Bowles and Gintis discuss the Progressive era, 1890-1930, as the second major turning point in the history of the United States education system. They argue that the progressive movement led to the creation of a new educational philosophy, what they call a "child-centered" approach. Additionally, they discuss how high school became mass institution during this era and education became more of a priority for the United States. In this chapter, they discuss the economic and social trends occurring at this time, the politics or urban school reform, the vocational education movement and the emergence of education testing. For the purpose of this blog, I will discuss he politics of urban school reform and touch upon the emergence of education testing in relation to the capitalization of education and labor.
First off, the politics of urban school reform is directly correlated to the economic and social trends occurring at this time. Bowles and Gintis state, "[T]he accumulation of capital and the extension of wage-labor system marked the continued expansion of the capital economy." In other words, capitalism was beginning to take place via the practice of a wage-labor system. Small, family owned businesses were losing money and capital to large-scale manufacturing companies. Additionally, immigration played an important role in the emergence of capitalism. Bowles and Gintis note that millions of Europeans peasants were driven out of their jobs once the United Stated entered the world economy because the United States was importing cheap grains. As a result, many of these peasants immigrated to the United States seeking jobs and worked for low wages, while profits were high. Clearly, these profits were not evenly distributed and only a few were becoming rich--in the essence of capitalism.
Interestingly, urban school reform was being advocated for at this time. According to Bowles and Gintis, "The objective of the school reformers was to centralize control of education in the hands of experts." Unsurprisingly, those that were advocating for the centralized control of education were wealthier individuals--lawyers, businessmen, upper class women groups, school superintendents, university professors, etc--who were all white anglo-saxon protestants. However, there was a resistance on the behalf of urban ethnic communities in places like New York and San Francisco. More interesting, is the role of testing and tracking and streamlining the meritocracy. During this era, there were dozens of articles written about IQ tests--who was mentally capable and who wasn't--a lot of what not seems to have played into the negative perceptions people have of certain occupations like prostitution. This led to the creation of the legacy that the urban school reform movement left behind: strong upper class basis and its commitment to social control. Through the manipulation of labor and educational perceptions of individuals, the United States allowed its education system to serve as the basis for a capitalist society.
This blog post highlights and talks about the core issues of the article, one being the politics of urban school reform and the emergence of education testing. I do agree with the argument that the politics of urban school reform was correlated to the social trends that were occurring. The reading made very clear points about how the educational system was changing to keep up with the changes of the economy. Hence the creation of an educational system that targeted the creation of skilled career workers. I think it is also important to note that alongside this point was the creation of vocational schools that leading capitalists created in order to break up unions. I think it is interesting that during this time, capitalists and policy makers were changing the education of children and calling it “child-centered” when in reality, it was mostly adult centered since all the new policies would eventually create an income gap where those who have families with high income would receive a good education and become bankers and lawyers whereas those with a lower educational background and thus lower income would have to have their kids go to vocational school where they would learn manufacturing skills.
