{"title":"Special Issue on the Twentieth Anniversary of No Child Left Behind","authors":"J. Schneider","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.20","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"241 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41328770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ellen Schrecker. The Lost Promise: American Universities in the 1960s Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. 621pp.","authors":"R. Hampel","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"362 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42859167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article summarizes and assesses federal K-12 compensatory education policies during the past six decades. It focuses on the centerpiece of that effort, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Related programs such as America 2000, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, and Every Student Succeeds Act are discussed. It analyzes the increasing use of ambitious federal education goals since the 1990s as well as greater reliance on high-stakes testing. It also considers the role of presidents as well as governors in this process.
{"title":"Federal Compensatory Education Policies from Lyndon B. Johnson to Barack H. Obama","authors":"M. Vinovskis","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article summarizes and assesses federal K-12 compensatory education policies during the past six decades. It focuses on the centerpiece of that effort, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Related programs such as America 2000, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, and Every Student Succeeds Act are discussed. It analyzes the increasing use of ambitious federal education goals since the 1990s as well as greater reliance on high-stakes testing. It also considers the role of presidents as well as governors in this process.","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"243 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44266911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Historical policy stories that situate teachers as the root cause of problems in public schools have long accompanied educational reforms, including No Child Left Behind. This article portrays the history of teacher blame as a defining component of the grammar of American educational reform. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century reformers identified teacher quality—a later trademark of NCLB—as a panacea for school improvement, but it remained an amorphous idea bound up in gendered and racialized assumptions. The historical results were a swirl of policies that increased standardization across the schools. This article concludes that teacher blame was a critical driver for federal intervention in local public education, and that the roots of that intervention extend far deeper than historians have allowed.
{"title":"Teacher Blame as the Grammar of Public School Reform","authors":"Diana D'Amico Pawlewicz","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.16","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Historical policy stories that situate teachers as the root cause of problems in public schools have long accompanied educational reforms, including No Child Left Behind. This article portrays the history of teacher blame as a defining component of the grammar of American educational reform. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century reformers identified teacher quality—a later trademark of NCLB—as a panacea for school improvement, but it remained an amorphous idea bound up in gendered and racialized assumptions. The historical results were a swirl of policies that increased standardization across the schools. This article concludes that teacher blame was a critical driver for federal intervention in local public education, and that the roots of that intervention extend far deeper than historians have allowed.","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"291 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44399970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Larry Cuban has spent four decades laying the foundation of the field, starting with the landmark Teachers and Machines (1986), then continuing with Oversold and Underused (2001), and, most recently, Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice (2013).1 In the last few years, the field has expanded in new directions with Morgan Ames's The Charisma Machine (a ethnographic investigation of the One Laptop per Child project), Victoria Cain's new Schools and Screens: A Watchful History (an archival investigation of arguments for and against technology adoption), and my own Failure to Disrupt (an effort to carry Teachers and Machines from the 1980s to the present day).2 As learners and educators across the world rethink their relationship to digital learning in the course of the pandemic, these new entries provide a guide for understanding why the dreams of edtech reforms are so often dashed on the shoals of actual schools. In Teachers and Machines, Cuban frames the history of education technology around the adaptation of new consumer media to classroom applications, tracing a line from radio to filmstrips to television to personal computers. [...]defenses have been mounted many times in the past seventy years in response to teachers’ warnings that computers were coming not to aid but to replace them. [...]Watters's writing in the last decade, this connection between the behaviorist advocates of mechanical teaching machines and influences on the development of online learning had largely been forgotten. According to the master narrative of behaviorism, Noam Chomsky authored a ferocious review of Skinner's 1957 book Verbal Behavior that purged behaviorism from the academy and paved the way for cognitivism, situated learning, and other modern pedagogical philosophies to take over the field. [...]as the story goes, when teaching machines died in the 1950s, cognitivism was better prepared to inform the development of computer-assisted instruction that emerged in its wake.
