In their article
Bowles and Gintis focused on the economic transformation of the United Sates
during the Progressive Era, 1890-1930. An economic system less focus on self-employment,
and small business where the labor force was transformed from producing
services rather than goods. Accompanying this was a division of labor that was
more bureaucratic; an economic system that was more hierarchal with a small
group of people controlling everything at the top.
Bowles and
Gintis also characterize this period as the second major turning point in the
history of the U.S education system. Individuals like John Dewey along with
other educational reformers sought to build a sense of unity, and “common
experience among students” (195.) Dewey and others sought to expand and better
the schooling system, and progressives hoped schools could alleviate urban
poverty. However, at the same time
businesses saw school as the place that would produce, “motivated and
disciplined required in the emerging corporate order”(186.) Corporations and
liberalist progressives joined forces in their pursuit of educational reforms.
Bowles, and Gintis argue that the change in the division of labor impacted the
educational system and the educational reforms pursued and were all a
reflection of the economic changes occurring in the U.S.
The success of
this relationship can be measured by the reformers pursuit of a centralize
urban-education in the hands of experts and change in the composition of school
boards. As shown in figure 7-2 the participation of professional and business
increased dramatically after the reform was in place. The reformers also
succeeded in the way schools were to be run. Just like in the workforce schools
were designed to work from top to bottom. This stood in contrast to John Dewey’s
open education he hoped would be in place. Educational stratification soon
followed through the creation of vocational education, and standardized
testing. As history has shown the creation of these two things has hurt
students belonging to lower- income communities.
In the “No Rich
Child Left Behind” by Sean F. Reardon, he focuses on the performance of wealthy
students in comparison to poorer students in standardized tests such as the
SAT’s. According to Reardon family income is now, “a better predictor of
children’s success in school then race” (1.) The availability of resources
wealthier students experience in return helps them achieve greater success not
only in tests, but also helps them enroll in much more prestigious universities
in comparison to lower-income students. The lack of resources makes it harder
for lower-income students to attend top tier schools, and has made people
question whether school can even provide students a way out of poverty. Class
still plays such a crucial role in performance, and success if a student has to
take out over $20,000 worth of loans. Social mobility is then made harder if a
lower income college student after graduation is busy trying to find a way to
pay of these loans. In sum, this school system created during the progressive era,
as characterized by Bowles and Gintis was the upper-class commitment to
educational reform came from their commitment to social control, which they
believe they could achieve through school, which is the system we see described
in Reardon’s article that perpetuates this cycle of keeping the rich in their
position of power, and prevents lower income students from social
mobility.
Bowles, Samuel
and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America. Corporate Capital and
Progressive Education (pp.250-259.) Chicago,Illinois: Haymarket Books.
Reardon, Sean F.
"No Child Left Behind." The New York Times. 27, April
2013.
I agree with Llaned Huerta that the economic transformation has led to a reform in U.S. educational system. The role of education during the Progressive Era was grounded in the objective of social equalization and full human development. The capitalist expansion demanded a change in education because work became more complicated and more oriented towards intangible services. There was a new bureaucratic division of labor; there was a great reliance of educational credentials to separate workers against one another. Labor itself was a big push for educational reform. It seems to me that it was inevitable for the demand in changes in the structure of education to meet the expansion of corporate capital.
ReplyDeleteI really like how Huerta connects the commitment to capitalism with the social control that is embedded in the education system. She does a good job at clarifying that the emergence of capitalism, the creation of a division of labor and a turning point in the educational system where reformers sought to build a commonality for all students was not a coincidence. In fact, she places these occurrences as joined forces for educational reform. The similarity between the way schools and labor at this time were ran is very explicit to how social control can be implemented via educational reform. Lastly, Huerta's last point demonstrates how these institutions are still in play today and depicts an important aspect of how there is an increasing income gap between wealthy and poor households.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see the connection the author makes between Reardon's "No Rich Child Left Behind" and the Bowles and Gintis article, I think it would have been more effective to focus on only one of the pieces (given the limited word count, it's difficult to adequately discuss both).
ReplyDeleteI found the last paragraph to be interesting, particularly the point on using education as a tool of social control to perpetuate the existing distribution of wealth, "keeping the rich in their position of power," and I agree with most of what the author has to say. It would also be worthwhile to consider the way that lower-income adolescents must prioritize educational success as compared to their higher-income peers, and the way that this contributes to the differences in graduation rates and college enrollment across racial identities and social/economic class. When young people grow up in environments were things like health, safety, and financial security are unstable, it becomes significantly more difficult for them to focus on academics and extracurricular activities in such a way that would garner acceptance to four-year university program.
As a side note, there were a few places that the essay was lacking in clarity due to mistakes in spelling, punctuation, etc. that would have been cleared up with more attention to editing.
Llaned Huerta makes a very good point about the educational reforms that occurred during the Progressive Era and the effect that it has had on students, not just from that era, but also for the generations that followed. As learned in lecture, the focus on vocational training and the use of Binet’s IQ testing led to students being robbed of the opportunity to develop skills in areas that their test scores might have predicted were wrong for them. This type of tracking led to the stratification of students, with those that scored high in classes that prepared them for white-collar jobs, and those that scored low on the track for less-paid jobs, a practice that still continues today. While Dewey’s vision of building a common educational experience for all students that was also efficient is a good idea, the focus on efficiency has led to a style of teaching that is seen in the post Reagan era, where we just focus on passing the standardized test. The focus on standardized testing has increased with the contemporary education policies such as the No Child Left Behind, which threatens to cut school’s funding if they do not score high on those tests.
ReplyDelete