Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education

Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education

Encyclopedias

Edited by: Eugene F. Provenzo Jr. & Asterie Baker Provenzo

Abstract

More than any other field in education, the social and cultural foundations of education reflect many of the conflicts, tensions, and forces in American society. This is hardly surprising, since the area focuses on issues such as race, gender, socioeconomic class, the impact of technology on learning, what it means to be educated, and the role of teaching and learning in a societal context.The Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education provides a comprehensive introduction to the social and cultural foundations of education. With more than 400 entries, the three volumes of this indispensable resource offer a thorough and interdisciplinary view of the field for all those interested in issues involving schools and society.

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Reader's Guide
  • Entries A-Z
  • Subject Index
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
    • Arts, Media, and Technology
    • Curriculum
    • Economic Issues
    • Equality and Social Stratification
    • Evaluation, Testing, and Research Methods
    • History of Education
    • Law and Public Policy
    • Literacy
    • Multiculturalism and Special Populations
    • Organizations, Schools, and Institutions
    • Religion and Social Values
    • School Governance
    • Sexuality and Gender
    • Teachers
    • Theories, Models, and Philosophical Perspectives
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • U
    • V
    • W
    • X
    • Y
    • Z


      • Loading...
    • Copyright

      View Copyright Page

      Editorial Board

      General Editor

      Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., University of Miami

      Associate Editor

      John P. Renaud, University of Miami

      Managing Editor

      Asterie Baker Provenzo, Independent Scholar

      Editorial Board

      William E. Blanton, University of Miami

      Jackie M. Blount, Iowa State University

      Chet Bowers, University of Oregon

      Deron R. Boyles, Georgia State University

      Kathleen deMarrais, University of Georgia

      Carlos F. Diaz, Florida Atlantic University

      Mark B. Ginsburg, Academy for Educational Development

      Kathy Hytten, Southern Illinois University

      Rebecca Martusewicz, Eastern Michigan University

      Nel Noddings, Stanford University

      John G. Ramsay, Carleton College

      Alan R. Sadovnik, Rutgers University

      Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon, University of Tennessee

      List of Entries

      Reader's Guide

      About the Editors

      General Editor

      Eugene F. Pro venzo, Jr., is a professor in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education in the Department of Teaching and Learning, School of Education at the University of Miami, where he has taught since 1976.

      While continuing his duties as a professor, he served as the research coordinator and then as Associate Dean for Research for the School of Education, University of Miami, from May 1986 to June 1988.

      He is the author, coauthor, or editor of over sixty books on schools, society, and technology, including Critical Issues in Education: An Anthology of Readings (2006); Critical Literacy: What Every Educated American Ought to Know (2005); Du Bois on Education (2002); Schoolteachers and Schooling: Ethoses in Conflict (1996); Hurricane Andrew, the Public Schools and the Rebuilding of Community (1995); Schooling in the Light of Popular Culture (1994); Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo (1991); Religious Fundamentalism and American Education: The Battle for the Public Schools (1990); History of Education and Culture in America (1983, 1989); Beyond the Gutenberg Galaxy: Microcomputers and the Emergence of Post-Typographic Culture (1986); and The Complete Block Book (1983). He is also the editor of Sage's four-volume collection Foundations of Educational Thought (2009).

      Collaboration is integral to Provenzo's work. He sees himself as someone who learns through the process of research and writing. Undertaking various research projects with people in related fields of inquiry has played a critical role in his postgraduate education. For him to work effectively as a teacher, he feels that it is essential for him to combine his teaching with research, reflection, and writing. In October 1991, he won the university wide undergraduate teaching award at the University of Miami, and in 2008, the Provost's Award for Scholarly Activity.

      Provenzo's research on computers and video games has been reviewed in the New York Times, The Guardian, Mother Jones, and The London Economist. He has been interviewed on National Public Radio, ABC World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, Good Morning America, BBC radio, Britain's Central Television and Britain's Channels 2 and 4, as well as Australia's LateLine. In December 1993, he testified before the U.S. Senate joint hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice and the Government Affairs Subcommittee on Regulation and Government Information on the issue of violence in video games and television and in March 2000, before the Senate Transportation and Commerce Committee on issues of children and interactive technology. In December of 2003, he and his research were featured in People magazine.

      In his spare time, Provenzo writes novels and is an assemblage and collage artist. He lives part of the year in central Virginia, where he is restoring a circa 1860 house with his wife and frequent coauthor, Astérie Baker Provenzo.

      Associate Editor

      John P. Renaud is Head of the Acquisitions Department for the University of Miami Libraries. He joined the libraries in 2002 as Education and Psychology Librarian and has also held the positions of Electronic Resources Librarian and Assistant Director of Collection Development. He has served on the Teaching Methods Committee of the Association of College and Research Libraries.

      His areas of professional interest are the impact of journal and electronic resource price structures on library collections, the long-term costs of maintaining different types of library acquisitions, preservation of electronic acquisitions, and the development and support of alternative, sustainable modes of scholarly communication. He represents the libraries on the University of Miami Faculty Senate and has served as United Way Ambassador for the libraries and is part of the libraries' team in the annual Corporate Run to Benefit the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

      Renaud has worked in the field of education since 1996. His career path includes working in alternative programs for at-risk middle and high school students and teaching English and history at college preparatory schools. He earned a BA in philosophy and political science from The American University and studied at St. Catherine's College, Oxford. He holds a master's degree in education from the University of Vermont and a master's degree in library and information studies from the University of Rhode Island.

      Contributors

      Natalie G. Adams, University of Alabama

      Louise Adler, California State University, Fullerton

      Enrique Alemán, Jr., University of Utah

      Louise Anderson Allen, South Carolina State University

      Brent Allison, University of Georgia

      Thomas L. Alsbury, North Carolina State University

      Richard J. Altenbaugh, Slippery Rock University

      Allison Daniel Anders, University of Tennessee at Knoxville

      A. J. Angulo, Winthrop University

      Peter Appelbaum, Arcadia University

      David R. Arendale, University of Minnesota

      Jan Armstrong, University of New Mexico

      Diana E. Axelsen, Sage Publications, Inc.

