Posts com a Tag ‘Teachers College Press (E)’
In the Shadow of Authoritarianism: American Education in the Twentieth Century – FALLACE (THT)
FALLACE, Thomas D. In the Shadow of Authoritarianism: American Education in the Twentieth Century. New York: Teachers College Press, 2018. 215p. Resenha de: OROMANER, Mark. The History Teacher, v.52, n.3, p.525-526, may., 2019.
In the Shadow of Authoritarianism is a timely contribution to the understanding of how American primary and secondary elite educational thinkers responded to perceived threats from approximately World War I to the 1980s. These perceived internal and external threats (the “Other” against which American educational philosophy evolved) are: Prussianism, propaganda, collectivism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, the space race, mind control, and moral relativity. A chapter is devoted to each of these chronologically ordered episodes. Thomas D. Fallace covers this almost century-long period in a clearly presented and well-documented 149 pages of text. The book is suited as an overview in undergraduate and graduate courses in the History of Twentieth-Century American Educational Philosophy and in other courses in education, sociology, political science, and history that focus on the relationship between politics and education. For students who wish to pursue a particular thinker, time period, school of thought, or social/political movement, Fallace has provided thirty-two pages of Notes and eighteen pages of Bibliography.
During the twentieth century, authoritarianism was used “to depict the outlook… characterized by social hierarchy, ideological homogeneity, and intolerance for dissent” (p. 1). Schools were central for the transmission of authoritarian ideology and values to young people. Under such a system, students were taught to be docile, obedient, intolerant, and compliant. In contrast, under a democratic system (e.g., the United States), students were taught to be open-minded, balanced, and skeptical. These contrasts are, of course, ideal types—however, they are “what most U.S. educators told themselves and one another repeatedly between World War I and the 1980s” (p. 1). Regardless of the changing geopolitical realities, listed above, the reaction of “most leading American educators remained constant” (p.1). That is, to teach students how to think, not what to think. Thus, the avoidance of propaganda and indoctrination in the classroom.
The general agreement that the emphasis in schools should be on the how rather than the what to think left U.S. intellectuals to debate the meaning of this phrase and to adjust to the various challenges the American system faced. Should the curriculum be based on liberal arts, on social issues, on discipline inquiry, on exploration of students’ values and morals? Fallace is well aware that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority over education to the states, and that it is an error to assume that the rhetoric of reform of educational leaders “reflected what was actually going on in the majority of U.S. classrooms at any given time” (p. 3). Throughout most of the twentieth century, the most prominent and influential educational thinker was the Teachers College, Columbia Universitybased philosopher John Dewey. In a 1916 address, Dewey argued that the U.S.
should no longer emulate the German system of education (Prussianism) with its emphasis on bureaucracy, centralization, and regulation. Rather, the American system should emphasize persuasion, expert knowledge, and a student-centered philosophy and pedagogy that stressed how to think. World War I also gave rise to a perceived domestic threat to democratic education; government propaganda to gain support for the war. Given current and recent fears over the contents of textbooks, social media, “fake news” in the traditional media, and the concentration of media channels, Chapter 2, “In the Shadow of Propaganda,” is of particular relevance today.
The reactions of educational leaders to Prussianism and propaganda set the stage for later reactions to fascism, Nazism, and communism, and to post-World War II threats from mind control and technological challenges symbolized by Sputnik. Limitations of space prevent me from describing the nuanced job that Fallace does in presenting the often conflicting views of anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers in attempting to ensure that the American educational system is student-oriented and continues to emphasize the how rather than the what to think. In the final chapter (Chapter 8), Fallace argues that the liberal consensus after World War II “collapsed under the weight of domestic turmoil brought on by the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War” (p. 136). One influential reaction was the emergence of Lawrence Kohlberg’s developmental framework as a guide to moral growth in a democracy. The pressing question now was: How do we teach values and morality and still say that in a democratic society, education will stress how to think and not what to think? The answer appears to be that the importance of schools as sites building free-thinking citizens has been marginalized by a view of the schools as sites that prepare students for college and careers. I know of no better source to engage students in analyses of where American educational philosophy has been during the past century, and where it may be in the near future than In the Shadow of Authoritarianism: American Education in the Twentieth Century.
Mark Oromaner – New York City
[IF]In Search of America’s Past: Learning to Read History in Elementary School – VanSLEDRIGHT (CSS)
VanSLEDRIGHT, Bruce. In Search of America’s Past: Learning to Read History in Elementary School. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002. 189p. Resenha de: BRADLEY, Jon G. Canadian Social Studies, v.39, n.1, p., 2004.
