Progressivism became the natural ideology of education professors in the twentieth century—shaping their language and the language of American education, even though it had little impact on the practice of teacher educators and researchers or on the practice of teachers in schools. And although this ideology represents an approach to issues of teaching and learning in the public schools that is well suited to the needs of education professors, it is antithetical to the aims of the current standards-based reform movement. The struggle for control of American education in the early twentieth century was between two factions of the movement for progressive education. The administrative progressives won, and they reconstructed the organization and curriculum of American schools in a form that has lasted to the present day. Meanwhile, the pedagogical progressives failed miserably in shaping what is done in schools, but they succeeded in shaping how to talk about schools. Professors in schools of education were caught in the middle of this dispute, and they ended up in an awkwardly compromised position. Their hands were busy, preparing teachers to work within the confines of the educational system established by the administrative progressives and carrying out research to make this system work more effi-
{"title":"Comments","authors":"E. Hirsch, B. Beatty","doi":"10.1353/pep.2004.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2004.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Progressivism became the natural ideology of education professors in the twentieth century—shaping their language and the language of American education, even though it had little impact on the practice of teacher educators and researchers or on the practice of teachers in schools. And although this ideology represents an approach to issues of teaching and learning in the public schools that is well suited to the needs of education professors, it is antithetical to the aims of the current standards-based reform movement. The struggle for control of American education in the early twentieth century was between two factions of the movement for progressive education. The administrative progressives won, and they reconstructed the organization and curriculum of American schools in a form that has lasted to the present day. Meanwhile, the pedagogical progressives failed miserably in shaping what is done in schools, but they succeeded in shaping how to talk about schools. Professors in schools of education were caught in the middle of this dispute, and they ended up in an awkwardly compromised position. Their hands were busy, preparing teachers to work within the confines of the educational system established by the administrative progressives and carrying out research to make this system work more effi-","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"61 1","pages":"112 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83896627","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}
poor," "their parents don't care," "they come to school without an adequate breakfast," and "they live in difficult neighborhoods." As a profession, edu cation has gotten so good at pointing the finger of blame that, instead of hearing these claims as the excuses they are, much of the public has come to accept them as fact. Poor kids, in other words, perform at lower levels because they are poor. Likewise, black or Latino kids perform at lower lev els because they are black or Latino (and because they are also dispropor tionately poor). No wonder folks around the country are shaking their heads in disbelief at the new federal mandate to close gaps between groups over time. They simply do not believe it is possible. And education leaders are shockingly outspoken on the subject. "They may as well have decreed that pigs can fly," said the president of one state's teachers association.1 "I have difficulty with the standards because they're so unattainable for so many of our students_We just don't have the same kids they have on Long Island or Orchard Park," said a New York district superintendent.2 Research undoubtedly fed this view. Large-scale studies such as the Cole man Report issued in 1966 told the nation that schools contributed little to students' academic achievement as compared with families.3 More recent research, however, has turned these understandings upside down. Some things that schools do matter greatly in whether students learn, or whether they do not. And the thing that matters most is good teaching. 229
{"title":"The Elephant in the Living Room","authors":"Kati Haycock","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2004.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2004.0002","url":null,"abstract":"poor,\" \"their parents don't care,\" \"they come to school without an adequate breakfast,\" and \"they live in difficult neighborhoods.