      Lucy E. Bailey, Oklahoma State University

      Cerri Annette Banks, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

      Patricia A. Bauch, University of Alabama

      Jayne R. Beilke, Ball State University

      John Beineke, Arkansas State University

      Manuel Bello, University of Miami

      Jo Bennett, University of Texas

      Marvin J. Berlowitz, University of Cincinnati

      Ilene R. B er son, University of South Florida

      Michael J. Berson, University of South Florida

      Pamela J. Bettis, Washington State University

      Cheryl L. Beverly, James Madison University

      Amy J. Binder, University of California, San Diego

      Susan Birden, Buffalo State

      William E. Blanton, University of Miami

      Jackie M. Blount, Iowa State University

      John-Michael Bodi, Bridgewater State College

      Chara Haeussler Bohan, Georgia State University, George M. Boszilkov

      Sue Books, State University of New York, New Paltz

      Wm S Boozer, Georgia State University

      George M. Boszilkov, University of Alabama

      Chet Bowers, Portland State University

      Deron R. Boyles, Georgia State University

      Donna Adair Breault, Georgia State University

      Rick A. Breault, Kennesaw State University

      Felecia Briscoe, University of Texas at San Antonio

      Jeffrey S. Brooks, Florida State University

      Melanie C. Brooks, Florida State University

      Richard A. Brosio, University of Wisconsin

      Kathleen M. Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

      Gail Burnaford, Florida Atlantic University

      Dan W. Butin, Cambridge College

      Cory A. Buxton, Miami University

      Jodi Hope Buyyounouski, University of Pennsylvania

      David M. Callejo Perez, West Virginia University

      Dick Michael Carpenter II, University of Colorado

      Paul R. Carr, Youngstown State University

      Cathryn A. Chappell, Ashland University

      Ronald E. Chennault, DePaul University

      Lina Lopez Chiappone, Nova Southeastern University

      Rodney H. Clarken, Northern Michigan University

      Mary K. Clingerman, Michigan State University

      Ronald D. Cohen, Indiana University Northwest

      John M. Collins, Pennsylvania State University

      Brad Colwell, Southern Illinois University

      Aaron Cooley, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

      Bruce S. Cooper, Fordham University

      J. José Cortez, Syracuse University

      Jacqueline Cossentino, University of Maryland

      Margaret Smith Crocco, Teachers College, Columbia University

      Frances Putnam Crocker, Lenoir-Rhyne College

      Nance Cunningham, University of Oklahoma

      Erica R. Davila, Arcadia University

      Melinda Moore Davis, University of Tennessee Knoxville

      Matthew D. Davis, University of Missouri-St. Louis

      O. L. Davis, Jr., University of Texas at Austin

      William Deese, University of Miami

      Rocío Delgado, Trinity University

      Kathleen deMarrais, University of Georgia

      Cheryl Taylor Desmond, Millersville University

      Carlos F. Diaz, Florida Atlantic University

      Lilia DiBello, Barry University

      Joshua Diem, University of Miami

      William E. Doll, Jr., Louisiana State University

      Barbara J. Dray, Buffalo State College

      Lee Dray, United States Air Force Academy

      Bart Dredge, Austin College

      Noah D. Drezner, University of Pennsylvania

      Greg Dubrow, University of California, Berkeley

      Charles Dukes, Florida Atlantic University

      Nina L. Dulabaum, Judson University, Elgin Community College

      James S. Dwight, Millersville University

      William Edward Eaton, Southern Illinois University

      Jeff Edmundson, Portland State University

      Nirmala Erevelles, University of Alabama

      Dorothy L. Espelage, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

      Jennifer Esposito, Georgia State University

      Scot D. Evans, Wilfrid Laurier University

      E. Thomas Ewing, Virginia Tech

      Jill Beloff Farrell, Barry University

      Meghann Fee, Villanova University

      Abe Feuerstein, Bucknell University

      Kara S. Finnigan, University of Rochester

      David J. Flinders, Indiana University

      Ronald D. Flowers, Eastern Michigan University

      Haroldo Fontaine, Florida State University

      Susan Douglas Franzosa, Fairfield University

      Sheron Andrea Fraser-Burgess, Ball State University

      Christopher J. Frey, Bowling Green State University

      David Gabbard, East Carolina University

      Vivian L. Gadsden, University of Pennsylvania

      Jodie A. Galosy, Michigan State

      Marybeth Gasman, University of Pennsylvania

      Dianne Gereluk, Roehampton University

      John Andrew Gillentine, University of Miami

      Mark B. Ginsburg, Academy for Educational Development

      Gerard Giordano, University of North Florida

      Marietta Giovannelli, University of Illinois

      Thomas L. Good, University of Arizona

      Lester F Goodchild, Santa Clara University

      Mileidis Gort, University of Miami

      Mary Bushnell Greiner, Queens College, City University of New York

      Charles R. Green, Macalester College

      Paul E. Green, University of California, Riverside

      Satasha L. Green, Buffalo State College

      Scott William Gust, Bowling Green State University

      Horace R. Hall, DePaul University

      Lynne Hamer, University of Toledo

      Robert Hampel, University of Delaware

      Rob Hardy, Carleton College

      Elizabeth Harry, University of Miami

      Juliet E. Hart, College of William & Mary

      Mary E. Háuser, National-Louis University

      Willis D. Hawley, American Association of School Administrators

      William Hayes, Roberts Wesleyan College

      Robert J. Helfenbein, Indiana University-Indianapolis

      Elizabeth Hendrix, Missouri Western State University

      John E. Henning, University of Northern Iowa

      Sue Ellen Henry, Bucknell University

      Kristen Ogilvie Hölzer, University of Oklahoma

      Charles L. Howell, Northern Illinois University

      Nora L. Howley, Action for Healthy Kids

      Pamela P. Hufnagel, Pennsylvania State University, DuBois

      Roxanne Hughes, Florida State University

      Thomas C. Hunt, University of Dayton

      David Hutchison, Brock University

      Kathy Hytten, Southern Illinois University

      W. James Jacob, University of Pittsburgh

      Michael E. Jennings, University of Texas at San Antonio

      Michael C. Johanek, University of Pennsylvania

      E. V. Johanningmeier, University of South Florida

      Robert L. Johnson, University of South Carolina

      Rachel Bailey Jones, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

      Jeremy Jordan, University of Miami

      Pamela Bolotin Joseph, University of Washington-Bothell

      Richard Kahn, University of North Dakota

      Douglas Kellner, University of California, Los Angeles

      Kathleen Knight-Abowitz, Miami University

      Victor N. Kobayashi, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

      Kelly Kolodny, Framingham State College

      Philip Edward Kovacs, University of Alabama, Huntsville

      Susan Krebs, University of Colorado at Boulder

      Ruthanne Kurth-Schai, Macalester College

      Susan Laird, University of Oklahoma

      Michelle Larocque, Florida Atlantic University

      Marianne Larsen, University of Western Ontario

      Benjamin T. Lester, University of Miami

      Christopher J. Levesque, University of Alabama

      Jonathan Lightfoot, Hofstra University

      Mark Littleton, Tarleton State University

      John William Long, Long & Associates

      Patrick R. Lowenthal, Regis University

      Catherine A. Lugg, Rutgers University

      Darren E. Lund, University of Calgary

      Aurolyn Luykx, University of Texas at El Paso

      Li Ma, Florida International University

      Ian K. Macgillivray, James Madison University

      Philomena Marinaccio-Eckel, Florida Atlantic University

      Jodi C. Marshall, University of Miami

      Rebecca Marrusewicz, Eastern Michigan University

      Michael S. Matthews, University of South Florida

      Marsha Little Matthews, University of Texas at Tyler

      Stuart McAninch, University of Missouri-Kansas City

      Carmen L. McCrink, Barry University

      H. James McLaughlin, Florida Atlantic University

      Adriana L. Medina, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

      Nagwa M. Megahed, Ain Shams University

      Charles Joseph Meinhart, University of Oklahoma

      Teri D. Melton, Barry University

      Rosemarie Mincey, University of Tennessee

      Roxanne Greitz Miller, Chapman University

      Ron Miller, Goddard College

      Douglas Mitchell, University of California, Riverside

      E. Jennifer Monaghan, Brooklyn College, City University of New York

      Charles Monaghan, Independent Scholar

      Maribel Gloria Mora, University of Miami

      James A. Muchmore, Western Michigan University

      Donal E. Mulcahy, City University of New York

      Susan P. Mullane, University of Miami

      Moira Murphy, Tec de Monterrey

      Mark Mussman, University of Cincinnati

      Rodney Muth, University of Colorado Denver

      Jason Eric Nelson, University of Washington

      Joseph W. Newman, University of South Alabama

      Roxanne Newton, Mitchell Community College

      Tricia Niesz, Kent State University

      George W. Noblit, University of North Carolina

      Nel Noddings, Stanford University

      Jana Noel, California State University, Sacramento

      Rebecca R. Noel, Plymouth State University

      J. Wesley Null, Baylor University

      Ronald J Nuzzi, University of Notre Dame

      Kristin Elizabeth Ogilvie, University of Oklahoma

      Robert L Osgood, Indiana University Purdue

      William A. Paquette, Tidewater Community College

      João Menelau Paraskeva, University of Minho

      Priya Parmar, Brooklyn College, City University of New York

      Ana Maria Pazos-Rego, University of Miami

      Kristeen L. Pemberton, San Jose State University

      Shawn Pendley, University of Oklahoma

      Yvonne Perry, University of Miami

      Paola Pilonieta, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

      Matthew Isaac Pinzur, Miami Herald

      Peggy L. Placier, University of Missouri

      Robert Pleasants, University of North Carolina

      Brad J. Porfilio, Saint Louis University

      Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University

      Beth Powers-Costello, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

      Sandra Spickard Prettyman, University of Akron

      Alison Price-Rom, Academy for Educational Development

      Isaac Prilleltensky, University of Miami

      Ora Prilleltensky, University of Miami

      Eugene F. Pro venzo, Jr., University of Miami

      Asterie Baker Pro venzo, Independent Scholar

      John L. Puckett, University of Pennsylvania

      Gabriel Quintana, University of Miami

      Richard Race, Roehampton University

      Al Ramirez, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

      John G. Ramsay, Carleton College

      Todd C. Ream, Indiana Wesleyan University

      John P. Renaud, University of Miami

      Teresa Anne Rendon, University of Oklahoma

      Kristen A. Renn, Michigan State University

      Lisa L. Repaskey, University of Miami

      W. Joshua Rew, Florida State University

      Yvonne Cecelia Ribeiro de Souza-Campbell, University of Miami

      David W. Robinson, Pioneer Pacific College

      Bruce Romanish, Washington State University

      Sabrina N. Ross, University of North Carolina, Greensboro

      Steven E. Rowe, Chicago State University

      Anthony G. Rud, Purdue University

      John L. Rury, University of Kansas

      Alan R. Sadovnik, Rutgers University

      Elaine G. Sayre, Kalamazoo Public School District

      Tracy Schandler, Chapman University

      Carsten Schmidtke, Oklahoma State University-Okmulgee

      Carri Anne Schneider, University of Cincinnati

      Christina Schneider, CTB/McGraw-Hill

      La Tefy G. Schoen, North Carolina State University

      Dilys Schoorman, Florida Atlantic University

      William H. Schubert, University of Illinois at Chicago

      Brian D. Schultz, Northeastern Illinois University

      Lisa J. Scott, City University of New York, Queens

      Steven Seiden, University of Maryland

      Susan F. Semel, City University New York

      Annis N. Shaver, Cedarville University

      Melanie Shoffner, Purdue University

      Lesley Shore, University of Toronto

      Cathy J. Siebert, Ball State University

      Harvey Siegel, University of Miami

      Douglas J. Simpson, Texas Tech University

      Michael W. Simpson, University of Wisconsin-Madison

      Jean Theodora Slobodzian, College of New Jersey

      Joan K. Smith, University of Oklahoma

      Christopher M. Span, University of Illinois

      Sam F. Stack, Jr., West Virginia University

      Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Teachers College, Columbia University

      Barbara S. Stengel, Millersville University

      Nancy Stern, City College of New York

      Patrick Stevenson, Villanova University

      Alan Stoskopf, Facing History and Ourselves

      Gail L. Sunderman, University of California, Los Angeles

      John V. Surr, OMEP-USNC

      Kyle Sweitzer, Michigan State University

      Zeena Tabbaa-Rida, Independent Scholar

      Kenneth Teitelbaum, Kent State University

      Martha May Tevis, University of Texas-Pan American

      Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon, University of Tennessee

      Timothy G. Thomas, James Madison University

      Janet Y. Thomas, University of Pennsylvania

      Connie Titone, Villanova University

      Stephen Tomlinson, University of Alabama

      Myriam N. Torres, New Mexico State University

      Sandra Winn Tutwiler, Washburn University

      James J. Van Patten, Florida Atlantic University

      Terah Talei Venzant, Wellesley College

      Ruth Vinz, Teachers College, Columbia University

      Cally Waite, Teachers College, Columbia University

      Stephanie J. Waterman, Syracuse University

      William H. Watkins, University of Illinois at Chicago

      Gregory Paul Wegner, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

      Burton Weltman, William Patterson University

      Sally H. Wertheim, John Carroll University

      Shannon White, Villanova University

      Keith Whitescarver, College of William and Mary

      Glenn Whitmann, St. Andrew's Episcopal School

      Roy Wilson, Jury Simulation Research

      Jeffrey William Wood, Laurentian University

      Christine Woyshner, Temple University

      Kai-Ju Yang, Indiana University

      Michael Sean Young, Florida State University

      Introduction

      This is an encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education. It is intended to provide a comprehensive background for those interested in issues involving schools and society. The Social and Cultural Foundations of Education is an interdisciplinary field, including disciplines (to name just a few) such as history and sociology, as well as topical areas such as globalization and technology.

      More than any other field in education, the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education reflects many of the conflicts, tensions, and forces in American society. Perhaps this is inevitable, since the area's focus is on issues such as race, gender, socioeconomic class, the impact of technology on learning, what it means to be educated, and the role of teaching and learning in a societal context.

      What constitutes the field has been open to considerable debate over the years. The Council of Learned Societies in Education defines the foundations of education as follows:

      Foundations of Education refers to a broadly-conceived field of educational study that derives its character and methods from a number of academic disciplines, combinations of disciplines, and area studies, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, religion, political science, economics, psychology, cultural studies, gender studies, comparative and international education, educational studies, and educational policy studies…. The purpose of foundations study is to bring these disciplinary resources to bear in developing interpretive, normative, and critical perspectives on education, both inside and outside of schools. (From Council of Learned Societies in Education, “Standards for Academic and Professional Instruction in Foundations of Education, Educational Studies, and Educational Policy Studies,” 2nd Edition [San Francisco: Caddo Gap Publishers, 1996]. Retrieved from http://members.aol.com/caddogap/standard.htm)

      In a comprehensive essay, found in the third volume of this encyclopedia, titled “Toward a Renewed Definition of the Social Foundations of Education,” the project's General Editor explores at length the evolution of the field and its current status. It is the philosophy and perspective outlined in this essay that has largely shaped the development of the overall work.

      In creating the encyclopedia, eleven disciplinary and conceptual areas upon which the field is largely based were identified. Each of these areas has been assigned an anchor essay that has been written by an expert in that area. These include disciplinary areas such as comparative education, educational anthropology, educational sociology, the history of education, and the philosophy of education. Topical areas include cultural studies and education, ecojustice education and cultural studies, globalization and education, mul-ticulturalism, policy studies, and technologies in education. Many of the topics overlap. Some represent emerging areas that are important to the field such as cultural studies, globalization and education, ecojustice, and technologies in education. Others are more traditional and have a longer history such as the history of education and the philosophy of education. Arguments could be made for including additional areas or for precluding some of the topics that have been included. Part of the editorial work has involved a careful examination of the field and a rationalization for the categories selected.

      Content and Organization

      This work consists of three volumes. The first two volumes include more than 400 A-Z entries. The third volume contains 130 biographical entries on important men and women in education, as well as a visual history of American education. This history is organized into 25 chapters and contains images from the colonial period through the 1950s. An overview of the encyclopedia's content is provided by a reader's guide that appears at the beginning of each volume. It lists all of the entries in the encyclopedia under one or more of the following topical areas:

      • Arts, Media, and Technology
      • Biographies of Important Figures in Education
      • Curriculum
      • Economic Issues
      • Equality and Social Stratification
      • Evaluation, Testing, and Research Methods
      • History of Education
      • Faw and Public Policy
      • Fiteracy
      • Multiculturalism and Special Populations
      • Organizations, Schools, and Institutions
      • Religion and Social Values
      • School Governance
      • Sexuality and Gender
      • Teachers
      • Theories, Models, and Philosophical Perspectives

      As mentioned earlier, a detailed essay by the encyclopedia's General Editor in Volume 3 outlines the history of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education, its current status, and its possible future direction. In doing so, it seeks at a very general level to draw the connections between the various areas delineated in the first two volumes of the encyclopedia.

      How This Work was Created

      The creation of the encyclopedia involved the following steps:

      • The General Editor, Eugene F Pro venzo, Jr., was approached by the publisher to consider the possibility of putting together the work.
      • A list of possible topics and headwords was developed.
      • Leading specialists in different disciplinary and topical areas were contacted about joining the editorial board and were asked to review and contribute to the headword list.
      • Potential contributors were identified by the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board.
      • Invitations to contribute to the project were sent. These invitations included basic guidelines and instructions regarding the articles.
      • Electronic notices were sent through professional organizations and listservs asking for contributions to the project. As a result, many new headwords emerged—ones that reflected the interests and concerns of individuals in the field. Additional invitations were then sent for these new headwords.
      • A group of special contributors emerged from the field. These were individuals who not only contributed significant articles, but also helped identify additional subjects, as well as potential contributors. As a result of their contributions, a final round of invitations to contribute to the project went out.
      • The General Editor and the managing editor reviewed all of the articles and, in conjunction with developmental staff, asked for revisions of articles when appropriate.
      • The content of the three volumes were compiled and finalized.
      Acknowledgments

      This project would not have been possible without the efforts of many people. First we would like to thank faculty and staff at the University of Miami for their encouragement and support of this project. In the School of Education, thanks go to the late Dean Sam Yarger and to Dean Isaac Prilleltensky. In the Department of Teaching and Fearning, Jeanne Schumm and Walter Secada deserve special thanks. Thanks also go to William Walker, the director of the university's Otto G. Richter Library.

      The publishing team at Sage has been exceptional. Diana Axelsen has provided careful editing and good advice throughout the project; Diane McDaniel took us on early in her tenure as an acquisitions editor. She has been a good friend, as well as a helpful advisor. Special thanks go to Arthur Pomponio, who first proposed the project.

      We especially appreciate the contributions of our editorial board, as well as our board of special contributors. The editorial board members wrote the anchor essays for the project and provided extensive suggestions for topics and authors. The special contributors came onto the project as articles began to come in and be assigned. They helped identify topics, as well as potential authors, becoming a second less-formal editorial board. They and their contributions greatly enhanced the overall project. They include in alphabetical order A. J. Ángulo, Susan Birden, Bruce Cooper, Barbara Dray, Juliet Hart, Tom Hunt, Jonathan Lightfoot, and Bill Schubert.

      Eugene F.Provenzo, Jr.General Editor, University of MiamiJohn P.Renaud, Associate Editor, University of MiamiAsterie BakerProvenzo, Managing Editor, Independent Scholar
    • Appendix A: Biographies of Important Figures in Education

      Addams, Jane (1860–1935)

      Jane Addams made important contributions to education, sociology, social work, human rights, and labor reform based on knowledge gained through activism in these areas. She was cofounder of Hull House, an 1891 social settlement established in Chicago. Like many well-educated progressives of her era, Addams believed that living in a community with the poor was the best way to work with them to address negative consequences of living in poverty. Even though Addams believed education could alleviate poverty, she was critical of esoteric aims for education. She focused on tying education to community needs by offering classes at Hull House in areas such as literacy, health, nutrition, the arts, and education for the trades.

      Whereas Addams was heralded as a saint for her work with poor and immigrant communities, she was criticized heavily for efforts toward other social causes reflecting the humanitarian perspective that pervaded her thoughts and actions. She worked with John Dewey to promote progressive education and joined W. E. B. Du Bois as one of the many co-founders of the NAACP. Addams was among the founders of the American Civil Liberties Union, a proponent of women's suffrage, and a pacifist who campaigned against World War I. She was also involved in economic reform and children's rights, based on her disdain for the exploitation of workers.