The first thing that caught my eye regarding VanSledright’s volume was the title. Not the bold title but, rather, the secondary or subtitle. Specifically, the notion of learning to read history appealed to my own orientations and resonated with my professional sensibilities. Too often, in my own experiences, charged and channeling words such as ‘learn’, ‘know’, and ‘teach’ (and their various conjugations) have dominated the professional social studies landscape, particularly at the elementary levels. Here was a volume, at least by its cover, that offered a glimpse of another avenue and dared to go beyond the apparent acceptable norm by venturing into a more complex and multi-layered landscape.
In the last couple of years, a growing number of respectable investigations have been reported that generally challenge the oft-repeated myth that children and/or young adolescents do not like, do not understand, and really have no interest in history. The practical professional experiences of elementary and middle school classroom practitioners clearly indicate that children have an unbending interest in and a connection with history (their own, their families, their cultural group, for example). It is perhaps one of those unexplained educational paradoxes that those who tend to design curricula and those who actually produce the supposed learning materials do not seem to be in communication with the front line professionals regarding what is and is not of interest to children. In a nutshell, history matters to children! Similar to recent investigations by Seixas (1993), Levstik and Barton (1997), as well as Barton (2001), to cite only a few, VanSledright continues this evolving investigative avenue of really studying in detail via actual classroom participations how elementary students deal with, confront, and narrate history. This is important work especially as the totality of the data being disseminated demonstrates how curriculum decisions might and ought to be made. Furthermore, these studies most pointedly illuminate how elementary teachers might reconfigure their own classrooms (physically and educationally) in order to take academic advantage of what the study of history has to offer.
In Search of America’s Past may be divided into three major segments. In chapters one and two, VanSledright chronicles a variety of contemporary pedagogical and historical threads that have a bearing on his specific study. Chapter two, in some colourful detail, describes the pupils and the classroom in which the author practiced his history teaching. As a former elementary school teacher, I found chapters three through five most illustrative in that they represent a sort of personal/professional narrative of VanSledright’s historical experiences with his fifth grade charges.
The final couple of chapters of the book contain both general and specific conclusions. The author is careful to note what can be absolutely taken from the experience and what might be more generally inferred. An interesting set of appendices complete this wonderful little volume as the various primary sources, documents and materials used throughout the whole of the in-class experiences are reproduced or clearly and carefully referenced.
As might be expected, VanSledright arrives at a number of conflicting or, at least, messy conclusions. Recognizing that the elementary classroom is a place best avoided by the faint hearted as well as those who demand neatly executed plans of action, the author’s narrative is a wonderfully honest sketch of the chaos, missed opportunities, constant interruptions, and lack of resources that is the real world of the North American elementary classroom. The author paints a scattered landscape which highlights the honesty of the pupils as well as the hard-nosed reality of that special place inhabited by pupil and teacher. In analyzing his own classroom observations within the historical and pedagogical framework that exists, VanSledright perhaps best sums up his own growth in noting:.
For my part, I was (and still am) convinced that children as young as fourth and
fifth grade – perhaps even younger – can learn how to investigate the past
themselves and benefit from the higher-status substantive and procedural
knowledge such a practice can confer upon children (p. 25).
In Search of America’s Past: Learning to Read History in Elementary School is an important book that should be read by anyone who is in the least interested in elementary education. The author carefully documents a case for the reading of history as opposed to the memorizing of history. VanSledright is cognizant of the historical narratives that the children have already acquired through association with the outside world (home, family, friends, televisions, for example) and he captures their intense interest in learning more about the history that impacts upon them and their environment. More generally, this volume is important because of the questions that are raised concerning teacher preparation and curriculum development. VanSledright offers the reader a realistic glimpse into that special world of the eleven/twelve year old pupil and how these budding individuals deal with the learning and internalizing of that unique subject called history.
References
Barton, K. (2001). I just kinda know: Elementary Students’ Ideas About Historical
Evidence. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29(4), 407 – 430.
Levstik, L. Barton, K. (1997). Doing History: Investigating with Children in
Elementary and Middle Schools. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seixas, P. (1993). Historical Understanding Among Adolescents in a Multicultural
Setting. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(3), 301 – 327.
Jon G. Bradley – Faculty of Education. McGill University. Montreal, Quebec.
[IF]