\" As a profession, edu cation has gotten so good at pointing the finger of blame that, instead of hearing these claims as the excuses they are, much of the public has come to accept them as fact. Poor kids, in other words, perform at lower levels because they are poor. Likewise, black or Latino kids perform at lower lev els because they are black or Latino (and because they are also dispropor tionately poor). No wonder folks around the country are shaking their heads in disbelief at the new federal mandate to close gaps between groups over time. They simply do not believe it is possible. And education leaders are shockingly outspoken on the subject. \"They may as well have decreed that pigs can fly,\" said the president of one state's teachers association.1 \"I have difficulty with the standards because they're so unattainable for so many of our students_We just don't have the same kids they have on Long Island or Orchard Park,\" said a New York district superintendent.2 Research undoubtedly fed this view. Large-scale studies such as the Cole man Report issued in 1966 told the nation that schools contributed little to students' academic achievement as compared with families.3 More recent research, however, has turned these understandings upside down. Some things that schools do matter greatly in whether students learn, or whether they do not. And the thing that matters most is good teaching. 229","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"229 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74654652","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}
The failure to ensure that the nation's classrooms are all staffed with qualified schoolteachers is one of the most important problems in contemporary American education. Over the past two decades, dozens of reports and national commissions have focused attention on this problem, and, in turn, numerous reforms have been initiated to upgrade the quality and quantity of the teaching force. Comments Reprinted from Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2004, edited by Diane Ravitch (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pages 45-88. The author, Dr. Richard M. Ingersoll, asserts his right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/144 EDUCATIoN POLICY 2°°4 Diane Ravitch Editor Sponsored by the Brown Center on Education Policy BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PRESS Washington. D.C. EDUCATIoN POLICY 2°°4
未能确保全国的教室都配备有合格的教师是当代美国教育中最重要的问题之一。在过去的二十年里，几十份报告和国家委员会都把注意力集中在这个问题上，反过来，也开始了许多改革，以提高教学队伍的质量和数量。摘自戴安·拉维奇主编的《2004年布鲁金斯教育政策论文》(华盛顿:布鲁金斯学会出版社，2004年)，第45-88页。作者Richard M. Ingersoll博士主张他有权将这些材料列入ScholarlyCommons@Penn。这篇期刊文章可在ScholarlyCommons获得:https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/144教育政策2°°4 Diane Ravitch编辑由布朗教育政策中心布鲁金斯学会出版社华盛顿赞助。华盛顿特区教育政策2°°4
{"title":"Why Some Schools Have More Underqualified Teachers Than Others","authors":"R. Ingersoll","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2004.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2004.0005","url":null,"abstract":"The failure to ensure that the nation's classrooms are all staffed with qualified schoolteachers is one of the most important problems in contemporary American education. Over the past two decades, dozens of reports and national commissions have focused attention on this problem, and, in turn, numerous reforms have been initiated to upgrade the quality and quantity of the teaching force. Comments Reprinted from Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2004, edited by Diane Ravitch (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pages 45-88. The author, Dr. Richard M. Ingersoll, asserts his right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/144 EDUCATIoN POLICY 2°°4 Diane Ravitch Editor Sponsored by the Brown Center on Education Policy BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PRESS Washington. D.C. EDUCATIoN POLICY 2°°4","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"58 1","pages":"45 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84132854","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}
Teacher quality, however defined, is usually seen as the responsibility of schools of education. Rarely is it viewed as the responsibility of academic departments in the arts and sciences—that part of the college or university where prospective teachers study the academic content they will draw on as teachers. Only recently has teacher quality come to be seen as a major responsibility of a state department of education—and to be linked to student learning, traditionally the responsibility of the local school district. This essay sets forth the many ways in which a state department of education can enhance teacher quality and the supply of academically able teachers. I draw on my own experience in directing revisions of the major documents produced by the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999 to 2003 and on several other major initiatives undertaken by the department to implement the education reform measures enacted and funded by the Massachusetts legislature in the 1990s. The chief documents that were the focus for my own work consisted of the preK–12 curriculum frameworks in all basic subjects, the regulations for licensing teachers and teacher-training programs, and the teacher tests required for licensure.1