      Addams was a prolific writer, Twenty Years at Hull-House With Autobiographical Notes (1910) being one of her best-known works. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931, four years before her death.

      Sandra WinnTutwiler
      Further Readings
      Lasch, C. (Ed.). (1965). The social thought of Jane Addams. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
      Allen, Elizabeth Almira (1854–1919)

      Elizabeth Almira Allen, elected first female president of the New Jersey Teachers Association (NJTA) in 1913, helped introduce one of the first tenure laws and teacher pension systems in the nation and advocated for better pay for women and their leadership of NJTA.

      Born on February 27, 1854, Allen was thirteen when she entered the Model School of Trenton, which was associated with the State Normal School. Upon graduation, she began teaching in Atlantic City. In 1871, she took a position in Hoboken, eventually becoming principal of the elementary and high schools. For decades, she also worked at the Hoboken Normal and Training School. In 1882, at age twenty-eight, she became vice president of the New Jersey Teachers Association, precursor to the New Jersey Education Association. In 1896, her efforts led the state legislature to establish a half-pay annuity for teachers with twenty years of service who were no longer able to teach. The fund was financed by a 1 percent reduction from the salaries of those who chose to participate.

      Over time, controversies over Allen's management of the Teachers' Retirement Fund led to loss of support for Allen and her forces within the NJTA. Allen died on May 3, 1919, exhausted from the attacks against the pension system that she had helped create.

      Margaret SmithCrocco
      Further Readings
      Burstyn, J. (Ed.). (1990). Past and promise: Lives of New Jersey women. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
      Crocco, M. S., Munro, P., & Weiler, K. (1999). Pedagogies of resistance: Women educator activists, 1880–1960. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Apple, Michael Whitman (1942-)

      Michael Whitman Apple is among the most prominent critical educational theorists working in the United States and a leading social activist. A former elementary and high school teacher, he was vice president and president of the Teachers Union in Paterson and Pitman, New Jersey, from 1962 to 1966. Apple received his bachelor's degree in education in 1967 from Glassboro State College, his master's in curriculum philosophy at Columbia University in 1968, and his EdD in 1970 from Columbia University.

      His unpublished doctoral dissertation, “Relevance and Curriculum: A Study in Phenomenological Sociology of Knowledge,” can be seen as the starting point for much of his subsequent work. In 1970, he joined the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison. In 1991, he became chair.

      A profoundly complex figure—his thinking is broader than any label—his organic intellectuality draws from analytic philosophy, the new sociology of education, and political science. A prolific writer, his works include Education and Power, Teachers and Texts, Official Knowledge, Cultural Politics and Education, Democratic Schools (coauthored with James Beane), Educating the Right Way, and without any doubt one of the most important educational works of the modern era, Ideology and Curriculum.

      Apple's work exhibits three major (r)evolutionary stages in thinking—what has been described elsewhere as “Applean trilogies” (Paraskeva, 2007): (a) issues of power, identity, cultural politics, curriculum theory, and research; (b) critical teaching; and (c) the development of democratic schools.

      Joáo MenelauParaskeva
      Further Readings
      Paraskeva, J. (2007). Here I stand: A long revolution (Vol. 1). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
      Weis, L., McCarthy, C., & Dimitriadis, G. (Eds.). (2006). Ideology, curriculum, and the new sociology of education: Revisiting the work of Michael Apple. New York: Routledge.
      Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

      Aristotle's thought and writing ranged widely from philosophy to the natural and physical sciences. He was founder of a school in Athens, and his influence on generations of philosophers and scientists extends to the present day. Right or wrong, Aristotle's writing on ethics has influenced and will continue to influence character education programs in the public schools.

      Artistotle was born in northern Greece, and his father was a doctor to the king of Macedonia. Aristotle moved to Athens to study with Plato at the Academy. Upon Plato's death, he lived in Assos; afterward, Phillip of Macedonia asked him to tutor his son Alexander. In 335, he returned to Athens to start his own school, known as the Lyceum. After Alexander's sudden death, he feared he might meet the same fate as Socrates and be executed for crimes of impiety. Therefore, Aristotle fled into exile, only to die a year later.

      Two of Aristotle's most important works were Nicomachaean Ethics and Politics. His ethical thought contains three discernible components: a reflective comprehension of the good life, the notion that the good life stems from virtuous character, and the idea that what is good is also virtuous. Aristotle's Politics has several interconnected threads: a political entity should desire the good life for all of its citizens; democracy is a better form of government than other forms because it uses the wisdom of the many over the few; slavery can be justified; and Plato's ideas in the Republic would destabilize friendship, increase social unrest, and undercut private property.

      AaronCooley
      Further Readings
      Kraut, R. (2002). Aristotle: Political philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
      Armstrong, Samuel Chapman (1839–1893)

      Samuel Chapman Armstrong founded the Hampton Institute, which was, in its time, considered a model for the education of African Americans. Armstrong, however, believed that Blacks were educable but inferior, and his goal was to train them for work in the trades and accommodation to White attitudes.

      He was born January 30, 1839, in Maui, Hawaiian Islands, to missionaries Richard and Clarisa Armstrong. His father developed a vocational and industrial educational program for the local indigent people employed mostly in sawmills and sugar plantations. Samuel Armstrong attended the Royal School at Punahou before enrolling at Williams College in Rhode Island.

      In 1862, he joined the Union Army, frequently working with Black soldiers. Viewing himself as a patriot and humanitarian, he joined the Freedman's Bureau following the war. Drawing from family experience, he advocated vocational and industrial education aimed to situate the restless Black population, stabilize the South, and ultimately help reunite the divided country.

      Financed by the American Missionary Association and assorted philanthropists, he established Hampton Institute in Virginia in 1868 as a teacher training program. Armstrong developed a Hampton philosophy and curriculum that included teaching the dignity of labor, learning of vocational and domestic trades, extensive Bible study, a bootstrap philosophy, cleanliness, manners, and forgiveness for the South's racial legacy. Dignitaries frequently visited Hampton, viewing it as a model for Negro education. Hampton choral groups and handpicked students were sent on road shows to advertise the school and its accommodationist views.

      Armstrong was far more than a school principal or president. He was a racial ideologist, political theorist, and social engineer. His views were clearly articulated in voluminous writings in the Southern Workman, a Hampton publication.

      He viewed the Black race as intellectually inferior yet capable of learning. He wrote that Blacks belonged to the “savage races” who were “mentally sluggish” and “indolent.” For Armstrong, character deficiency was the central problem. He wrote, “His worst master is still over him—his passions. … His main trouble is not ignorance, but deficiency of character. … The question with him is not one of brains, but of right instincts” (Southern Workman, December 1877). Hence, the solution was hard work alongside the inculcation of sobriety, piety, and thrift. Armstrong saw his as a civilizing mission.

      Armstrong understood the political economy of Black labor. He wrote, “There is no source whatever of a suitable supply in lieu of Negro labor. … The Negro is important to the country's prosperity” (Southern Workman, January 1878).

      Finally, as a social engineer, Armstrong foresaw that America would have a permanently diverse population. He believed that racial feelings would have to be moderated, and a place and a fit would have to be found for the Blacks. Armstrong understood that training some people of color could provide the necessary middle or comprador class that would anchor the group for decades to come.

      William H.Watkins
      Further Readings
      Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
      Harlan, L. R. (Ed.). (1972). The Booker T. Washington papers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
      Talbot, E. A. (1904). Samuel Chapman Armstrong: A biographical study. New York: Doubleday.
      Watkins, W. H. (2001). The White architects of Black education: Ideology and power in America, 1865–1954. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Arnold, Matthew (1822–1888)

      Matthew Arnold was a Victorian poet, critic, humanist, school inspector, and self-professed “liberal tempered by experience.” He wrote frequently and influentially on the topic of education, and his work challenged the traditional notions of society, education, and the way literature is taught.

      With contemporaries such as Tennyson and Rosetti, he viewed poetry as the highest criticism of life. In his seminal work Culture and Anarchy, he adds to the scholarly discussion of politics and culture and their interrelationships. Acting as a critic of his own society, Arnold attempted to make the one-sided nature of the political and intellectual debates hyper-visible, with the hope of achieving a more just society as well as better schools.

      From 1851–1886, Arnold served as Inspector of schools and became Chief Inspector. With this work, he traveled to inspect nonconformist schools as well as several European schools, and he reported his findings (as did Horace Mann). An underlying theme in all of his work on education is his desire for education to be better organized. In addition, for Arnold, education was the bulwark against anarchy, and he thought it should be a national matter, not just a local one. Significantly, even in the current time, he challenges the routinized and industrialized view of teaching (such as teaching to the test, which he considered “anti-educational” and “narrow”) and the lack of a core curriculum that he thought would render forth better critical thinking skills.

      He emphasized the humanities in university education, and his work led to better teacher education for elementary teachers and influenced what became the university core curriculum as well. His three most profound essays are “Democracy,” “Equality,” and “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time.”

      ElizabethHendrix
      Further Readings
      Arnold, M., & Collini, S. (Ed.). (1993). Culture and anarchy. London: Cambridge University Press.
      Bagley, William Chandler (1874–1946)

      For more than thirty years, William Chandler Bagley was the nation's leading thinker on teacher education. He also was a historian of education and an educational philosopher. In 1938, he became known as the founder of Essentialism in educational theory. His primary field, however, was teaching teachers, and his educational theory cannot be understood apart from his commitment to teacher education.

      Bagley was born on March 15, 1874, in Detroit, Michigan. He graduated from Detroit's Capitol High School in 1891 and attended Michigan Agricultural College from 1891 to 1895. He began his career as a teacher in the fall of 1895 when he taught in a one-room school in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He completed his master's degree in psychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison in 1898. He then moved to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where he studied with psychologist Edward Bradford Titchener. He completed his Ph.D. degree in 1901.

      In 1901, Bagley took his knowledge of psychology with him to St. Louis, Missouri, where he was an elementary school principal from 1901–1902. In 1902, he and his family moved to Dillon, Montana. He taught teachers from 1902 to 1906 at Dillon's Montana State Normal School. He left Dillon in 1906 to accept a faculty position at the acclaimed Oswego State Normal School in Oswego, New York. Bagley remained at Oswego for only two years, however, before moving to the University of Illinois in 1908.

      While at the University of Illinois from 1908 to 1917, Bagley worked to establish the university's first teacher training program for high school teachers. He was successful at creating the School of Education at the University of Illinois in 1916. Bagley soon left Illinois, however, to teach and conduct research at Teachers College, Columbia University. This Teachers College position offered Bagley the opportunity to focus his efforts on improving the nation's teacher training schools. He lived in the New York City area until his death on July 1, 1946.

      For nearly fifty years, Bagley remained deeply committed to teaching teachers. He continued an American tradition in teacher education that began most prominently at Oswego in the 1860s with Edward Austin Sheldon. He published dozens of books and hundreds of articles during his almost fifty-year career. His major works include The Educative Process (1905), Determinism in Education (1925), and Education and Emergent Man (1934). He was both a scholar who labored to understand the history and philosophy of education and a practitioner who put these ideas into practice by helping to improve the nation's body of teachers.

      J. WesleyNull
      Further Readings
      Null, J. W. (2003). A disciplined progressive educator: The life and career of William Chandler Bagley. New York: Peter Lang.
      Null, J. W., & Ravitch, D. (Eds.), (in press). Torgotten heroes of American education: The great tradition of teaching teachers. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
      Banks, James A. (1941-)

      James A. Banks is one of the leading academic figures in the field of multicultural education. He has been referred to as “the father of multicultural education” for his pioneering and current work in the field. He is the Kerry and Linda Killinger Professor of Diversity Studies and the Director of the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington in Seattle.

      Born in the Arkansas Delta during the era of Jim Crow, Banks attended segregated elementary and secondary schools. One of his early teachers told him, “James Albert, you carry the weight of the race on your shoulders.” It is a responsibility Professor Banks has met admirably. The work of James A. Banks exemplifies an academic career devoted to supporting the notion that education should be a vehicle that advances a broad concept of knowledge and contributes to social justice in all societies. Banks reminds readers that the promise education has held for many students, it must hold for all. He envisions the United States as a nation that has the potential to have a multiculturally and globally literate population that contributes to the welfare of the United States and the world.

      Professor Banks has researched and written about topics such as social justice in education; racial equality/inequality in schools; the multicultural curriculum; and ethnic, national, and global dimensions of identity. He has authored twenty books and more than 100 journal articles. Among his books are Teaching Strategies for Ethnic Studies (8th ed., Allyn & Bacon); Multicultural Education, Transformative Knowledge and Action (Teachers College Press); Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives (Jossey-Bass); Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum and Teaching (4th ed., Allyn & Bacon); and The Selected Works of James A. Banks (Routledge).

      Professor Banks is the editor, with Cherry McGee Banks, of the Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, published in 1997, with a second edition in 2004. This volume was the first research handbook published in the field of multicultural education and received the Book Award from the National Association of Multicultural Education.

