United States of America and Its Educational History

At the dawn of the 20th century, the United States was undergoing significant transformation, particularly in its economic landscape. The nation transitioned from an agrarian economy to one driven by industrialization, attracting a considerable influx of immigrants in search of better opportunities. This period of urbanization was not only marked by a demographic shift but also by a substantial increase in educational enrollment. For instance, student enrollment in secondary schools skyrocketed from 358,000 in the 1889-1890 academic year to 2.5 million by 1919 (Tozer, p. 85). As immigrants flooded into the country, a wave of prejudice emerged, fueled by fears of job competition and lingering animosities from World War I. Consequently, the growing immigrant population brought about numerous societal conflicts, which the education system was expected to address.

Educational Conflicts and Traditional Methods

One of the significant conflicts of this era stemmed from traditional educational methods, which often resembled factory work in their rigidity. The prevalent educational philosophy of the time, known as “faculty psychology,” emphasized the development of various mental faculties through repetitive exercises (Tozer, p. 104). This approach relied heavily on rote memorization, which, while beneficial in some respects, proved inflexible and ill-suited to the needs of a rapidly changing society. Recognizing this, educators began to advocate for a new pedagogical approach—progressive education—aimed at aligning teaching methods with the realities of urbanization, industrialization, and a diverse student population. Progressive education was characterized by four key principles:

• Replacing traditional curricula with a diverse curriculum based on student needs.
• Emphasizing experiential learning over rote memorization.
• Aligning educational goals with societal conditions.
• Utilizing education as a means to address social problems (Tozer, p. 107).

The implementation of progressive education was marked by two distinct interpretations: developmental-democracy and social-efficiency.

Developmental-Democracy: The Vision of John Dewey

The developmental-democracy model emphasized active participation in society, with the belief that educated citizens could collaboratively solve societal problems through rational thought (Tozer, p. 106). John Dewey emerged as a leading figure in this movement, advocating for an educational system that empowered individuals to engage meaningfully in democratic life. Dewey contended that for education to be effective, it must focus not just on the acquisition of knowledge but also on fostering critical thinking and creativity. He argued that traditional teaching methods, which often stifled student engagement, would lead to a “life of slavery” (Tozer, p. 108) rather than harnessing students’ innate abilities as creative and socially constructive agents.

Dewey proposed that educators should “cultivate” students’ experiences to enhance learning (Dewey # 7). By allowing students to engage in activities that resonated with their interests, they would be more inclined to pursue knowledge. This learner-centered approach positioned teachers not merely as instructors but as mentors, facilitating the holistic development of every member of society (Tozer, p. 108). Dewey envisioned schools as “democratic laboratories” (Tozer, p. 107) where education would prepare students for societal change. He famously asserted that schools should “never educate for vocations, but should always educate through vocations” (Tozer, p. 109), distinguishing his approach from that of the social-efficiency model.

Social-Efficiency: The Perspective of Charles Eliot

In contrast, the social-efficiency perspective sought to establish a structured society led by experts who could guide the masses. While not entirely dismissing democracy, proponents believed that schools should prepare students for their “evident or probable destinies” (Tozer, p. 107). Charles Eliot emerged as a prominent figure in the social-efficiency movement, advocating for an educational system that would groom students for their future roles in society. His objectives included achieving social stability, imparting employable skills, ensuring equal education, and promoting meritocracy.

Eliot’s approach was influenced by his affluent background, which shaped his compassion more towards businesses than laborers. He promoted vocational education in response to high dropout rates and racial disparities, arguing that schools should produce “pre-destined” laborers (Tozer, p. 111). The U.S. Bureau of Education stated in 1914 that “The public schools exist primarily for the benefit of the State rather than for the benefit of the individual” (Tozer, p. 112), highlighting the focus on societal needs over individual aspirations.

Through vocational education, Eliot aimed to equip students with skills necessary for the urban, industrialized world, ensuring that their education aligned with state interests. While he claimed to advocate for equal educational opportunities, the reality often reflected the old adage of “separate but equal,” as systemic racism persisted within the educational framework. Eliot’s meritocracy fostered a system where only a select few were groomed for leadership roles, while others were relegated to vocational tracks, perpetuating social inequality.

Comparative Analysis of Educational Philosophies

In examining the contrasting approaches of Dewey and Eliot, it becomes evident that their philosophies addressed the educational challenges of the time differently. Dewey’s developmental-democracy aimed for a more inclusive educational experience that fostered growth and adaptability, while Eliot’s social-efficiency focused on creating a structured society with predetermined roles.

Today’s educational landscape reflects aspects of Dewey’s developmental-democracy, albeit in a limited manner. While curricula have diversified, with an array of courses available (such as computer graphics), core subjects like mathematics and English remain mandatory for college progression. Vocational education is increasingly integrated into classrooms through programs like DAVEA, allowing students to explore career options while still in school. Vocational training has become a choice rather than a requirement, aligning with Dewey’s philosophy of learner-centered education.

However, contemporary education still grapples with elements of social-efficiency. For instance, President Bush’s education agenda, while promoting aspects of developmental-democracy, incorporates elements of social-efficiency through standardized assessments aimed at measuring student progress across various demographics. This reflects Eliot’s emphasis on predetermined destinies, as standardized tests often dictate post-secondary opportunities for students based on their performance.

Conclusion

The historical evolution of education in the United States illustrates the ongoing tension between developmental-democracy and social-efficiency. While both philosophies sought to address the challenges posed by a rapidly changing society, their differing approaches to education highlight the complexities of fostering an equitable and effective learning environment. As the nation continues to evolve, so too must its educational practices, ensuring that they remain responsive to the diverse needs of all students.

References:

Tozer, S. (Year). Title of the Book. Publisher.

Dewey, J. (Year). Title of the Work. Publisher.