{"title":"Can a State Department of Education Increase Teacher Quality? Lessons Learned in Massachusetts","authors":"Sandra L. Stotsky, Lisa A. Haverty","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2004.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2004.0014","url":null,"abstract":"Teacher quality, however defined, is usually seen as the responsibility of schools of education. Rarely is it viewed as the responsibility of academic departments in the arts and sciences—that part of the college or university where prospective teachers study the academic content they will draw on as teachers. Only recently has teacher quality come to be seen as a major responsibility of a state department of education—and to be linked to student learning, traditionally the responsibility of the local school district. This essay sets forth the many ways in which a state department of education can enhance teacher quality and the supply of academically able teachers. I draw on my own experience in directing revisions of the major documents produced by the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999 to 2003 and on several other major initiatives undertaken by the department to implement the education reform measures enacted and funded by the Massachusetts legislature in the 1990s. The chief documents that were the focus for my own work consisted of the preK–12 curriculum frameworks in all basic subjects, the regulations for licensing teachers and teacher-training programs, and the teacher tests required for licensure.1","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"40 1","pages":"131 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87540799","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}
Virtually everybody interested in improving the performance of schools concentrates on the importance of teacher quality. Yet policy recommendations related to teacher quality frequently do not incorporate existing evidence about performance. This paper reviews the various strands of research related to teacher quality including: the role of aggregate salaries, the supply of teachers with different characteristics, the relationship between teacher characteristics and student achievement, and direct estimates of the value-added of teachers. This evidence is then related to current policy initiatives as generally bounded by recommendations to tighten up on teacher qualifications and recommendations to loosen up on entry with stronger subsequent incentives. ∗ Stanford University, National Bureau of Economic Research, and University of Texas at Dallas; Amherst College, National Bureau of Economic Research, and University of Texas at Dallas, respectively. This research has been supported by a grant from the Packard Humanities Institute. How to Improve the Supply of High Quality Teachers By Eric A. Hanushek and Steven G. Rivkin When considering schools, one cannot help but pay attention to teachers. After all, teachers are the largest single budget item of schools, and, more importantly, many believe that they are the most important determinant of school quality. Yet research does not find a systematic link between teacher characteristics and student outcomes, leading to doubts about many current policy thrusts that are keyed to measurable attributes of teachers and their background. The relevant research follows four distinct lines that relate in varying ways to teacher quality. At the most aggregate level and possibly the most influential, a variety of studies have traced changes over time in the salaries of teachers relative to those in other occupations. Going beyond that, a second level of studies relates pay and other characteristics of teaching jobs to the characteristics of teachers in different schools and districts and teacher turnover. A third line of research, following naturally from these, relates teacher characteristics to student performance. It is the failure to find a strong relationship between the contributions of teachers to student achievement and other outcomes on the one hand and teacher education, experience and salaries on the other that is so inconsistent with the popular view of teachers as a key determinant of the quality of education. Finally, the fourth line of research appears to have solved this conundrum by demonstrating both the large impact of teachers on student learning and the lack of explanatory power of traditional quality measures. The central focus of this paper is to relate these various bodies of research to a set of teacher quality policy initiatives. These proposals can be divided into three broad areas that are not mutually exclusive. First, because salaries of teachers have fallen relative to other jobs,
几乎每个对提高学校绩效感兴趣的人都把注意力集中在教师素质的重要性上。然而，与教师素质有关的政策建议往往没有纳入有关教师表现的现有证据。本文回顾了与教师质量相关的各种研究，包括:总工资的作用、不同特征教师的供给、教师特征与学生成绩的关系以及教师增值的直接估计。这一证据与当前的政策举措有关，这些政策举措通常限于收紧教师资格的建议和放松入职限制的建议，并附带更强的后续激励措施。*斯坦福大学、国家经济研究局和德克萨斯大学达拉斯分校;分别是阿默斯特学院、国家经济研究局和德克萨斯大学达拉斯分校。这项研究得到了帕卡德人文学院的资助。作者:Eric A. Hanushek和Steven G. Rivkin说到学校，人们不得不注意到教师。毕竟，教师是学校最大的单一预算项目，更重要的是，许多人认为他们是学校质量最重要的决定因素。然而，研究并没有发现教师特征和学生成绩之间的系统联系，这导致人们对许多当前的政策重点产生怀疑，这些政策重点是教师的可衡量属性及其背景。相关研究遵循四条不同的主线，以不同的方式与教师素质相关。在最综合的层面上，也可能是最具影响力的层面上，各种各样的研究追踪了教师相对于其他职业的工资随时间的变化。除此之外，第二个层次的研究将教学工作的工资和其他特征与不同学校和地区的教师特征以及教师更替联系起来。第三条研究顺理应章地将教师的特点与学生的表现联系起来。教师对学生成绩和其他成果的贡献与教师的教育、经验和工资之间的紧密关系是失败的，这与普遍认为教师是教育质量的关键决定因素的观点是如此不一致。最后，第四项研究似乎解决了这个难题，既证明了教师对学生学习的巨大影响，又证明了传统质量衡量标准缺乏解释力。本文的中心焦点是将这些不同的研究机构与一套教师素质政策举措联系起来。这些建议可以分为三个并不相互排斥的广泛领域。首先，由于教师的工资相对于其他工作已经下降，一些人认为，一个显而易见的举措是简单地将教师的工资恢复到他们以前在收入分配中的位置，以吸引更好的教师进入这个行业。其次，各州应该对教师采取更严格的资格要求，如强制性的硕士学位，以提高质量。为了抵消对教师供应可能产生的负面影响，经常(但绝不总是)建议提高工资，同时提高教师资格。最后，另一套政策建议采取了截然不同的策略。他们通常主张不那么严格的要求，而不是更严格的要求，同时鼓励提高教师的表现和改善学校的人事实践。我们首先对现有的教师研究进行了讨论。这为更彻底地讨论政策选择提供了背景。教师素质的研究尽管与教师素质有关的证据很分散，但有一个共同的主题。一个关键的区别是，调查是否与学生的成绩直接相关，还是仅仅依赖于一种假定的关系。考虑教师素质的一个出发点是教师工资随时间的演变。图1追溯了1940年至1990年间20-29岁教师与其他年轻大学毕业生的工资对比。这些计算是按性别分开进行的，得出了拥有学士或以上学位的非教师收入低于平均水平的比例。