      Professor Banks received the Distinguished Scholar/Researcher Award (1986), Distinguished Career Award (1996), and Social Justice in Education Award (2004) from the American Educational Research Association. He received the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages President's Award in 1998 and the National Council for the Social Studies Distinguished Career Research Award in 2001. He is past president of the National Council for the Social Studies as well as past president of the American Educational Research Association. Professor Banks has lectured widely across the United States and internationally. He is also a member of the National Academy of Education.

      Carlos F.Diaz
      Further Readings
      Banks, J. A. (2006). Race, culture and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. New York: Routledge.
      Bell, Terrel Howard (1921–1996)

      An educator who spent much of his life working in public institutions, Terrel (Ted) Bell served as the second U.S. Secretary of Education during the first term of President Ronald Reagan (1981–1984). Although Reagan had promised to eliminate this federal department, Bell was convinced of the need for a prominent federal role in U.S. education. Stymied by bureaucratic infighting during much of the early years, Bell was able to establish a national commission in 1981 to examine the condition of U.S. education. He did so over the objections of many of Reagan's domestic policy advisors.

      In April 1983, after continued delays, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released its final report. A Nation at Risk decried the condition of American education, deeming it so inferior that it was literally placing the United States at risk—both economically and militarily. President Reagan embraced the tone of the report, but not the substance. Nevertheless, thanks to the report's focus on academic excellence and alarmist tone, policy makers throughout the United States pursued various reforms hoping to improve American schools. The report also made it politically impossible for President Reagan to eliminate the Department of Education.

      Bell resigned in December 1984 and returned to his native Utah, where he continued to work as a professor of education and educational consultant. He died in 1996.

      Catherine A.Lugg
      Further Readings
      Bell, T. H. (1988). The thirteenth man: A Reagan cabinet memoir. New York: Free Press.
      Lugg, C. A. (1996). For God and country: Conservatism and American school policy. New York: Peter Lang.
      Bernstein, Basil (1924–2000)

      For more than four decades, Basil Bernstein was an important sociologist whose work influenced a generation of sociologists of education and linguists. Bernstein spent his academic career at the University of London's Institute of Education, retiring as Karl Mannheim Professor in the Sociology of Education.

      Bernstein's early work on social class differences in language distinguished between the restricted communication code of the working class and the elaborated code of the middle class. His critics labeled him a deficit theorist, alleging that he was arguing that working-class language was deficient. Bernstein rejected this interpretation, arguing that difference became deficit because of unequal power relations.

      Bernstein's later work examined the connection between communication codes and the processes of schooling. He analyzed the processes of schooling and how they related to social class reproduction, concluding that unequal educational processes reproduced social inequalities.

      Whatever the criticisms of his work, it is undeniable that Bernstein's work represents a powerful attempt to investigate significant issues in the sociology of education. His work provides a systematic analysis of codes, educational structures, and processes and their relationship to social reproduction and identity.

      Alan R.Sadovnik
      Further Readings
      Atkinson, P. (1985). Language, structure and reproduction: An introduction to the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Methuen.
      Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 1). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Originally published in 1971)
      Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 2). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Originally published in 1971)
      Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 3). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Originally published in 1971)
      Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: Vol. 4: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
      Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
      Sadovnik, A. R. (Ed.). (1995). Knowledge and pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
      Binet, Alfred (1857–1911)

      Alfred Binet was a French psychologist who, along with Theodore Simon, developed the first intelligence test. Binet was influenced by the writings of John Stuart Mill on intelligence and by the mental and physical growth of his two daughters. During his lifetime, Alfred Binet wrote several hundred articles and books that ultimately shaped psychology as he defined his conception of intelligence by emphasizing attention span and intellectual development for tests of thematic apperception.

      While employed at the Sorbonne's Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, Binet began his collaboration with Simon that led to their study and identification of mentally challenged children. The Binet-Simon Scale was developed to measure intelligence by asking children to complete thirty tasks, which correlated to what an observed child should normally be able to accomplish at consecutive numerical ages, with each level having increased difficulty. Binet believed that both qualitative and quantitative measures should be used in the development of intelligence testing to advocate the education of children. He argued that intelligence develops at a variety of rates and is influenced by both environment and genetics. Lewis Terman expanded on the Binet-Simon Scale by creating the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test to measure IQ.

      Binet wrote in French, but his works have contemporary English translations. His most notable works include La Psychologie du Raisonnement (1886), Études de Psychologie Éxperimentale (1888), Introduction à la Psychologie Éxperimentale (1894), Les Idêes sur les Énfants (1900), Étude Éxperimentale de l'intelligence (1905), and Les Énfants Anormaux (1907).

      William A.Paquette
      Further Readings
      Binet, A. (1980). The development of intelligence in children. Nashville, TN: Williams
      Palmer, J. (Ed.). (2001). Fifty major thinkers in education. London: Routledge.
      Bloom, Benjamin Samuel (1913–1999)

      Benjamin Samuel Bloom is remembered by students of learning theory as the creator of Bloom's taxonomy, which attempted to define and classify educational skills and goals. His work continues to influence those involved in education in setting curricula and in creating and identifying appropriate assessments of learning.

      Bloom was born February 21, 1913, in Lansford, Pennsylvania. He earned bachelor's and master's degrees from Pennsylvania State University before earning his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1942. After earning his doctorate, he taught and did research at that institution until 1983, when he moved to Northwestern University. Bloom retired from Northwestern in 1989 and died in 1999.

      The best known of his many publications is Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals Handbook L: Cognitive Domain, originally published in 1956. Working with a group of psychologists, Bloom addressed three “domains” related to learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Concentrating on the cognitive domain, Bloom's taxonomy posits six levels, each requiring greater cognitive skills than the preceding one.

      The taxonomy begins with the basic level of knowledge. At this level, the concentration is on basic definitions. Comprehension is the next cognitive level and requires such skills as interpretation of meaning, comparison, contrast, and summary. Application then requires problem solving and other demonstrations of knowledge. The more creative capacities of analysis include the identification of patterns or potential alternate meanings. At the level of synthesis, examples of competencies are generalization and prediction. At the highest level, evaluation is concerned with the assessment of the value of information, identification of bias or other flaws with information, and making further decisions based on information.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Anderson, L. W., & Sosniak, L. A. (1994). Bloom's taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Guskey, T. R. (Ed.). (2006). Benjamin S. Bloom: Portraits of an educator. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
      Blow, Susan Elizabeth (1843–1916)

      Susan Elizabeth Blow (1843–1916) was an influential theorist in the late-nineteenth-century Kindergarten Movement, a leading proponent of Froebelian methods, and the first director of a public kindergarten in the United States. Blow translated from German the system of Froebel's Mother Play for American classrooms, established a normal school for kindergarten teachers, and was a major figure in turn-of-the-century debates on the future of early childhood education.

      Susan Blow was born in Carondelet, a section of St. Louis, Missouri, to a wealthy and politically prominent family. Her grandfather, Peter Blow, was the owner of slaves; notably, Dred Scott. Her father was a state senator and ambassador to Brazil. Blow attended the prestigious McCauley School in New Orleans and the Henrietta Haines Female Academy in New York City.

      She encountered the educational philosophy of Friedrich Froebel while traveling in Europe and later studied with two leading Froebelians, Maria Kraus-Boelte and Baroness von Marenholtz-Bulow. When she returned to St. Louis, she worked with Superintendent of Schools William Torrey Harris to incorporate kindergartens within the public school system. The Des Peres Kindergarten, the first public kindergarten in the United States, opened in St. Louis with Blow as director in 1873.

      Throughout her career, Blow resisted arguments to integrate emerging theories of developmental psychology within kindergarten training and practice. In a joint series of lectures with Patty Smith Hill at Teachers College Columbia (TCC) in 1903, she advocated the “Uniform Plan,” which permitted no deviations from Froebel's logical sequence of symbolic play. Hill's progressivism prevailed, marking a major theoretical transition for American early childhood education. Blow's orthodoxy was now seen as out of date. However, her reputation as the foremost American authority on Froebel endured, and she continued to write and lecture on early childhood education until her death in 1916.

      Susan DouglasFranzosa
      Further Readings
      Shapiro, M. S. (1983). Child's garden: The kindergarten movement from Froebel to Dewey. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
      Weber, E. (1969). The kindergarten: Its encounter with educational thought in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Bond, Horace Mann (1904–1972)

      Horace Mann Bond was one of the first educational researchers in the twentieth century to link structural inequalities in American society to the academic achievement of African American youth. His critiques of the use of IQ test scores to justify inadequate schooling for African American youth helped lay the intellectual foundation for the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954.

      Bond graduated from Lincoln University at the age of eighteen and eventually earned his master's and doctoral degrees from the University of Chicago. Early in his academic career, Bond wrote articles in African American magazines and journals criticizing White psychologists who argued that low IQ scores by African Americans reflected innate intellectual limitations. Bond argued that the social environment played a critical role in students' performance on IQ tests and overall academic achievement. Although most White psychologists ignored his views in the 1920s, in the decades to follow, other African American and White researchers would go on to undermine the belief in African American intellectual inferiority.

      In the 1930s, Bond extended his research to an analysis of how economic and social factors denied equal educational opportunities to African Americans. His two books, The Education of the Negro in the American Social Order (1930) and Negro Education in Alabama: A Study of Cotton and Steel (1939), represented the culmination of this research and today are considered pioneering works in the history of American education. In Bond's later educational career, he became a prominent administrator at several Black colleges.

      AlanStoskopf
      Further Readings
      Urban, W. (1992). Black scholar: Horace Mann Bond, 1904–1972. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
      Bourdieu, Pierre (1930–2002)

      Pierre Bourdieu was one of the most influential and prolific social scientists of the late twentieth century, and his work examined the role that education played in the social hierarchy. He received his doctorate in philosophy in 1954, but his initial studies of Algerian peasants in 1958 led him in the direction of ethnology. Bourdieu later became the director of the Center of European Sociology in 1968.

      By this time, Bourdieu had turned his focus from Algeria to the French educational system, working with Jean-Claude Passeron to critique education's role in the creation of class hierarchy in France in their books The Inheritors (1964) and again in Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture (1970).

      Moving on to theoretical ground, Bourdieu developed a theory of social practice in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972), creating the concept of “habitus” as the internalization of social and cultural structures that guided an individual's actions. Bourdieu combined this theory and his empirical concerns with culture and education in his most influential sociological study, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1979), which argued that education and culture became the means of maintaining one's class position in the social hierarchy by giving people “cultural capital.”

      Bourdieu later explored a series of empirical problems broadly connected to his interest in culture and power, including his studies of Language and Symbolic Power (1982) and Masculine Domination (1998). Throughout his life, Bourdieu was also engaged in his own particular form of social activism, presented in his books In Other Words (1987) and Acts of Resistance (1998).

      Steven E.Rowe
      Bowers, C. A. (Chet) (1935-)

      Chet Bowers was an environmentalist long before it was fashionable. As a teacher and scholar at the University of Oregon and Portland State University, his work since the 1970s has focused on the developing ecological crisis, the role of education in reproducing it, and the deep cultural roots that underlie it. A contrarian, he eschews the labels of liberal and progressive, and at times claims rather to be a conservative, because he wants to conserve older traditions of sustainability and community.

      While most scholars on the left have focused on capitalism as the source of social and ecological problems, Bowers argues that the roots are much deeper, in the set of metaphorical assumptions he calls “modernity.” These assumptions, or “root metaphors,” have developed over centuries, primarily in Western culture, he says, and include individualism, mechanism, anthropocentrism, and a faith in progress as inevitable and progressive.

      Professors and teachers, even those who consider themselves radicals, Bowers points out, reproduce these assumptions in their everyday language in the classroom. For example, a teacher who asks students to “think for themselves” reproduces individualism. This has led him into conflict with prominent followers of Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy, which Bowers considers part of modernity. The assumptions of modernity, he argues, underlie both the ecological crisis and the increasing fragmentation of community that is exemplified in rising drug abuse and child neglect.

      He points out that modern culture has forgotten many of the beliefs and practices of older cultures, which carried assumptions that have produced more sustainable ecosystems and communities. He is sometimes accused of romanticizing indigenous cultures, but his point is more to illustrate the problem with modernity than to advocate for a particular cultural practice.

      Recently, he has emphasized the importance of the “commons”—what is held in common ownership rather than being privatized. This includes both the natural—air, water, and so on—and the cultural—the skills and knowledge that are passed down through generations.

      JeffEdmundson
      Further Readings
      Bowers, C. A. (1997). The culture of denial: Why the environmental movement needs a strategy for reforming universities and public schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
      Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
      Bowers, C. A. (2003). Mindful conservatism: Rethinking the ideological and educational basis of an ecologically sustainable future. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
      Bowers, C. A. (2006). Revitalizing the commons: Cultural and educational sites of resistance and affirmation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
      Bruner, Jerome S. (1915-)

      One of the most influential psychologists of the twentieth century, Jerome S. Bruner played a major role in the modern “cognitive revolution.” Perhaps his most important contribution was that he helped establish cognitive psychology as an alternative to the behaviorist approach of figures such as Watson and Skinner.

      Born in New York City in 1915, Bruner went to Duke University and then Harvard, where he received his Ph.D. in 1947. As a professor at Harvard, he helped found the Center for Cognitive Studies. In 1970, Bruner left Harvard to teach at Oxford University. A decade later, he was back in the United States, where he eventually became a faculty member at the New School for Social Research in New York City.