ReplyDeleteThis essay discusses the major point that Bowles and Gintis were trying to convey which was that the period of educational change during the Progressive era was in response to the changing economy, more specifically, towards corporate capitalism. I would like to further add that Bowles and Gintis state that the school reform movement during this period reflected a upper class belief along with a commitment to social control as the goal of education. The roles of school, according to the authors, was to reflect the class system of the time and extend the capitalist mode of production. It was interesting to see how the new educational philosophy exhibited during the Progressive era was supposed to be a child-centered approach when in fact the philosophy was highly correlated with the maintenance of a capitalistic economy. This allows for children coming from a more wealthy family to receive a better education than those who came from a lower income one. Due to the alignment of educational goals with the capitalistic mode of production, the quality of education for children coming from different social classes differ and can ultimately lead to differences in the quality of jobs they receive.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post did an excellent job at summarizing the Bowle and Gintis article. The article talks about some of the prevalent problems in the progressive era, such as poverty and a growing workforce. The solution, as proposed by the elites, was an educational reform, and by reforming schools (which, as a quote in the article says, more or less were factories), I was believed much of the problems in society could be remedied. The first paragraph in the blog mentions how it the progressive era marked a shift into a more “child-centered” approach, and it’s interesting to examine how the shift parallels the many different ideas and representations of youth throughout history. Initially, children are simply extensions of adults, and after a series of trials and errors, we’ve come to the conclusion that youth are in their own distinct category. The educational system was more of an adult-centered approach, and after reforms, it shifts into a child centered one, and I enjoyed how this blog piece highlighted and explained how that shift was possible,
ReplyDeleteIn this blog essay, Wendy did a great job at summarizing Bowle and Gintis' article. She highlighted the main arguments of the authors, that the Progressive Era in the United States, which coincided with the capitalist development of the American political economy, significantly influenced the education reform of the time. The reforms that centered around providing vocational training for the youth and a more centralized control of the educational system as a whole were intended to benefit the high-income population. This is a different approach to how we have studied the youth so far. This views the youth in the context of the political economy of the US as a whole, examining how the historical context has affected the youth. Because the US has become more and more capitalist over the years since the Progressive Era, this historical trend has impacted the youth greatly, especially in the areas of how they receive education, the quality of the education, and the future prospects of their career/ income gap. If one thing could be improved from this article, I think explaining HOW the political economy (growing capitalist spirit) influenced the society to perceive youth as mere wage earners and how that affects the perception of youth would have added greater merit to this essay.
ReplyDeleteIn Wendy's blog she exemplifies Bowles and Gintis' idea of the correlation between the U.S. economic climate and education during the Progressive Era. She states that Bowles and Gintis' argued that during this time the new educational philosophy was based upon a more "child-centered" approach, I would say that it's not a child-centered approach but a class-centered approach. In a capitalistic economy there are incentives (such as monetary and status) for innovation and moving forward (efficiency), and through policies and laws a capitalistic economy - generally - allow for a opening for upward mobility. However, how wide or big of an opening is dependent on many variables, most importantly our policies and laws. If there are two different, but equally capable, groups and sufficient resources are not available for one, we can not believe that the results of these two groups will be the same (hence the idea of being able to pull oneself from their bootstraps and "make it"). As discussed above, capitalistic economy reflects education climate of the rich and steady, that is, to differentiate groups by status and class which can arguably transfer to race.
ReplyDeleteIn this blog essay the author did a good job of highlighting the main argument of Bowles and Ginti's article which is that the Progressive Era, in conjunction with the expansion of capitalism in America, significantly influenced the educational reforms that were taking place at that time. Additionally, the author notes that "they argue that the progressive movement led to the creation of a new educational philosophy, what they call a 'child-centered' approach". However, I have to disagree with this assessment because I feel the authors were actually alluding to a 'class-centered approach'. For example, the authors claim that the role of schools was to resemble the socioeconomic system of the time and expand the capitalist mode of production. In practice this frame of thought led to policies that created an income-inequality gap where children of higher income families were able to be part of a much better educational tract that led to better paying, white-collar jobs, and those children belonging to working-class families were placed in an industrial tract meant to produce low-skilled workers for low-wage jobs. This was part of the sentiment held by the elites that new educational reforms could serve as factories to produce low-wage labor while at the same time serving as a mechanism to "control" the population.
ReplyDeleteWendy did a great job of outlining the Bowles and Gintis article's main points about the economic and social trends during the Progressive Era, which led to a major turning point in the history of U.S. education. Wendy discusses how the advent of capitalism created a division of social classes; which was largely facilitated by the influx of immigrant workers who provided cheap labor. Wendy points out that the shift in educational goals--social control and centralization of education--came as a response to the structure of economic life associated with the process of capital accumulation. Progressive Era experts utilized scientific managerialism to reproduce social classes of modern industrial life by "domesticating a labor force for the new corporate economy." Although education reform during the Progressive Era claimed to be more child-centered, it seems to me that the replication of the current economic seems is a very adult-centered motive and action.