自第二次世界大战以来的整个时期，年轻男女教师的工资相对于其他职业有所下降。然而，在相对工资的时间路径上存在着实质性的性别差异。男性的相对工资在1940年至1960年间有所下降，但此后基本保持不变。 对于女性来说，相对工资开始时很高——高于受过大学教育的女性的中位数——但随后持续下降。这些变化在年轻教师和大学毕业生中最容易看到，他们的调整幅度更大，但它们也适用于所有年龄段的教师(见Hanushek和Rivkin(1997))。换句话说，职业生涯后期工资的增长并没有抵消年轻教师工资的下降。其他人则试图更深入地研究教师供应反应的结构。Flyer和Rosen(1997)描述了一个更正式的改变女性机会的模型及其对教学职业的影响。Lakdawalla(2001,2002)将其扩展到专注于竞争行业中生产率变化的作用。毫无疑问，技术变革、妇女机会的扩大、国际贸易的增长和其他因素增加了对高技能工人的需求，给教师工资带来了上行压力。教师相对收入的下降很可能导致这一时期教师平均素质的下降，尽管相对收入变化的短期影响不太明确(Ballou和Podgursky(1997))。然而，这种质量下降的程度尚不清楚，在很大程度上取决于教学技能与非教师劳动力市场中奖励的技能之间的相关性。在一个简单的单维技能框架中，非金钱因素不发挥作用，相对工资的大幅下降将导致教师质量的大幅下降。然而，一个更为复杂和现实的框架表明，教师的技能组合不同于其他专业人员，这表明对工资变化的反应可能更为温和。例如，如果教学比一般劳动力市场更强调一套沟通和人际关系技能，那么相对于所有大学毕业生的工资可能不能提供一个特别好的教师质量指标。请注意，教师的工资包括所有收入，不论其来源。因此，教学以外的任何暑期或学年收入都包括在内。然而，不作任何调整，在学校的一天的长度或在一年中工作的日子的任何差异。也没有计算雇主支付的附加福利。在Podgursky(2003)中可以找到对这些因素的重要性以及对总体工资差异的解释的清晰讨论。对于时间序列比较，如果在教师和非教师之间的重要性随着时间的推移存在相对变化，那么这些被省略的薪酬因素是最相关的。我们目前几乎没有这类变化的数据。图1所示。1940-2000年间，按性别、20-29岁划分，受过大学教育的教师收入低于平均水平的百分比
{"title":"How to Improve the Supply of High-Quality Teachers","authors":"E. Hanushek, Steven G. Rivkin","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2004.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2004.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Virtually everybody interested in improving the performance of schools concentrates on the importance of teacher quality. Yet policy recommendations related to teacher quality frequently do not incorporate existing evidence about performance. This paper reviews the various strands of research related to teacher quality including: the role of aggregate salaries, the supply of teachers with different characteristics, the relationship between teacher characteristics and student achievement, and direct estimates of the value-added of teachers. This evidence is then related to current policy initiatives as generally bounded by recommendations to tighten up on teacher qualifications and recommendations to loosen up on entry with stronger subsequent incentives. ∗ Stanford University, National Bureau of Economic Research, and University of Texas at Dallas; Amherst College, National Bureau of Economic Research, and University of Texas at Dallas, respectively. This research has been supported by a grant from the Packard Humanities Institute. How to Improve the Supply of High Quality Teachers By Eric A. Hanushek and Steven G. Rivkin When considering schools, one cannot help but pay attention to teachers. After all, teachers are the largest single budget item of schools, and, more importantly, many believe that they are the most important determinant of school quality. Yet research does not find a systematic link between teacher characteristics and student outcomes, leading to doubts about many current policy thrusts that are keyed to measurable attributes of teachers and their background. The relevant research follows four distinct lines that relate in varying ways to teacher quality. At the most aggregate level and possibly the most influential, a variety of studies have traced changes over time in the salaries of teachers relative to those in other occupations. Going beyond that, a second level of studies relates pay and other characteristics of teaching jobs to the characteristics of teachers in different schools and districts and teacher turnover. A third line of research, following naturally from these, relates teacher characteristics to student performance. It is the failure to find a strong relationship between the contributions of teachers to student achievement and other outcomes on the one hand and teacher education, experience and salaries on the other that is so inconsistent with the popular view of teachers as a key determinant of the quality of education. Finally, the fourth line of research appears to have solved this conundrum by demonstrating both the large impact of teachers on student learning and the lack of explanatory power of traditional quality measures. The central focus of this paper is to relate these various bodies of research to a set of teacher quality policy initiatives. These proposals can be divided into three broad areas that are not mutually exclusive. First, because salaries of teachers have fallen relative to other jobs,","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"86 1","pages":"25 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81310884","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}
School district budgets are in the news. In the past year, super intendents in Seattle, Rochester, and Baltimore have all left their jobs under pressure because of unexpected deficits, and as of summer 2003 Oakland's superintendent was in similar trouble because of a $50 mil lion deficit for the year. The bad economy is partly responsible. These and thousands of other dis tricts have suffered simultaneous declines in local, state, and federal rev enue. But in these cases, district actions made the worst of a tough situation. Instead of adjusting expenditures as revenues declined, these districts con tinued spending, with some plugging their budgets (that is, inventing rev enues to make the books look balanced) in the hope that things would work out in the end.1 Such plugging is neither new nor limited to Seattle, Rochester, Baltimore, and Oakland. As a former superintendent involved in an earlier financial meltdown elsewhere explained to one of us, "You can always find money if you are committed to doing something. You just spend it now and cover it next year when the budget goes up." Another justification for budget plugging is uncertainty. Few districts know precisely how much money they have, and surprise surpluses are also possible. Even in these recent recessionary times, the Philadelphia public schools found $8 million it did not know it had?enough, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, to employ 180 teachers.2