      In the field of education, his landmark book The Process of Education (1960) elaborated on the work of Piaget and advanced his own personal theory of psychology and learning. As a curriculum innovator, he participated in designing and implementing the MACOS (Man: A Course of Study) project during the mid-1960s. Drawing on the emerging behavioral sciences, the curriculum attempted to address the following three questions: “What is uniquely human about human beings? How did they get that way? How could they be made more so?” By the mid-1970s, the curriculum was being criticized by conservatives as elitist.

      While at Oxford during the early 1970s, Bruner began to pay more attention to the social and political context of learning. Criticizing elements of the “cognitive revolution,” Bruner's new interest in cultural psychology was reflected in his book The Culture of Education (1996).

      Eugene F.Provenzo, Jr.
      Further Readings
      Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Olsen, D. (2007). Jerome Bruner: The cognitive revolution in educational theory. New York: Continuum.
      Callahan, Raymond Eugene (1921-)

      Raymond Eugene Callahan is an education historian whose interest in the social underpinnings of education at the end of the nineteenth century culminated in the publication of Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of Public Schools (1962).

      Born in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1921, Callahan attended the city's public schools, worked in factories, and then enlisted in the military during World War II. This duty entitled him to the provisions of the GI Bill for completing his education.

      Callahan earned a bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 1948; was a fifth-grade teacher for a year; then re-enrolled at Washington University, where he earned a master's degree in history a few years later under the guidance of Dietrich Gerhard, a noted central European scholar. Callahan would always refer to Gerhard as “my great teacher.” Later, George S. Counts and lohn L. Childs were added to form a trinity of Callahan's admired professors.

      The mix of public school teaching experience and an intellectual interest in history led him to enroll at Teachers College, Columbia University, to study under George S. Counts, who was one of the architects of the concept of the social foundations of education. Callahan completed the course work in 1951 and took a job at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, before the awarding of his EdD in 1952. He then got a position at his alma mater, Washington University, where he spent the remainder of his professional career.

      One of Callahan's first projects was a textbook in the social foundations titled An Introduction to Education in American Society: A Text With Readings that was published in 1956. Counts wrote a foreword. The book sold well and underwent several editions through 1967. Callahan referred to the text as “the book that got me out of pre-fabricated housing.” He then turned his attention to more serious scholarship. The catalyst for this change came in part with the reorganization of Washington University's Department of Education into the Graduate Institute of Education in 1955. Robert J. Schaefer was brought from Harvard to be its first director.

      Callahan was interested in the dramatic growth in public school education at the end of the nineteenth century. The leadership of the schools, the philosophical basis of administration, the curriculum, and societal expectations for the enterprise within the context of corporate America were placed into a subset of historical questions that Callahan began to explore. Warren Button, an early student and graduate assistant of Callahan, would recall Saturdays of reading, thinking, discussion, and writing in a cloud of cigar smoke. The result was Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of Public Schools, which was published in 1962 and underwent more than twenty-five printings. The reaction to the book, dedicated to Counts, was immediately positive.

      Callahan became president of the History of Education Society for 1963–1964 and delivered the Simpson Lecture at Harvard in 1964. He continued to teach, guide future historians of education, and conduct research up to his retirement from Washington University.

      William EdwardEaton
      Further Readings
      Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Eaton, W. (Ed.). (1990). Shaping the superintendency: A reexamination of Callahan and the cult of efficiency. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Carson, Rachel (1907–1964)

      Rachel Carson, a marine biologist and science writer, is best known for her last book, Silent Spring (1962), a groundbreaking book that exposed the destructiveness of manufactured pesticides on the natural world and began a worldwide environmental revolution. Perhaps more than any other modern author, Carson was the first major writer to bring the importance of ecological and sustainable thinking to the general public. As a result, even though her work is primarily as a scientist, she is of critical importance to those interested in the social and cultural foundations of education.

      Born on May 27, 1907, in rural Springdale, Pennsylvania, Carson reflected that she was “born with a fascination for the ocean” and credited her love of nature to her mother. Carson, who published her first story at age ten, continued her interest in writing through high school and at the Pennsylvania College for Women (later Chatham College), where a brilliant college biology teacher encouraged her to apply her passion for science to zoology and to pursue advanced studies at Johns Hopkins University. Carson enrolled at Johns Hopkins in the fall of 1929 after completing a summer fellowship at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole.

      Family financial problems delayed completion of Carson's master's degree until 1932 and dashed her hopes of completing a doctorate. When her father died in 1935, she became responsible for her own and her mother's support, and found a temporary position at the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries to write radio scripts on marine life. A job at the Bureau as an aquatic biologist became permanent in 1936, when she and her mother moved to Silver Spring, Maryland. In 1949, she was appointed editor-in-chief for Fish and Wildlife Services, where she continued until 1952, when the financial success of her publications allowed her to devote all her time to writing and to build a summer cottage on the shore of Southport Island, Maine, where she could observe the marine life she dearly loved.

      Beginning in 1937, Carson's articles on the sea and the natural world appeared in national magazines. Her first book, Under the Sea-Wind, was published in 1941. After receiving a fellowship and an award for “the best science writing in a magazine,” Carson finished The Sea Around Us in 1952, a book that set a record by remaining on the best-seller lists for eighteen months. The Edge of the Sea followed in 1955. An article she wrote for parents and dedicated to her adopted nephew, “Help Your Child to Wonder,” was published in 1956, which was later reprinted as the book The Sense of Wonder.

      Carson's concern about pesticides' effects on the natural world began early in her career and culminated in the publication of Silent Spring. This history-changing book warned of “the dangers of misuse and overuse” of chemical pesticides and eventually led to the banning of DDT. Although Carson was personally and professionally castigated by the chemical industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, she won numerous prestigious national awards and recognition for her work. A film, The Silent Spring of Rachel Carson, aired on CBS in 1963. In 1964, Rachel Carson died of cancer and heart failure. She was awarded the President's Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1980.

      Cheryl TaylorDesmond
      Further Readings
      Brooks, P. (1972). The house of life: Rachel Carson at work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Freeman, M. (Ed.). (1995). Always, Rachel. Boston: Beacon Press.
      Gartner, C. (1983). Rachel Carson. New York: Frederick Ungar.
      Hynes, P. (1989). The recurring silent spring. New York: Pergamon.
      Lear, L. (1997). Rachel Carson: Witness for nature. New York: Holt.
      McCay, M. (1993). Rachel Carson. New York: Twayne.
      Childs, John L. (1889–1985)

      Educator and activist John L. Childs argued that education was linked to a host of social, economic, and environmental issues, so that society had to be reformed if education was to change.

      Born in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Childs attended the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he earned a journalism degree in 1911. After working for the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) for five years, Childs and his wife, Grace Mary Fowler, sailed for China in 1915 to work as YMCA missionaries in Beijing.

      In 1922, Childs returned to the United States to begin graduate work at Union Theological Seminary. After returning to China, Childs eventually came back to New York to work on his Ph.D. at Teachers College, Columbia University. Shortly after finishing his doctoral dissertation, Childs became a professor at Teachers College in 1931.

      Childs entered the profession at the beginning of the Depression. He soon became a leading advocate of a philosophy of social reconstruction, believing that social, environmental, and economic conditions had to be considered when attempting to understand and address issues facing education and the schools. For him, educational reconstruction and social reconstruction were clearly connected. One could not be undertaken without the other.

      Childs's most important work was Education and Morals, which was published in 1950. As a pragma-fist, he believed that engagement in political issues was a moral responsibility. Similarly, he believed that any important decision made by teachers (often affecting students) was likewise a moral decision. In American Pragmatism and Education: An Interpretation and Criticism, published in 1956, Childs outlined the basics of pragmatism and its application to American education. Childs retired from Teachers College in 1955.

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Further Readings
      Childs, J. L. (1950). Education and morals: An experimentalist philosophy of education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
      Childs, J. L. (1956). American pragmatism and education: An interpretation and criticism. New York: Holt.
      Lawrence, L. J. (1992). From prayer to pragmatism: A biography of John L Childs. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
      Clapp, Elsie Ripley (1879–1965)

      Elsie Ripley Clapp, an activist on behalf of children and the poor, taught at schools established to teach the children of jobless workers during the Depression. A student of John Dewey, she also made significant contributions to progressive education.

      Born in Brooklyn Heights, New York, she was educated at Barnard, Vassar, and Columbia. Elsie held a bachelor's degree in English and a master's in philosophy, studying under John Dewey and F. J. E. Woodbridge. Always an activist for children, Clapp worked with the International Workers of the World in 1913, where she taught the children of striking workers. She supported the work of Margaret Sánger and championed the rights of poor children.

      Although she taught in numerous private schools, her best-known documented work was in rural Kentucky and West Virginia. Upon the advice of her friend and mentor John Dewey, Elsie took progressive education to two rural public schools, the Ballard Memorial School near Louisville and the Arthurdale School in West Virginia. She documented her work in two books, Community Schools in Action (1939) and The Use of Resources in Education (1952). Clapp was chosen to head the Arthurdale School by Eleanor Roosevelt, who believed this New Deal community needed a progressive school. The school was populated by children of coal miners displaced by the Depression with an overarching aim to build community.

      Active in progressive education circles, Elsie also edited the journal Progressive Education from 1937–1939 and in that short span brought an aesthetic dimension to the journal with focus on art, the child, and the community school.

      Sam F.StackJr.
      Further Readings
      Stack, S., Jr. (2004). Elsie Ripley Clapp (1879–1965): Her life and the community school. New York: Peter Lang.
      Chomsky, Avram Noam (1928-)

      Avram Noam Chomsky is a linguist, philosopher, and political activist who is well-known both for his work in linguistics and for his writings about contemporary issues, which are essential inquiries into illegitimate forms of authority and the abuse of power in modern politics. He views education as part of a process that rewards obedience and conformity and promotes those who are most faithful to established institutions.

      Chomsky was born to a working-class family in an ethnically diverse immigrant community in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1928. His parents, both of them Hebrew teachers, had immigrated to the United States from Russia in 1913. His father, William (Zev) Chomsky, who had earned his doctorate from Johns Hopkins and went on to become a distinguished scholar of Hebrew grammar, began working at Gratz College in 1924. Gratz ranks not only as the oldest academic institution of Jewish studies in North America, but also as the continent's oldest teacher training college.

      Whereas young Noam developed his interest in the study of language from his father, his political sensitivities reflect more of his mother's influence, who was considerably further to the left in her political orientation than her husband. Members of his extended family also shared commitments to leftist politics, and many of them participated in various forms of working-class activism common to the Depression era.

      Chomsky's formal education began shortly before his second birthday at the Oak Lane Country Day School, a Deweyite experimental school operated by Temple University. Dewey's educational vision bore a strong resemblance to that of Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt, whose linguistic and political writings shaped Chomsky's views in those same areas. Oak Lane provided Chomsky and the other students with the freedom to pursue their own interests and to expand their knowledge without coercion.

      Chomksy's interests, of course, had been decidedly influenced by his parents and his extended family. At the age of ten, he published an article in the Oak Lane student newspaper on the Spanish Civil War that addressed the fall of Barcelona and the defeat of the Spanish anarchosyndicalist movements that he found inspiring. By the age of twelve, he was reading his father's scholarly writings on Hebrew grammar and the history of its study.

      It was also at the age of twelve that Chomsky left Oak Lane and entered Central High School in Philadelphia, where his experiences heavily informed his later critique of state-sponsored schooling. Although labeled a good student because of his high grades, he recognized early the patterns of authoritarianism, regimentation, and indoctrination that serve elite interests. For Chomsky, the primary objective of state-sponsored schooling has always been to sort and select for obedience and conformity. Those most able to tolerate the authoritarian and inane patterns of traditional schooling, those who embrace the obedience and conformity demanded of them, can best be trusted to move “up the ladder” and into the university system, which, in his estimation, likewise rewards obedience and conformity. Those demonstrating the greatest allegiance to the established institutional structures and prevailing dogmas are promoted to positions that enable them to exercise power in the service of reproducing those same structures and dogmas.

      Ideally, in Chomsky's view, public schools should provide people with the skills and opportunities to pursue knowledge as a matter of “intellectual self-defense” against the violence and exploitation aimed against them by members of privileged classes. Similar to the Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci, Chomsky regards all humans as intellectuals, that is, as persons who find the greatest satisfaction in life through the free and autonomous application of their own native abilities toward understanding and acting in the world. The fact that intellectuals are viewed as members of some specialized class should, in Chomsky's view, be regarded as a social defect to be overcome.

      Nevertheless, he claims that members of this class bear a special burden within what he sees as a marginally democratic U.S. society. Their specialized training, their near-limitless access to resources, and the time that they have at their disposal places them under a greater responsibility to pursue the truth and report it to audiences who matter—persons or groups affected by the issues addressed in that pursuit—than those who do not enjoy those privileges. In a more genuinely democratic society, teachers in public schools would focus most of their energies on helping students develop those skills of truth-seeking for themselves.

