth century; and social change and reform from the 1950s through the 1980s. Reese emphasizes the centrality of schools in the history of reform and their persistent allegiance to traditional practices and pedagogy despite two centuries of complaint by romantics and progressives. He describes tradition as a reliable friend of public schools, despite the enormous changes that have occurred over the centralization of authority, professionalization of teaching staff, and the expansion of curricular offerings. Reese's clear and accessible book is an original interpretation of the history of public elementary and secondary schools in America. It should become a standard text for future teachers as well as scholars of education.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, History

376 pages, Hardcover

First published August 10, 2005

Reviews

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was, as expected, a pretty dense read, and I had to break it down into 10 pages a day to get through it, but it was ultimately an excellent, comprehensive history of the public school system in the United States, from the 18th century through 2005 when the book was published. It's fascinating to see how some of the tensions that exist within our current discussions of education have been around for decades, sometimes more than a century. For example, there's the tension between the cry for getting "back to basics" in response to inadequate skills among graduates (which has been an issue pretty much since education was opened to all and not just the rich elite) and the criticism of education as being dry, boring, and disconnected from real life. There's the argument for sorting students into "ability tracks" so that students at the top and bottom don't have to suffer through classes taught to the "average" student, and then there's reality that such systems tend to lead to poor and/or minority children being overrepresented in the lowest group and given no opportunity to catch up. There's the belief that focusing solely on academics is unwarranted when not all students are destined for college and many need to learn skills for the workplace while in high school, and the reality that too much vocational education leads to 1) students who don't have enough of "the basics" to function in the real world regardless of their career, 2) poor and/or minority students getting disproportionately assigned to the "vocational track" if they're not put in special ed, and 3) students learning skills like leatherworking that don't actually translate into a career after school.

Reese shied away from providing a lot of information on the education system after about 1980, noting that we're still too close (or were in 2005) to adequately understand what trends will come to define this most recent era. That's unfortunate, because I really wanted to get a better sense of when the conversation shifted from student achievement to teacher quality, how teachers' unions gained such a stronghold in the system (to the point that it's nearly impossible to fire even absurdly incompetent teachers), and how programs like Teach For America have actually shaped public education, from a perspective that doesn't have a point to prove or axe to grind. Alas, Reese is probably right that it's too soon to tell what will actually come of all of this, not to mention the introduction of the Common Core. (If he'd waited five years, he could have subtitled this "From the Common School to the Common Core"! What a missed opportunity.)

I think this is probably too dense for anyone who's not a history buff or interested in education reform, but for those who are, this provides really valuable insights into this particular thread in American history. It's incredibly helpful to have this broader lens through which to see some of the struggles in the current day.

[Megumi · Rating 3 out of 5]

America's Public Schools is a historical overview of the development of the American public education system. I wouldn't consider it a pleasure read (hence the 3 stars), but it is incredibly detailed and very informative. Anybody looking for information on Horace Mann, John Dewey and Progressive Education, scientific management, etc, would find this book helpful.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

American public schools were born during the first third of the nineteenth century, an era of American history defined by dramatic social change. Fueled by immigration, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, and the movement of citizens from the countryside to the cities, the establishment of Common Schools was undergirded by the hope that a common education would act as a social cohesive. Primarily an evangelical protestant phenomenon, schools would instill again the agrarian and Republican values that were thought to have been lost amidst the vice and immorality that were perceived to have been inherent the lives of city folk and immigrants. Further eroding the republican foundation of the still-young United States was the quickening divide between the rich and poor, the native and the immigrant. According to William J. Reese, the new schools should have at their core the responsibility to “strengthen the moral character of children, reinvigorate the work ethic, spread civic and republican values, and along the way teach a common curriculum to ensure a literate and unified public.” It seems that schools then, as now, were expected to act as a palliative to the nation’s social ills. Thus, it was “increasingly assumed that individual welfare and social progress depended upon an extensive network of public schools.” But if there was a consensus on the school’s purpose at the beginning of their establishment, it was short-lived, as schools would eventually become a battleground on which a plethora of societal tensions were played out and pedagogic themes dramatized.