{"title":"Audrey Watters. Teaching Machines: The History of Personalized Learning Boston: MIT Press, 2021. 328 pp.","authors":"J. Reich","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.13","url":null,"abstract":"Larry Cuban has spent four decades laying the foundation of the field, starting with the landmark Teachers and Machines (1986), then continuing with Oversold and Underused (2001), and, most recently, Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice (2013).1 In the last few years, the field has expanded in new directions with Morgan Ames's The Charisma Machine (a ethnographic investigation of the One Laptop per Child project), Victoria Cain's new Schools and Screens: A Watchful History (an archival investigation of arguments for and against technology adoption), and my own Failure to Disrupt (an effort to carry Teachers and Machines from the 1980s to the present day).2 As learners and educators across the world rethink their relationship to digital learning in the course of the pandemic, these new entries provide a guide for understanding why the dreams of edtech reforms are so often dashed on the shoals of actual schools. In Teachers and Machines, Cuban frames the history of education technology around the adaptation of new consumer media to classroom applications, tracing a line from radio to filmstrips to television to personal computers. [...]defenses have been mounted many times in the past seventy years in response to teachers’ warnings that computers were coming not to aid but to replace them. [...]Watters's writing in the last decade, this connection between the behaviorist advocates of mechanical teaching machines and influences on the development of online learning had largely been forgotten. According to the master narrative of behaviorism, Noam Chomsky authored a ferocious review of Skinner's 1957 book Verbal Behavior that purged behaviorism from the academy and paved the way for cognitivism, situated learning, and other modern pedagogical philosophies to take over the field. [...]as the story goes, when teaching machines died in the 1950s, cognitivism was better prepared to inform the development of computer-assisted instruction that emerged in its wake.","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"355 - 358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48302902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
preferred sports and fraternities rather than wearing bell-bottom jeans or trying LSD. And in addition to more social history, The Lost Promise could have explored what happened in professional schools. Protests in colleges of education? MBA programs? Medical schools? Law schools beyond Yale? (Laura Kalman’s excellent 2006 Yale Law School and the Sixties described substantial dissent over race, governance, teaching methods, and courses.) A full defense of Schrecker’s title would also take more space. The post-World War II “promise”—higher education deserves to expand rapidly because it offers upward mobility at a reasonable cost—faded quickly after the 1960s, she claims. To make the case that higher education faltered—and to connect that decline with the late 1960s— would take several chapters. As she acknowledged during a Roosevelt House panel discussion on December 17, 2021, “the real title of the book is A Political History of American Higher Education during the Long 1960s.” Her epilogue is too brief to clinch the case that public confidence and policy support plunged, permanently, as a result of a few stormy years. Whatever the need to say more, Schrecker packs a great deal of important information in this well-written book. Instructors of survey courses will find it essential preparation for their week on the 1960s—this book will jog the memory and fill gaps. For graduate seminars, faculty could assign The Lost Promise along with John Thelin’s shorter but broader Going to College in the Sixties (2018) and, for a case study, Donald Alexander Downs’s Cornell ’69 (2014). Rather than quarrel about which one is best, the instructor can remind the seminar that one legacy of the 1960s is greater tolerance.