      Chomsky earned his own position within the academy through his revolutionary work in the field of linguistics. Although his exposure to the study of language through the writings of his father laid the foundation of that work, Chomsky studied linguistics, philosophy, and mathematics at the University of Pennsylvania beginning in 1945. He completed a BA honor's thesis titled “Morphophononemics of Modern Hebrew” that laid the groundwork for his later doctoral studies at Penn and Harvard University. Shortly after earning his Ph.D. from Penn, Chomsky was made an assistant professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His book Syntactic Structures, published in 1957, elicited a tremendous response within the linguistic community and established him as one of its leading figures.

      Throughout his high school and college years, Chomsky never abandoned his anarchosyndicalist/libertarian socialist political leanings and activism. Given his stature as an intellectual figure within linguistics, his vocal opposition to the Vietnam War attracted wide attention. The 1960s witnessed the publication of Chomsky's first books on politics and contemporary events. In 1969, he published American Power and the New Mandarins, and he has published, on average, one book per year on contemporary political issues ever since.

      In 1979, Paul Robinson wrote in The New York Review of Books that Chomsky was “arguably the most important intellectual alive.” Chomsky has never embraced such a characterization of himself, denouncing anything that might contribute toward the development of any “cult of the personality.” His collaborative work with Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent (2002), now in a new and updated edition, remains a highly useful book for understanding the interweavings of state, corporate, and media power. Of particular relevance for scholars in the cultural and social foundations of education is Donaldo Macedo's Chomsky on Miseducation (2000), which contains numerous essays as well as an important interview with Chomsky conducted by Macedo.

      DavidGabbard
      Further Readings
      Barsky, R. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A life of dissent. Cambridge: MIT Press.
      Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
      Chomsky, N. (1969). American power and the new Mandarins. New York: Pantheon.
      Chomsky, N. (1973). For reasons of state. New York: Pantheon.
      Chomsky, N. (1983). The fateful triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Boston: South End Press.
      Chomsky, N. (1993). Year 501: The conquest continues. Boston: South End Press.
      Chomsky, N. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
      Chomsky, N. (2001). 9–11. New York: Seven Stories Press.
      Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival. New York: Metropolitan Books.
      Chomsky, N. (2005). Chomsky on anarchism. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
      Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.
      Chomsky, N., & Otero, C., (2002). Chomsky on democracy and education. New York: Flamer Press.
      Mitchell, P., & Schoeffel, J. (Eds.). (2002). Understanding power: The indispensable Chomsky. New York: New Press.
      Coleman, James S. (1926–1995)

      James S. Coleman was a sociologist and author of studies that fueled controversy around the mandatory busing issue in the 1960s and 1970s: one study providing the rationale for mandatory busing of students to achieve integrated schools, and the other declaring those efforts a failure.

      Born on May 12, 1926, Coleman earned a doctorate in sociology from Columbia University in 1955 and began a long teaching career at the University in Chicago the following year. From 1959 to 1973, he taught and did research at Johns Hopkins University, returning to the University of Chicago in 1973. Despite producing a broad range of research and scholarship, including the publication of thirty books, Coleman is best remembered for two studies.

      His 1966 report to Congress, known as the Coleman Report, presented research that showed African American children would learn more and faster in integrated classrooms. Although his conclusions were carefully qualified, this research was used as an argument for wide-scale mandatory busing to achieve racial balance in many schools and correct the de facto segregation that had been found to exist in many American school districts. The controversy and acrimony that this effort generated placed Coleman's work at the center of a firestorm.

      Later, in 1975, after “White flight” and other issues had plagued the efforts of this movement, Coleman issued a report pronouncing the mandatory busing movement a failure. This, too, was extremely controversial to the point that the American Sociological Society considered expelling him. Coleman felt his most important work was his 1990 book, Foundations of Social Theory, in which he studied the organization and functioning of communities. Coleman died of prostate cancer on March 25, 1995.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Coleman, J. S., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
      Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
      Comenius, John Amos (Komensky) (1592–1670)

      The father of modern pedagogy, Comenius argued that teachers should use developmentally appropriate instructional methods that tap into children's sense perceptions. He called for a universal educational system, a standardized curriculum and textbooks, trained teachers, and a common language for all (Latin). Although Comenius lived in turbulent times and suffered many personal losses, he remained optimistic about the future of humankind. His most important works include the Didáctica Magna (The Great Didactic) (1632), the Janua Linguarum Reserata (The Gates of Tongues Unlocked and Opened) (1631), and the Orbis Sensualium Pictus (World in Pictures) (1658), one of the first picture books for children.

      John Amos Komensky was born March 28, 1592, in Nivnice, Moravia (Czechoslovakia). His parents were members of a Protestant religious group persecuted during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). Living in a time of great political upheaval, Comenius experienced many hardships. His father, mother, and two sisters died of plague when he was twelve. In 1621, he lost his home, his writings, and all of his belongings when soldiers took over the town in which he lived. The same year, his pregnant wife and two of his children died of plague. A refugee most of his life, Comenius traveled throughout Europe, but never returned to his homeland. He died November 15, 1670, in Amsterdam.

      Comenius believed in the power of intellect, piety, and systematic learning to improve the human condition. Troubled by the conflict and human suffering surrounding him, he sought to unify people of all nations and faiths. He proposed that pansophy—lifelong study of systematized, encyclopedic knowledge—could lead humans toward shared understanding and global peace. Comenius argued that teachers should put less emphasis on rhetoric (memorization, words, and grammar) and more emphasis on arousing the student's interest by appealing to the senses.

      In The Great Didactic (1632), he proposed an age-graded system of education: nursery school (0–6 years), elementary school (6–12), Latin school (13–18), and Academy (19–24). Comenius believed that elementary education should be made available to everyone regardless of gender, nationality, or economic status. The Janua Linguarum Reserata (1631) described Comenius's method for teaching Latin using the vernacular (the student's native language). The Orbis Sensualium Pictus (1658) was a smaller version of the Janua and included 150 woodcuts depicting everyday objects and settings. Elements within each image were numbered and described in Latin and in the vernacular (Spanish, English, German). The Orbis was reprinted in many languages and was widely used for more than two centuries.

      JanArmstrong
      Further Readings
      Perkinson, H. J. (1980). Since Socrates: Studies in the history of Western educational thought. New York: Longman.
      Smith, L. G., & Smith, J. K. (1999). Lives in education A narrative of people and ideas (
      2nd ed.
      ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
      Comer, James P. (1934-)

      James P. Comer, MD, is the creator of the Comer School Development Program (SDP), a comprehensive school reform model used in more than 500 schools throughout the United States. Currently, Dr. Comer serves as the Maurice Falk Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine's Child Study Center.

      Comer was born in 1934 in the town of East Chicago, Indiana. Although his parents had limited education, they pushed him and his siblings to achieve in school and to pursue college educations. Comer went on to complete his undergraduate education at Indiana University and his medical training at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Following this, he received a master's degree in public health from the University of Michigan and pursued residency training in psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine and its Child Development Center.

      In 1968, Comer received an invitation from Dr. Albert Solnit of the Yale Child Development Center to direct a school intervention project funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation. That school intervention project yielded a model of reform known as the Comer School Development Program (SDP) or simply “the Comer Process.” This process is based on principles of child, adolescent, and adult development, and it encourages parents, teachers, administrators, and students to work in a collaborative and cooperative atmosphere based on students' needs. The SDP has taken root all over the United States and has become one of the most important reform models in the history of American education.

      Comer's primary work with the SDP has been a reflection of his research on the social conditions facing the poor and minority communities and the link that these conditions have with public policies and institutions. In doing so, Comer has recognized the critical influence of education on adult life and the role that family and community context has on children's future success in school.

      Michael E.Jennings
      Further Readings
      Comer, J. (1995). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press.
      Comer, J. (2005). Leaving no child behind: Preparing today's youth for tomorrow's world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
      Cooper, Anna Julia Haywood (1858–1964)

      Educator and pioneer of civil and women's rights, Anna Julia Haywood Cooper was the fourth Black woman in U.S. history to earn a Ph.D. Her life exemplified commitment to education, women's rights, racial uplift, and social transformation.

      Born into slavery, Cooper was educated and later served as an instructor at St. Augustine's Normal School and Collegiate Institute. After receiving her MA from Oberlin College, Cooper was hired in 1891 to teach at M Street High School in Washington, D.C; she was named principal in 1902.

      While at M Street, Cooper wrote her book A Voice From the South: By a Woman From the South (1892), considered to be a pioneering Black feminist text. In this work, Cooper explored Black women's racial and gender oppression, education, self-determination, literary representations of Blackness, and voting rights for all women.

      Although M Street graduates were successful in obtaining admission to prestigious colleges and universities, the D.C. board of education denied Cooper's principal reappointment when she refused to lower academic standards for her students. She remained at M Street as an instructor, however.

      Sabrina N.Ross
      Further Readings
      Cooper, A. J. (1998). The voice of Anna Julia Cooper: Including A Voice From the South and other important essays, papers, and letters. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
      Johnson, K. (2000). Uplifting the women and the race: The lives, educational philosophies and social activism of Anna Julia Cooper and Nannie Helen Burroughs. New York: Routledge.
      Counts, George Sylvester (1889–1974)

      For a period of more than fifty years, George Sylvester Counts was a major figure in American education. He was, for much of his life, on the left side among educational progressives during the twentieth century. He is most closely identified with the education movement described as social reconstructionism and is considered by many to have been its leading voice throughout his long and distinguished career. He was also the preeminent American scholar on Soviet education and culture.

      Counts's activism was uncommon for an academic. The ideas he encountered while studying at the University of Chicago lured him in this direction, at least on the intellectual plane. Although his doctoral dissertation was a study of arithmetic tests and the psychology of arithmetic, he was influenced by the writings of Thorsten Veblen. Upon graduation, he quickly turned to educational and social criticism, abandoning his early interest in standard deviations, regression equations, and coefficients of correlation.

      Counts's career in higher education spanned more than a half-century. During that time, he authored twenty-nine books on American society and education as well as Soviet life and education. In 1957, his book The Challenge of Soviet Education was granted the American Library Association's Liberty and Justice Award. It represented an example of Counts's foresight because shortly after its publication Sputnik was launched, an event that dramatically altered the face of American education in response to the Soviet challenge.

      His writings reflect several seminal works in American education, and his earliest books represented some of the first attempts at analyzing the effects of social class on the nation's schools. Among these were The Selective Character of American Secondary Education (1922), The Senior High School Curriculum (1926), The Social Composition of Boards of Education: A Study in the Social Control of Public Education (1927), and Secondary Education and Industrialism (1929). School and Society in Chicago (1928) became very popular as one of the earliest examinations of the inner workings of a large city school system. His coauthored book Principles of Education (1924) was widely used as a text in American schools of education.

      The book that most defines his legacy and for which he is best remembered is Dare the School Build a New Social Order? (1932). A small book of only fifty-two pages, it was the compilation of three addresses given to educators in the midst of the Great Depression. It was a call to action to teachers across the land, boldly seeking to enlist them in the cause of social justice. It envisioned a teaching profession elevated in its own social status and importance resulting from the leadership it would provide to communities and their schools. The power and impact of his ideas, married to the heft of his delivery, left the convention delegates of the Progressive Education Association in a silence that, for Counts, was more meaningful than applause. In fact, members suspended the remainder of the convention's business to ponder and react to Counts's ideas.

      Moreover, his words reflect a perspective that applies no less to our own contemporary circumstance. For example, he wrote the following:

      We can view a world order rushing toward collapse with no more concern than the outcome of a horse race; we can see injustice, crime and misery in their most terrible forms all about us and, if we are not directly affected, register the emotions of a scientist studying white rats in a laboratory. … In my opinion, this is a confession of complete moral and spiritual bankruptcy. (Counts, 1932, p. 20)

      Counts began his career in higher education at Delaware College (now the University of Delaware) as department head before moving to Harris Teachers College in St. Louis for a year. He was then lured to the University of Washington, followed by Yale, the University of Chicago, and finally Teachers College, Columbia University, in 1927, where he stayed until retirement in 1955. After that, he continued teaching for many years—at the University of Pittsburgh, University of Colorado, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, and Southern Illinois University from 1962 until 1971—when he permanently retired at the age of eighty-two.

      When he was recruited to Teachers College, Columbia University, it was to serve as the assistant director of the International Institute, which led him to become interested in the Soviet Union. It remained a lifelong project that he pursued alongside his research and teaching about U.S. education. A memorable journey in 1929 was when he drove a Model A Ford more than 6,000 miles across most of the Soviet Union, much of it alone and many miles on unpaved roads. This feat culminated in the book, A Ford Crosses Soviet Russia (1930).

      Counts's activist posture brought about his recruitment as candidate for president of the American Federation of Teachers, a post he won in 1939. Counts led the effort to purge the AFT of communist influence, particularly among some of its largest and most influential locals. He can be credited in part with saving the AFT because its parent union, the AFL, was poised to expel AFT locals under communist control.

      BruceRomanish
      Further Readings
      Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order?New York: John Day Company.
      Counts, G. S. (1952). Education and American civilization. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
      Counts, G. S. (1971). A humble autobiography. In R. J.Havighurst (Ed.), Leaders in American education: The seventieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 151–174). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Cremin, L. A. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience, 1876–1980. New York: Harper & Row.
      Gutek, G. L. (1984). George S. Counts and American civilization: The educator as social theorist. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
      Covello, Leonard (1887–1983)

      Leonard Covello was the twentieth-century's leading theorist and practitioner of community-centered schooling. He dedicated much of his career to the development of Benjamin Franklin High School for Boys in East Harlem and promoted that school's role in the educational improvement of the entire community.