Reese explores many of these themes in America’s Public Schools (protestant versus catholic education, religious versus secular, enlightenment versus romantic ideals, progressive versus traditional ideals, agrarian utopianism and Jeffersonianism versus urban individualism, for example), but the theme I found most interesting was the debate about what schools should teach, and to whom the various curricula should be taught. Should schools adopt curricula defined by high academic standards or should they adopt a more practical, vocational curriculum that suited the needs of American industry? Should all students be taught from the same syllabus, or should students be tracked into a course of study more closely aligned to their social position? Should all students be educated to the same level of proficiency in the same subjects, or would it be more honest to admit that some students just were not cut out for the academic path? Should schools assist corporate and business interests in their need for well-prepared blue-collar workers, or should they be in the business of teaching students how to live in a democracy? In short, should schools be more democratic (the Three R’s and republican social training) or should they facilitate social efficiency by preparing the future worker?

During the antebellum period, there was little initial dissent on what schools should teach: arithmetic, reading and writing, all of which would “enable citizens. . .to understand the laws, vote wisely, and function well in the marketplace.” Underlying this practical aim was the “vision of a social order where proper behavior multiplied the chances of personal happiness and social mobility, or at least respectability.” The McGuffey Reader, perhaps the most popular textbook during the antebellum, was used by teachers with little or no training in pedagogy. Teaching focused on the three R’s (Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic), along with promoting American civic and patriotic themes. No matter, though, that teachers often had little training, as teaching often consisted of endless exercises in rote memorization, both written and oral, strict Protestant (the Common Schools were essentially Christian schools) disciplinary techniques (nose-pinching and verbal abuse, among others) and the one-room schoolhouse consisting of students who ranged in age. If the rote learning, American civics lessons and respect for authority represented a traditional approach to education in antebellum America, the child-centered approach resulting from Romantic views on the innocence of childhood, would soon collide with one another and eventually lead to a pragmatic, hands-on approach to vocational learning.

The “New Education” advocated by a loose coalition of progressives post-antebellum emphasized a hands-on approach to education rather than the stiff formality of the Common School. Progressive reformers posed what traditionalists saw as a direct challenge to the authority represented by the Common School. Believing that “what usually passed for education was mind numbing, unnatural, and pernicious, a sin against childhood,” progressives sought instead to implement a system that viewed the child as “innocent and good, not fallen, that women, not men, best reared and educated the young…that nature, not books, taught best, and that kindness and benevolence, not stern discipline and harsh rebukes, should reign…in the classroom.” Progressive philosophy had at its roots Romantic notions that were often suspicious of institutions and bureaucracy. Rather than adhering to formal, official texts with predetermined lessons, progressives adopted the more poetic ideals of Walt Whitman, who favored “contemplation of morning glories over memorizing facts in books, elevated human tuition over intellect, delighted in the joys of play and snickered at the arrogance of the educated.” While the most extreme progressives wanted to do away totally with books and lessons dominated by strict disciplinarians that focused more on the good of the whole, there were some who understood the utility of child-centered, hand’s-on education, who sought instead to establish schools as vocational, or trade-centered, institutions that would prepare the young for careers in the industrialized, commercialized world of American capitalism, which by the beginning of the twentieth century had become a roaring behemoth that required a massive, rapid influx of new workers.

If elitist, academic-focused reformers and educators had their roots in the traditional norms of the Common Schools, the democratic tradition of American education based on utility and the teaching of vocational skills stems from the progressive reforms of the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth century that were the product of changing views on the role of women, the rights of slaves, and compassion for the poor, mentally ill, and criminals. The changing views were based partly compassion and partly upon the European view that “had helped demonstrate that most educational maladies could be corrected.” If education was to cure societal maladies and prepare the citizenry for its republican duties, it would need to include everyone, the native poor and immigrants alike, and would no longer be the privilege of the few (primarily white evangelical Protestants). The modern school’s dilemma of “how to create schools less isolated from children’s experience, the community and larger society,” was the gap that John Dewey attempted to bridge.

