School & Society: Ch. 4 Study Questions

1. A central difference between the "social-efficiency" progressives and such "developmental-democracy" progressives as John Dewey was the way in which they conceived the notion of progressive education. Discuss that difference, and evaluate the degree to which one or the other concept, in your view, was a better response to the needs of American society in the decades following the turn of the century.

Social-efficiency progressives believed the society should define the children; developmental-democracy progressives believed the children should define society. Granted, there was enormous pressure at this point in history to staff the factories and develop America's industrial economy, but I have to agree with the text that the social-efficiency philosophy was a wholesale betrayal of the foundational ideals of the nation.

It seems the very notion of "responding to the needs of society" may be flawed, for it places us decidedly on the defensive: reacting to rather than defining the situation. Education should be rugged, stalwart, and vigorous, standing firm in the cause of knowledge and liberty, instead of catering to the selfish whims of a materialistic society.

2. It seems that both the developmental-democracy and the social-efficiency approaches to progressive education abandoned the classical curriculum of the 19th century, in which the same academic subjects had been taught to all students, regardless of their economic or ethnic backgrounds. What argument might be made in favor of keeping that traditional approach, and how would you evaluate that argument. Take into account the major social changes occurring at the turn of the century.

In many ways, what fueled the vigorous ingenuity, integrity, and courage of early America was not 19th century curriculum, but no curriculum. But what is in question here is not the content, but rather the commonality.

I suppose the answer depends on where the subject differentiation originates. If it comes from the natural diversity of interests and aptitudes among students, it seems natural - even healthy. If, on the other hand, the differentiation is imposed from the top, by "experts," the stakes are just too high and the potential for mismanagement and abuse too great.

Clearly, it was more "efficient" for the needs of an industrially-dominated society to categorize students by social class and aptitude. However, this approach obstructs the enormous potential of human intelligence and originality, and transforms society into a rigged, mechanistic system.

3. In what respects did various strands of the "new psychology" emerging in the progressive era provide support for innovations in schooling, including differential curricula and extracurricular activities? Do you think these innovations were adequately justified by these new interpretations in psychology? Defend your position.

The value of "learning by doing" is accurate educational psychology. It does not follow that this "doing" must take place at an institution. As the progressives worked to develop their new objectives, the institution was already being taken for granted. Because of this, discoveries that should have reduced the influence of the institution served rather to expand it into new territory.

The period produced largely legitimate discoveries but failed to apply them correctly.

4. Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals believed that they were serving the interests of democracy with their vision of progressive education. Explain their point of view according to their conception of democracy. Next, evaluate their educational and political points of view by using your definition of the education requirements of democracy.

Eliot and the social liberals were constructing a docile, domesticated democracy. In doing so, they crossed the subtle line between a truly natural aristocracy and a "stacked" aristocracy. Power corrupts, and there is always a strong temptation to weight the dice.

The whole business about "protecting" and "safeguarding" democratic stability is rubbish. It is the nature of democracy to be dangerous and volatile - it is the lion that escaped the zoo. Ever since 1776, the American people have been quietly exchanging their liberty for security. One day we will discover that it was a bad trade.

5. This chapter appears to be heavily biased against vocational education in favor of a more "academic" education for all young people. What justification does the chapter provide for its criticism of vocational education, and do you think this justification is adequate, given the historical circumstances of the progressive era? Defend your position.

Vocational education is necessary - this is incontestable. The question is where and how it occurs. Traditionally, vocational training took place in the home, or under some sort of apprenticeship arrangement. Brave, creative types such as Ben Franklin or Robert Fulton figured stuff out on their own. But it couldn't last.

Incrementally, teaching came to be regarded as a specialized skill best left to professionals. This artificial monopoly on the art created an environment that continually misapplied breakthroughs in educational psychology, because it was operating in a counterfeit context. So when the obvious need for vocational training came along, the institution immediately assumed responsibility instead of stepping aside and making space for the training to occur more effectively somewhere else.

The learning environment must be consistent with the subject at hand; i.e., woodcraft in the woodshop, law in the courtroom, French in France. Vocational teaching requires a vocational environment - not an institutional or recreational one.