      The son of a southern-Italian family that immigrated to East Harlem in the mid-1890s, Covello attended New York City schools in an era of Anglo-conformity. His personal experience of the anti-immigrant bias of these institutions shaped his lifelong commitment to intercultural education and cultural democracy. Following his graduation from Columbia University in 1911, Covello embarked on a teaching career in Romance languages in the city high schools. From 1914 to 1934, with the exception of a two-year hiatus for military service in World War I, he taught at DeWitt Clinton High School, where he chaired the Department of Italian and led a successful citywide campaign to give Italian parity with other modern foreign languages.

      Covello played an instrumental role in establishing Benjamin Franklin High School, a high school for boys in East Harlem, where he served as principal from 1934 to 1956. Dedicated to the local democratic development of East Harlem's constituent ethnic groups and the revitalization of this stressed immigrant district, Covello organized a pioneering community school infrastructure at BFHS that included a community advisory council with multiple subcommittees, adult education and recreational services, a school-based community newspaper, and a set of street units for social clubs and community research bureaus.

      Every facet of the community program was education centered, explicitly designed to reinforce the high school's instructional program. Community advisory committees and social clubs, for instance, educated East Harlem parents about interethnic tolerance at the same time their sons were learning these lessons in the high school's intercultural program. School-community partnerships with East Harlem social agencies and large-scale community organizing efforts, such as housing, health, and citizenship campaigns, mobilized local educational resources in the service of the high school.

      Although community-centered schooling did not last beyond Covello's retirement, his project, viewed in hindsight, offers an inspiring vision of “active” citizenship as a public purpose of the U.S. schooling system. The major repository for the Covello-era BFHS is the Leonard Covello Papers, MSS 40, housed in the Balch Institute Collections of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Covello articulated his philosophy of community-centered schooling in numerous publications, including his autobiography, The Heart Is the Teacher (1958), and his 1944 Ph.D. dissertation, “The Social Background of the Italo-American School Child” (1967).

      John L.Puckett, and Michael C.Johanek
      Further Readings
      Covello, L. (1967). The social background of the Italo-American school child: A study of the southern Italian family mores and their effect on the school situation in Italy and America. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
      Covello, L., with D'Agostino, G. (1958). The heart is the teacher. New York: McGraw-Hill.
      Johanek, M. C., & Puckett, J. L. (2006). Leonard Covello and the making of Benjamin Tranklin High School: Education as if citizenship mattered. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
      Cremin, Lawrence Arthur (1925–1990)

      Lawrence A. Cremin, one of the most important historians of U.S. education, served as a faculty member and administrator at Teachers College, Columbia University, for more than four decades. His three-volume history of education in the United States, titled American Education, examined the development of education from the colonial period to the late twentieth century. The second volume, examining the period from 1783 to 1876, received the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1981.

      Cremin's other books included The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957, which received the 1962 Bancroft Prize in American history and is recognized as the definitive history of American progressive education. His final book, Popular Education and Its Discontents, examined the expansion of American education and its resultant successes and problems.

      A graduate of the City College of New York, Cremin received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia in 1949. He began his career at Teachers College, Columbia University, and in 1961 became the Frederick A. P. Barnard Professor of Education. He also held a joint appointment in Columbia's history department. After a number of administrative positions, he became the college's seventh president in 1974, during a period of declining enrollments and fiscal problems. A strong supporter of disciplinary approaches to the study of education, Cremin shifted Teachers College's historical commitment from an interdisciplinary foundation of education approach to a more discipline-centered approach in philosophy, history, and the social sciences. By the end of his presidency in 1984, he had developed significant new programs, restored financial health, and reestablished the college's distinctive position. He returned to teaching and research in 1985, while also becoming president of the Spencer Foundation.

      Cremin's approach to educational history expanded the historical study of American education through a more multidimensional analysis than previous school-centered approaches. Through an examination of other institutions and agencies that educate and international educational trends, he provided in-depth analyses of the evolution of education in the larger context of society. Unlike earlier histories of American education, which uncritically celebrated its successes, Cremin provided a more comprehensive, balanced, and critical view. Nonetheless, his work is associated with the democratic-liberal school of U.S. educational history, which views the development of U.S. education as an extension of democratic and meritocratic processes.

      Susan F.Semel
      Further Readings
      Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education. New York: Vintage.
      Cremin, L. A. (1972). American education: The colonial experience, 1607–1783. New York: Harper & Row.
      Cremin, L. A. (1977). Traditions of American education. New York: Basic Books.
      Cremin, L. A. (1980). American education: The national experience, 1783–1876. New York: Harper & Row.
      Cremin, L. A. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience, 1876–1980. New York: Harper & Row.
      Cremin, L. A. (1990). Popular education and its discontents. New York: Harper & Row.
      Cubberley, Ellwood P. (1868–1941)

      Ellwood Cubberley was instrumental in founding both school administration and the history of education as professional fields of study. He joined the faculty of Stanford University in 1898 and subsequently served as dean of its School of Education from 1917 to 1933. As editor of the Riverside Textbooks in Education series for Houghton Mifflin, Cubberley edited more than 100 monographs and general textbooks in a wide range of educational fields. He wrote textbooks in the fields of school administration (for both the principal's and superintendent's positions), history of European and American education, and introduction to teaching and education as well as school survey reports. His classes and seminars attracted men who would go on to positions of leadership in education at the state, regional, and national levels.

      Cubberley's particular gift was as a synthesizer of an emerging literature within a social efficiency movement in education that drew on the business model of organization and production characteristic of an emerging corporate economy, on scientific management theory, and on behavioral theories of learning and measurement of learning. Using this literature, he developed an influential rationale and design for a bureaucratic organization of schooling at the state and school district levels characterized by an emphasis on ideological and vocational preparation of students for entry into the various class strata in a corporate capitalist economy, on governing boards comprised of leading businessmen and professionals, on administration by professionally educated experts, and on decision making based on quantitative data. Cubberley advocated increases in public school funding as well as such organizational reforms as consolidation of rural school districts and the development of junior high schools. He stressed the need to develop curricular tracks that would prepare students efficiently for their markedly differing adult social and economic roles.

      Ideologically, Cubberley argued for schools to develop in students a social consciousness characterized by a sense of interdependence among the various social classes and a belief that interests of social classes within a corporate capitalist society are compatible. Sharing ethnic and racial prejudices that infused the social efficiency literature, he was a vigorous proponent of school Americanization programs that would replace what he perceived to be the deficit values and beliefs of southern and eastern European immigrant families with what he defined to be Anglo-Teutonic political and cultural values, beliefs, and behaviors. Hence, schools were to serve as central institutions for maintaining social cohesion and suppressing class conflict as well as for vocational preparation.

      In terms of shaping teachers' and administrators' beliefs through strengthened professional education and development, Cubberley advocated a controlled professional freedom that combined acquisition and use of a knowledge base commensurate with one's position in the school system hierarchy as teacher, building administrator, or central office administrator, on one hand, with a clear understanding of the limits on the decisions that one in that particular position is authorized to make, on the other. His extensive work as author and editor of textbooks in a range of developing fields of professional education suggests an understanding on his part that, within bureaucratic school systems, control of professional knowledge bases within schools of education and related professional development programs in schools could serve as a source of considerable power.

      StuartMcAninch
      Further Readings
      Cremin, L. (1957). The wonderful world of Ellwood Patterson Cubberley. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Cubberley, E. (1916). Public school administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Cubberley, E. (1919). Public education in the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Cubberley, E. (1920). The history of education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Sears, J., & Henderson, A. (1957). Cubberley of Stanford. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
      Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue. New York: Basic Books.
      Curry, Jabez Lamar Monroe (1825–1903)

      Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry was an educator and politician who started his career as a passionate defender of slavery, arguing that it was good both for the South and for African Americans. After the Civil War, he became resigned to the liberation of African Americans and was among the White leaders of educational initiatives for Blacks focused on industrial training.

      Curry was born to William Curry and Susan Winn on June 5, 1825, in Lincoln County, northeastern Georgia. By 1834, William owned 7,000 acres and forty-two slaves. Jabez was educated at both the Willington Academy and the Double Branches School, with advanced tutoring by University of Dublin graduate Daniel W. Finn in Latin, Greek, algebra, and geometry. The family relocated to Alabama in 1837. He later attended Franklin College (now the University of Georgia), excelling in classical studies before entering Harvard Law School, class of 1845.

      Boundless curiosity, superior training, and Harvard exposure helped sculpt a capable intellectual and fiery orator. His sociopolitical commitments were to slavery, states rights, and secession. Following a very brief military deployment, Curry was elected to the Alabama state legislature in 1847. From 1850–1853 he was absent from politics as he prospered in the family business. In 1853, he was reelected to the Alabama legislature as a states' rights advocate. In 1857, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he developed a passionate defense of slavery. His recurring theme held that slavery brought civilization and great prosperity to the South. He further argued that slavery had a salutary effect on Blacks.

      In January 1861, Curry was elected deputy from Alabama to the new Confederate States of America. He was later assigned to the Confederate Army as commissioner of habeas corpus investigating “disloyalty” among the civilian population.

      Following the Civil War, Curry was jailed for inciting rebellion and exchanging illegal currency. Negotiating a $250 payment, he was pardoned. His hardened political polemics now gave way to uttering the Holy Scriptures. He was soon selected president of Howard Baptist College in Marion, Alabama (1865–1868), and became ordained. Having revived Howard financially, Curry accepted a professorship in history and English literature at Richmond College, Virginia (1868–1881).

      During the late 1860s and early 1870s, Curry spoke out passionately against the “horrors” of Reconstruction and the dangers of miscegenation. Additionally, he delivered regular sermons and emerged as a high-profile Southern intellectual.

      During the 1880s, he moved between education and politics, serving as general agent for the Peabody Fund, which provided philanthropic support for Southern education, and ambassador to Spain (1885–1888). The civic-minded and patriotic Curry was resigned to the new social order. In his mature years, Curry understood that the “Negro problem” had to be addressed for the country to prosper. He came to view accommodationist Negro education and education for poor Southern Whites as steps toward nation-building.

      In 1891, Curry became general agent of the Slater Fund, dedicated to industrial training for Blacks. He supported and praised Hampton and Tuskegee and spent his last productive years as part of the interlocking directorate of White architects of Black education.

      William H.Watkins
      Further Readings
      Alderman, E. A., & Gordon, A. C. (1911). J. L. M. Curry: A biography. New York: Macmillan.
      Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
      Rice, J. P. (1949). J.L.M. Curry: Southerner, statesman and educator. New York: King's Crown Press.
      Watkins, W. H. (2001). The White architects of Black education: Ideology and power in America, 1865–1954. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Davis, Jackson (1882–1947)

      Jackson Davis was a long-time official with the General Education Board (GEB), a Rockefeller-funded philanthropy mainly remembered for its work with Southern Black schooling. Over his more than thirty years with the GEB, Davis rose to the post of vice president and toiled as an advocate for improved schooling for African American children and youth.

      After graduating from college in 1902, he spent the next eight years leading various school and youth organizations. During his Henrico County, Virginia, public schools superintendency (1905–1909), he came to the notice of the GEB and, as well, recruited the first Jeanes Teacher. In 1910, Davis became the initial GEB-funded Director of Negro Education, serving in the Virginia State Department of Education. Davis's success with Virginia's schools for African Americans and his work in recruiting and training additional directors for other states led to his appointment in 1915 as the GEB's general field agent.

      Assuming general guidance of the GEB's Southern Program, Davis began a refashioning of the organization's work with Black schools. Principally, under his leadership, GEB policies turned away from strict allegiance to industrial schooling. Among other efforts, Davis directed the establishment of a regularized system for the accreditation of Black high schools and reinvigorated the Southern state departments of education as official allies to Black schools. These efforts, mainly hidden from general public notice, garnered him much less notice than other contemporary progressive Whites such as Edwin Embree and Will Alexander. He died, still faithfully serving the GEB, in 1947.

      Matthew D.Davis
      Further Readings
      Davis, M. D.“Attuned to the art of the possible”: The GEB's Jackson Davis. American Educational History Journal, 22009., 124–128.
      Jackson Davis and the lost world of Jim Crow education. (2000). Charlottes ville: University of Virginia Library, Special Collections Department.
      De Hostos, Eugenio Maria (1839–1903)

      Eugenio Maria de Hostos, a lifelong Puerto Rican patriot and advocate for democracy throughout Latin America, put together and led the public school system in the Dominican Republic. He was also an advocate of equal education opportunity for women.

      Born January 11, 1839, in Rio Canas, Puerto Rico, de Hostos attended the University of Bilbao and the Central University in Spain before studying law at the University of Madrid. He was disappointed that neither Puerto Rico nor Cuba were granted independence when the Spanish monarchy was overthrown in 1868. In 1869, he moved to New York City and became editor of La Revolution, the paper of the Cuban independence movement. He also served as a writer for the newspaper Puerto Rico.