{"title":"Cristina Viviana Groeger. The Education Trap: Schools and the Remaking Inequality in Boston Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021. 384 pp.","authors":"M. Perez","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.17","url":null,"abstract":"preferred sports and fraternities rather than wearing bell-bottom jeans or trying LSD. And in addition to more social history, The Lost Promise could have explored what happened in professional schools. Protests in colleges of education? MBA programs? Medical schools? Law schools beyond Yale? (Laura Kalman’s excellent 2006 Yale Law School and the Sixties described substantial dissent over race, governance, teaching methods, and courses.) A full defense of Schrecker’s title would also take more space. The post-World War II “promise”—higher education deserves to expand rapidly because it offers upward mobility at a reasonable cost—faded quickly after the 1960s, she claims. To make the case that higher education faltered—and to connect that decline with the late 1960s— would take several chapters. As she acknowledged during a Roosevelt House panel discussion on December 17, 2021, “the real title of the book is A Political History of American Higher Education during the Long 1960s.” Her epilogue is too brief to clinch the case that public confidence and policy support plunged, permanently, as a result of a few stormy years. Whatever the need to say more, Schrecker packs a great deal of important information in this well-written book. Instructors of survey courses will find it essential preparation for their week on the 1960s—this book will jog the memory and fill gaps. For graduate seminars, faculty could assign The Lost Promise along with John Thelin’s shorter but broader Going to College in the Sixties (2018) and, for a case study, Donald Alexander Downs’s Cornell ’69 (2014). Rather than quarrel about which one is best, the instructor can remind the seminar that one legacy of the 1960s is greater tolerance.","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"364 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45726036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
by Seymour Papert and the Logo programming language, where students learn to program computers rather than being programmed by them. She ends, “These practices privilege the much messier forms of teaching and learning, forms that are necessarily grounded in freedom and dignity” (p. 264). But for anthropologist Shreeharsh Kelkar, contemporary technologists are also committed to ideals of freedom and autonomy; it is just that they are based on a different theory of freedom. He argues technology designers are adherents of behavioral economics and its neighbors in the behavioral sciences, rather than behaviorism per se. Whereas the behaviorists want to condition people to behave correctly, the behavioralists see themselves as letting people make choices and nudging them toward making better ones. Kelkar wonders aloud in his writing if this is a distinction without a difference, but ultimately concludes that addressing the ills of technology in our society requires making an accurate diagnosis. If there are important differences between the behavioralist “nudging” technocracy of Cass Sunstein and Daniel Kahneman and the behaviorist utopias of Skinner, then those need to be interrogated in order to resist edtech’s unwanted advances. Teaching Machines arrives in a world where the pandemic has made education technology seem simultaneously more essential and more fallible. Distance learning, as millions of families have learned, can be pretty lousy, but it is probably better than no learning at all. The COVID-19 pandemic may prove a test run for a world wracked by a climate emergency. Schools will close ever more frequently in the face of fires, floods, freezes, and new pandemics and disease events. As the need for more computers, more broadband, more apps, and more connectivity in schools feels inevitable, Watters reminds that there are always choices and alternatives. If we recoil at realizing the deep connections between the edtech of today and discredited views of freedom and autonomy from the past, then we have the responsibility to chart new directions.
{"title":"Megan Blumenreich and Bethany L. Rogers. Schooling Teachers: Teach for America and the Future of Teacher Education New York: Teachers College Press, 2021. 210 pp.","authors":"Andrea Guiden Pittman","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.18","url":null,"abstract":"by Seymour Papert and the Logo programming language, where students learn to program computers rather than being programmed by them. She ends, “These practices privilege the much messier forms of teaching and learning, forms that are necessarily grounded in freedom and dignity” (p. 264). But for anthropologist Shreeharsh Kelkar, contemporary technologists are also committed to ideals of freedom and autonomy; it is just that they are based on a different theory of freedom. He argues technology designers are adherents of behavioral economics and its neighbors in the behavioral sciences, rather than behaviorism per se. Whereas the behaviorists want to condition people to behave correctly, the behavioralists see themselves as letting people make choices and nudging them toward making better ones. Kelkar wonders aloud in his writing if this is a distinction without a difference, but ultimately concludes that addressing the ills of technology in our society requires making an accurate diagnosis. If there are important differences between the behavioralist “nudging” technocracy of Cass Sunstein and Daniel Kahneman and the behaviorist utopias of Skinner, then those need to be interrogated in order to resist edtech’s unwanted advances. Teaching Machines arrives in a world where the pandemic has made education technology seem simultaneously more essential and more fallible. Distance learning, as millions of families have learned, can be pretty lousy, but it is probably better than no learning at all. The COVID-19 pandemic may prove a test run for a world wracked by a climate emergency. Schools will close ever more frequently in the face of fires, floods, freezes, and