ReplyDeleteWendy’s blog had two clear arguments, which were the socioeconomic influence on school reform, and politics behind the education system. In her blog, she summarized the main points of the reading very well, and clear-cut. In the reading, Bowles and Gintis touched upon the shift of social ideology reflected on the education system, and her conclusion was because of both socioeconomic and the political factors, the United States became a capitalist society. I really enjoyed reading her blog because her point is precise and accurate. I would have argued more on the current existing economical inequality in the society and blame on the education. In my opinion, the education system fails to embrace the possible diverse skills of the various people, and set the standard of the mainstream as “model” or preferable talent. Also, I do not see any progress of being controlled by elites. Therefore, I think she could have delved into further critiques of education system comparing the history and present. Overall, she did a great job on the blog, and made me want to think more about the subject.
ReplyDeleteI think Wendy did a good job at highlighting the prominent points that emerge throughout the Bowles and Gintis article. Starting from the point that the Progressive Era in the United States was focusing on education as priority and her discussion on the politics of urban school reform and the emergence of the education testing. I think the author did a good job by correlating the issues at the time that correlated economic social trends that dealt with how the United States progressed into capitalist society and how the education reform in some sense through my lens also starts molding as a basis for a capitalist society by those individuals whom were wealthier and had a good education, as Wendy stated, all whom were white anglo-saxon protestant. I think in her last point she brings about an interesting insight on the educational systems commitment to serve a capitalist society for a strong upper class and its fidelity for social control on subordinate classes.
ReplyDeleteThe author summarized the Bowles and Gintis article well, but I would have liked to see a bit more engagement with the material; the majority of the essay is spent recounting the points made in the article rather than critically analyzing them. The final sentence was interesting, and I think the essay would have benefitted from spending more time making an argument to that effect. I would also think that, based on the conclusion, the author would disagree with the assertion that the philosophy of the progressive movement was child-centered (I do). As another commenter noted, the motivation(s) at the time seemed to be far more about capitalism and economic opportunity than a concern for child welfare or youth agency. Social control also seemed to be a significant motivating factor, and it's difficult to reconcile that with the idea that the philosophy was child-centered. Perhaps Progressive Era thinkers believed they were developing a child-centered philosophy, but in actuality it still seems to be primarily motivated by adult concerns and interests.
ReplyDeleteWendy did a good job in summarizing some of the main points from the reading, but there was a few things I wanted to touch on. The part of the article that I found most interesting was the quote where they were talking about the different educational needs of people living in certain areas. They said that people living in a district that was well paved and clean and people had spacious homes had radically different educational needs as someone living in the poor districts. I just found this to be really at odds with the same liberal capitalist principles that were helping to drive American Industry forward. Liberal capitalism is the celebration of the individual, where everyone is supposedly given an opportunity to work towards their goals, all powered by self interest, yet these reformers, who had definitely benefited from those capitalistic principles, advocated for educational stratification. Not that I don't see the upside of vocational education, but the arguments they presented seemed really hypocritical in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis essay does a good job of summarizing the Bowles and Gintis article. The outlining of the issues that contributed to the reform of urban schooling are outlined in a clear and direct manner. She does a good job of showing how urban school reform correlates with the Progressive Era through its direct correlation with the economic and social trends of the time. Mainly stating that there was an influx of European peasants into the United States thus creating the need for reform in the urban school system. Also by pointing out that those who were wanting the reform to be in the form on centralized control of the education system were wealthy anglo-saxon protestants while the urban ethnic communities were more resistant to it shows the social context of the time period and how it factored into the reform of urban schools.
ReplyDeleteThis essay by Wendy Hernandez focuses on the key points that Bowles and Gintis were trying to explain, which was that educational change during the Progressive era was a response to the changes in the economy and mainly referring to corporate capitalism. Bowles and Gintis both would agree that the school reform movement, during this period, reflected the wealthy upper class belief regarding youth. They would both also agree the there was an emphasis on social control as the goal of educating youth. The role of school was to exemplify the class system of society at that time period and extend the capitalist mindset that was overwhelmingly taking hold in the United State. The Progressive era was supposed to be a child-centered approach, which was interesting considering the fact that the philosophy of education was similar to the maintenance of a capitalistic economy. Wendy did a great job of displaying how children coming from a wealthy family and background received a better education and opportunities than those who came from a lower income one. This disparity directly effected what kind of an education youth would receive leading to a large gap in later income and what kind of job a person was qualified for as well as how much they could earn in their lifetime.
ReplyDelete