Dewey believed that the Romantic ideals of child-centered learning were too soft and often “sugar-coated,” but at the same time, the traditionalist view, with its emphasis on rote learning and strict discipline, was also too restrictive and ineffective. Dewey proposed a melding of both the democratic and the academic approach. He proposed a system that would not necessarily “prepare a child for any particular business,” but, rather, one that reflected the ideals of a democratic society, maintaining that “schools were centers of academic instruction . . . (and) social institutions, where children would learn to respect the rights and opinions of others and gain exposure to the common values and ideals necessary for living in a democracy.” Rather than focusing primarily on the preparation of a particular vocation, Dewey envisioned schools that would teach gardening, but not for the purpose of nurturing future farmers, but to teach children practically about chemistry and geography. This practical engagement with the pupil’s environment, rather than focusing solely on the knowledge taught in books, would in the end nurture democracy, or so Dewey hoped. While his was a practical approach to education, and was rooted in both academics and vocationalism, he had both supporters and detractors, both of whom quoted him for their own purposes, and continue to do so in the contemporary debate about education.

If Dewey believed in the democratic ideal of schools, his counterpart Elwood P. Cubberly, felt that not all were created equal and that schools would serve different ends for different pupils. In order to separate pupils efficiently, a rigorous system of scientific testing should be implemented that would allow educators to track students into the proper academic role, which would in turn facilitate social efficiency. Some, due to what Cubberly viewed as “a matter of racial and social inheritance,” were not born “free and equal” as some progressives would have it, but, rather, were born “free and unequal.” “Schools,” Cubberly proposed, “could not make intelligence; it can only train and develop and make useful the intelligence that the child brings with him to the school.” Students better suited to the college preparatory track (and these students tended to be from white, privileged families) would thus pursue a more traditional, academic curriculum, while those suited to a vocational track would be provided with a minimally academic curriculum, one that taught core subjects such as the Three R’s, civic training, and, above all, prepared them for blue-collar work after graduation. Reese and others see this as troubling, as only a small minority of students would ever have the chance pursue academic excellence, while the remaining majority, mostly the poor and minorities, would be tracked into blue collar roles.
Cubberly wanted to build a school system that reflected corporate enterprise and industrial management and their needs, while Dewey viewed schools in their broader context and thought of their role as one that would prepare students for a full, active life in a vibrant democracy. In other words, Dewey advocated a common base of education for all. Cubberly’s system, based somewhat on a social Darwinist approach, envisioned both academic and vocational tracks, while Dewey’s democratic system allowed for both tracks. Traces of both systems can be found in contemporary public education, creating an effective system that could be labeled “democratically efficient.”

Reese often writes about the tensions between competing visions of reform, but he also makes the point that schools, even amidst periodic storms innovation and reform, are slow to change. Indeed, it seems that one were to look closely at contemporary public education, one realizes the countless contributions of a plethora of reformers. My daughter and I attended and graduated from the same public high school and when I reviewed her curriculum three years ago, very little had changed, with the exception being that more courses were offered. During an era where “budget cuts” are the watchwords of the day, it is difficult to see how such a vast array of choices will be maintained. However, our school featured a wide variety of vocational courses, advanced placement (college preparatory) courses, varying levels of the Three R’s, and civics classes. My high school seemed like the fulfillment of both Dewey’s and Cubberly’s visions for public schools and I am willing to bet that most schools across the United States fit the same profile.

[Sophia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great overview. It reads like a narrative of education, noting time periods and those time periods most significant reformers. It traces the historical development of America's schools. Particularly, it notes the shifts in American society (attitudes, ideals, morals) as they related to education (and the purpose of a school). It's definitely not a light read, but best read in small doses.

[AJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fairly good history of America's Public Schools. Section headings would have helped!

[Dave Moyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent synopsis of the history of American public education.