new pandemics and disease events. As the need for more computers, more broadband, more apps, and more connectivity in schools feels inevitable, Watters reminds that there are always choices and alternatives. If we recoil at realizing the deep connections between the edtech of today and discredited views of freedom and autonomy from the past, then we have the responsibility to chart new directions.","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"358 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49660753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the United States today, liberals embrace the logic of “congruence” as the basis for their educational systems. They seek, insofar as possible, to ensure that their children’s educations—both at home and at school—reflect the political, social, and cultural tenets they, as adults, prize most. Children, the theory of congruence posits, most reliably develop liberal-democratic qualities such as self-sufficiency, tolerance, and independent thinking in educational environments that treat them as autonomous individuals and allow them to learn relatively unconstrained by (adult) authority. In Liberal States, Authoritarian Families, Rita Koganzon argues that such faith in congruence is both misguided and injurious for the construction and maintenance of a liberal-democratic society. “In a liberal democracy,” she asserts, “the practices of childrearing and education must run counter to those of civic life” (p. 12). To achieve the educational outcomes they seek, contemporary liberals must reject congruence. They must abandon their modern efforts to align family, school, and society and instead return to the family-centered structures of adult authority advocated by the seventeenthand eighteenth-century educational theorists John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Koganzon arrives at her recommendations for the twenty-first century by turning to the past. She begins with two chapters on Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes that trace the development of sovereignty theory in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and show that this influential school of thought gave rise to the earliest arguments in favor of congruence. In chapters 3 through 6, she turns her attention to Locke, Rousseau, and their efforts to address one of the central problems produced by the rise of liberal-democratic societies: namely, the tyranny of majority or public opinion. To advance their anti-authoritarian agendas, Koganzon persuasively argues, Locke and Rousseau rejected congruence and instead “viewed the ‘authoritarian’ family as a necessary educational buttress for children against the new forms of social tyranny that liberal, commercial states would develop” (pp. 11-12). Rather than embrace a system of childrearing and education that mirrored their political-social programs, Locke and Rousseau believed that the emergence of the liberal state and its new threats—the specter of public opinion, fashion, and the attitudes of the majority— required strengthening, rather than diminishing, the private or personal authority
{"title":"Rita Koganzon. Liberal States, Authoritarian Families: Childhood and Education in Early Modern Thought Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, 224 pp.","authors":"C. Arcenas","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.14","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States today, liberals embrace the logic of “congruence” as the basis for their educational systems. They seek, insofar as possible, to ensure that their children’s educations—both at home and at school—reflect the political, social, and cultural tenets they, as adults, prize most. Children, the theory of congruence posits, most reliably develop liberal-democratic qualities such as self-sufficiency, tolerance, and independent thinking in educational environments that treat them as autonomous individuals and allow them to learn relatively unconstrained by (adult) authority. In Liberal States, Authoritarian Families, Rita Koganzon argues that such faith in congruence is both misguided and injurious for the construction and maintenance of a liberal-democratic society. “In a liberal democracy,” she asserts, “the practices of childrearing and education must run counter to those of civic life” (p. 12). To achieve the educational outcomes they seek, contemporary liberals must reject congruence. They must abandon their modern efforts to align family, school, and society and instead return to the family-centered structures of adult authority advocated by the seventeenthand eighteenth-century educational theorists John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Koganzon arrives at her recommendations for the twenty-first century by turning to the past. She begins with two chapters on Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes that trace the development of sovereignty theory in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and show that this influential school of thought gave rise to the earliest arguments in favor of congruence. In chapters 3 through 6, she turns her attention to Locke, Rousseau, and their efforts to address one of the central problems produced by the rise of liberal-democratic societies: namely, the tyranny of majority or public opinion. To advance their anti-authoritarian agendas, Koganzon persuasively argues, Locke and Rousseau rejected congruence and instead “viewed the ‘authoritarian’ family as a necessary educational buttress for children against the new forms of social tyranny that liberal, commercial states would develop” (pp. 11-12). Rather than embrace a system of childrearing and education that mirrored their political-social programs, Locke and Rousseau believed that the emergence of the liberal state and its new threats—the specter of public opinion, fashion, and the attitudes of the majority— required strengthening, rather than diminishing, the private or personal authority","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"62 1","pages":"353 - 355"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42124067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：