{"title":"How Within-District Spending Inequities Help Some Schools to Fail","authors":"M. Roza, P. Hill","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2004.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2004.0012","url":null,"abstract":"School district budgets are in the news. In the past year, super intendents in Seattle, Rochester, and Baltimore have all left their jobs under pressure because of unexpected deficits, and as of summer 2003 Oakland's superintendent was in similar trouble because of a $50 mil lion deficit for the year. The bad economy is partly responsible. These and thousands of other dis tricts have suffered simultaneous declines in local, state, and federal rev enue. But in these cases, district actions made the worst of a tough situation. Instead of adjusting expenditures as revenues declined, these districts con tinued spending, with some plugging their budgets (that is, inventing rev enues to make the books look balanced) in the hope that things would work out in the end.1 Such plugging is neither new nor limited to Seattle, Rochester, Baltimore, and Oakland. As a former superintendent involved in an earlier financial meltdown elsewhere explained to one of us, \"You can always find money if you are committed to doing something. You just spend it now and cover it next year when the budget goes up.\" Another justification for budget plugging is uncertainty. Few districts know precisely how much money they have, and surprise surpluses are also possible. Even in these recent recessionary times, the Philadelphia public schools found $8 million it did not know it had?enough, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, to employ 180 teachers.2","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"40 3","pages":"201 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91482030","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}
Progressivism became the natural ideology of education professors in the twentieth century—shaping their language and the language of American education, even though it had little impact on the practice of teacher educators and researchers or on the practice of teachers in schools. And although this ideology represents an approach to issues of teaching and learning in the public schools that is well suited to the needs of education professors, it is antithetical to the aims of the current standards-based reform movement. The struggle for control of American education in the early twentieth century was between two factions of the movement for progressive education. The administrative progressives won, and they reconstructed the organization and curriculum of American schools in a form that has lasted to the present day. Meanwhile, the pedagogical progressives failed miserably in shaping what is done in schools, but they succeeded in shaping how to talk about schools. Professors in schools of education were caught in the middle of this dispute, and they ended up in an awkwardly compromised position. Their hands were busy, preparing teachers to work within the confines of the educational system established by the administrative progressives and carrying out research to make this system work more effi-
{"title":"The Ed School's Romance with Progressivism","authors":"David Labaree","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2004.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2004.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Progressivism became the natural ideology of education professors in the twentieth century—shaping their language and the language of American education, even though it had little impact on the practice of teacher educators and researchers or on the practice of teachers in schools. And although this ideology represents an approach to issues of teaching and learning in the public schools that is well suited to the needs of education professors, it is antithetical to the aims of the current standards-based reform movement. The struggle for control of American education in the early twentieth century was between two factions of the movement for progressive education. The administrative progressives won, and they reconstructed the organization and curriculum of American schools in a form that has lasted to the present day. Meanwhile, the pedagogical progressives failed miserably in shaping what is done in schools, but they succeeded in shaping how to talk about schools. Professors in schools of education were caught in the middle of this dispute, and they ended up in an awkwardly compromised position. Their hands were busy, preparing teachers to work within the confines of the educational system established by the administrative progressives and carrying out research to make this system work more effi-","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"112 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91343568","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：