      The following year, he began a four-year tour of Latin America to gain popular support for Cuban independence. At the same time, he engaged in a variety of educational, philosophical, and political activities. In 1873, while in Chile, de Hostos published The Scientific Education of Women, which called for women to receive education on the same level as men. At the same time, he authored a widely respected essay on Hamlet, which included an analysis of the need to fight for freedom. In 1875, he participated in a failed revolutionary attempt to sail to Cuba to fight for independence.

      By 1877, de Hostos had moved to Venezuela, where he taught at a college in Caracas and worked as a school principal. The following year, he was asked to lead national education reform in the Dominican Republic. He established the first public elementary schools in that country, helped prepare teachers at the National University, and crafted the Dominican Republic's laws regarding public education. Such was his success that Chile invited him to redesign their national education system, and so he moved to Santiago, Chile, in 1888 to undertake this endeavor.

      When the Cuban Revolution began in 1898, de Hostos went to New York and then to Puerto Rico to advocate for independence for that colony. In January 1899, he and other Puerto Rican patriots presented a proposal for independence to President McKinley.

      When it became clear that Puerto Rico would become a U.S. territory, de Hostos returned to the Dominican Republic, where he became Inspector General of Education, a post he held until his death. He was a prolific author, writing at least fifty books in his lifetime, many of which were only published posthumously. He is often compared to John Dewey, and his writing is thought to have influenced Paulo Freire, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      De Sainz, J. B. (1989). Eugenio Maria de Hostos: Philosophical system and methodology. New York: Senda Nueva de Ediciones.
      Dewey, John (1859–1952)

      John Dewey was a highly influential twentieth-century American philosopher and perhaps the nation's foremost educational theorist. Along with Charles S. Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910), he forged an American philosophy known variously as pragmatism, experimentalism, or, as he preferred, instrumentalism. He also helped create an educational theory known as progressivism. In addition to being a prolific author and a philosophy professor, he was socially and politically active in seeking to improve children's schooling, secure professors' academic freedom, outlaw international war, protect workers' rights, extend women's civil liberties, and enact immigrant and minority political freedoms.

      Dewey was born into a middle-class evangelical Congregational Church family in Burlington, Vermont, and pursued his undergraduate education in his hometown at the University of Vermont. After earning his bachelor's degree in philosophy and spending several years as a high school teacher in Pennsylvania and Vermont, he pursued his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University and later taught at the universities of Michigan, Minnesota, and Chicago, as well as Columbia.

      During his lifetime, he wrote approximately one thousand articles, ninety poems, and forty books. With the exception of his poems, which were edited by Jo Ann Boydston in The Poems of John Dewey and his essay “What Psychology Can Do for the Teacher” in Reginald Archambault's John Dewey on Education, all of his published writings are in The Collected Works of John Dewey. The books for which he is best remembered are The School and Society (1899); The Child and the Curriculum (1902); How We Think (1910); Democracy and Education (1916); Reconstruction in Philosophy (1920); Human Nature and Conduct (1922); Experience and Nature (1925); The Public and Its Problems (1927); The Quest for Certainty (1929); Individualism, Old and New (1930); Ethics (1932); Art as Experience (1934); Logic (1938); Experience and Education (1938); and Freedom and Culture (1939).

      Although his books have made a lasting impression on students of his philosophy, Dewey wrote many significant essays, too, such as “The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology” (1896); “Professional Spirit Among Teachers” (1913); “Nationalizing Education” (1916); “The Prospects of the Liberal College” (1924); “Progressive Education and the Science of Education” (1928); “From Absolutism to Experimentalism” (1930); “Why I Am Not a Communist” (1934); “Democracy Is Radical” (1937); “Propositions, Warranted Assertibility, and Truth” (1941); and “Has Philosophy a Future?” (1948). Ironically, both his first major scholarly work—his doctoral dissertation—and his last virtually completed volume—a book-length manuscript that was tentatively titled Naturalism—have been lost.

      From the titles mentioned, however, it is easy to see that the scope of his scholarly interests was extensive, including, but not limited to, education, psychology, aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, religion, politics, and democracy. These diverse motifs were linked in his thought and may be approached through one of several entry points, such as his social, political, educational, ethical, or aesthetic theory. Conversely, his ideas may be entered via ideas that are associated with his philosophical assumptions and methodology, such as naturalism, pragmatism, experimentalism, or instrumentalism.

      In this entry, Dewey's ideas are woven or melded together to form a cohesive pattern of reflections. That is to say, the flow of his reflections and emphases are commingled in order to highlight his thinking during his post-Christian and postidealism philosophical stages. In particular, the entry examines his naturalistic philosophy rather than his early supernaturalistic philosophy. As a proponent of naturalism, Dewey rejected his earlier ideas of a personal God, a revealed religion, a predetermined self, and a transcendental meaning system. Instead, he argued that everything, including religion and ethics, is better understood from a Darwinian, naturalistic perspective.

      The universe, humans, and society are best understood as naturally evolving dynamic entities that interact with and influence meaning making and purposive living. Natural development, however, provides opportunities for intelligent experimentation and choices. Dewey's experimentalism, rooted in his broad view of science, led him to stress the connection between thinking, learning, and teaching. His pragmatism influenced him to conclude that thinking, learning, and acting are merely different aspects of a single process or experience.

      The nonlinear facets of scientific or reflective thinking that Dewey identified, if his ideas may be overly simplified, occur first as a person encounters a genuine problem or develops personal doubt or uncertainty. The person, in essence, is perturbed, disconcerted, or nonplussed because of some experience she or he has had. If the person is guided to escape this disequilibrium intelligently, she or he may, second, start finding facts, attempting to synthesize them, searching for ways of interpreting them, and identifying the basic problem that stimulated the initial confusion.

      Next, the person continues to think, reflect, and learn as she or he seeks a solution to the problem and, perhaps unconsciously, to regain equilibrium. Deweyan thinking and learning, at this juncture, involves developing hypotheses and narrowing them down to one that will be tested. After this hypothesis is chosen, a fourth facet of thinking develops: the actual testing of the selected hypothesis. This need to test or experiment—and so, the term experimentalism—includes going through empirical data intellectually, looking for connections among the facts, considering the strengths and weaknesses of the hypothesis, and taking into account the potential or probable results or consequences when evaluating the hypothesis.

      Finally, thinking and learning move to testing the hypothesis in a real experiment or situation. If the actual experiment results in the predicted outcomes, then the person solves the problem and has her or his equilibrium restored. If not, the person begins to review his or her prior thinking to search for additional data, other explanations for them, and alternative hypotheses. This approach to thinking and experimenting is, on one level and to varying degrees, a normal part of living and professional life.

      When Dewey added his teaching theory to his thinking and learning theories, the responsibilities of the school and teacher emerge; school staff and individual teachers are responsible for fostering the thinking and learning of students. From his viewpoint, their responsibilities are best accomplished by designing, creating, renewing, and reconstructing school and classroom environments so that they continue to cultivate each child's thinking and learning in ways that eventually lead to adult ways of understanding the multiple forms of inquiry and creativity.

      As children enter school, however, the teacher does not begin with the teaching of adult forms of understanding of chemistry, history, mathematics, language, and so forth. Instead, the teacher begins with the learning that students bring with them to school and extends this understanding wider and deeper into the various subjects studied, enabling students to better see the connections and usefulness of what is learned.

      In addition, Dewey argued that students are born learners with natural and cultivated impulses that need to be directed and transformed into reflectively developed desires and purposes. Thus, he was very interested in a progressive rather than a traditional approach to education and curriculum. Hence, his views—although frequently distorted by his admirers and detractors—became associated with educational progressivism. For him, progressivism involved focusing on understanding students' interests and impulses; engaging them in well-planned and stimulating learning activities; developing their understanding into adult forms of inquiry and creativity; cultivating their abilities to think and to solve problems for themselves; and nurturing their dispositions to work together democratically toward personal, professional, and social goals.

      He was highly critical of progressive educators who allowed students to be directed only or largely by their unreflective impulses and developed individualistic students who had little understanding of their democratic social relationships and responsibilities in schools and society. Thus, he objected to their idea of an indi-vidualistically oriented and child-centered school in preference for a democratically oriented and socially centered one that meets the needs of each student.

      In the process of learning, Dewey thought that students should come to understand that knowledge claims are, at their best, warranted assertions, conclusions that are the most reliable that can be reached with the available theory and data. Some opinions are without any support but harmless and, on occasion, even meaningful. Others may be unwarranted and harmful, or at least counterproductive. Still others may have no more warrant than dozens of other opinions or interpretations because the evidence and arguments that support them are inadequate, insufficient, or partial.

      A study of history reveals that some opinions are increasingly discredited and others are progressively corroborated by scholars, researchers, and experts. Some opinions are so well supported that they may be acted upon with a very high degree of confidence. As he noted in The Quest for Certainty, Dewey believed that a high level of confidence or warrant meant that people can be secure but not certain about many claims that are made in a variety of realms of inquiry, such as chemistry, mathematics, history, and even ethics. Certainty is unwarranted because the universe is a dynamic, changing entity, and personal knowledge of it is both partial and problematic.

      In his instrumentalist view of knowing, it was important to note that determining the warrant of a claim is a public, social, and ongoing process, never an individual, private, and completed matter. Consequently, students need to learn that when they make choices and pursue related actions, their commitment to these selections and endeavors should be in proportion to the public warrant that exists. The most highly warranted beliefs ought to be understood as they are in scientific experimentation or as instruments for producing new ideas, theories, hypotheses, and, notably, findings.

      Dewey's instrumentalism extends to all realms of understanding. Historical findings, religious experience, aesthetic criticism, chemical studies, moral judgments, and statistical analyses are increasingly warranted or secure when theories regarding them are powerful, data are substantial, and arguments are cogent. But more is involved in claims of knowing. The consequences or outcomes of inquiries are related to his democratic philosophy of valuation. Are the consequences of acting on the knowledge we have for the common good of society, both in the present and in the future?

      In summary, then, his view of instrumentalism is not only a way of examining knowledge claims and determining warranted assertions but also a means of providing grounds for learning, thinking, choosing, behaving, and living, both individually and collectively. So, his theories of learning, thinking, teaching, and knowing are connected for students and teachers in schools as well as for citizens and leaders in communities and societies. He believed that a democratic society should be increasingly a part of every facet of life, including families, schools, communities, social agencies, religious institutions, and private businesses. Democratic values and reflective thinking should permeate the thinking and actions of politicians, communities, businesses, schools, and individuals.

      Dewey believed, too, that if schools, communities, and societies are to become educational and democratic entities, they must examine reflectively and shape democratically the experiences that children, youth, and adults have throughout school and life. In Experience and Education and other writings, there are probably two major ways of conceptualizing experiences—the paradigmatically different and the devel-opmentally distinct. At least three paradigmatic kinds of experiences drew his attention. Among the various experiences that exist, Dewey argued that they fall into three categories: miseducative, noneducative, and educative. These three paradigms of experience vary from the least desirable (miseducative) to the most desirable (educative). In between these two categories falls a type of experience that may be neither harmful nor helpful, detrimental nor fruitful per se in the life of a person or society. Erasing boards, sharpening pencils, putting paper into a printer, surfing the Internet, changing television channels, answering the telephone, planting a flower, eating an orange, and so on may fall into this category much of the time. On the other hand, any one of these activities might be miseducative or educative when certain other criteria or conditions are in force or met. What are these distinguishing criteria or conditions? How did Dewey distinguish miseducative and educative experiences?

      The concepts of personal and societal growth are the main criteria that distinguish miseducative and educative experiences for Dewey. Conspicuously, growth for him involves community, not just individual, development and is the never-ending goal of both formal and informal education. By growth, he suggested several subcriteria, such as an increasing awareness of facts and ideas; a connecting of new learning with prior learning; an understanding of more sophisticated ideas and experiences; and a refining of the abilities to reflect, solve problems, and make intelligent choices. According to Democracy and Education, growth also has liberating qualities in that it enhances and expands a person's and society's understanding and choices. Thus, growth is intrinsically connected to values, particularly democratic and intellectual ones.

      So, what does growth suggest for miseducative and educative experiences? Although some experiences may be either at times if circumstances are conducive, others are more likely and more consistently miseducative and others educative. For example, poorly conceived and executed teaching of writing or trigonometry may be quite miseducative. So, too, would be the learning of stereotypes and misinformation. On the other hand, learning about the issues, complexities, and beauties of art, astronomy, and Mexico would ordinarily be educative, expanding, and liberating. Schools—but also families, communities, and societies—are responsible for ensuring that learning is focused primarily on educative activities and experiences.

      Designing, fostering, and delivering of relevant environments and experiences become the arts of teaching and living in a democratically oriented school and country. Of course, some room for noneducative activities is important if they do not undermine or overwhelm the importance of educative ones. Miseducative activities and experiences cannot always be avoided for numerous reasons, but they can be diminished, minimized, or neutralized to an extent in reflective schools and societies if Dewey is correct.

      The second major way of conceptualizing Dewey's theory overlaps with the idea of educative experiences and entails looking at them as developmentally distinct matters. The development of experience coincides with and accompanies the development of students. From a developmental perspective, experiences fall along a continuum of authentically labeled experiences, extending to embrace his conceptions of (1) “experience,” (2) “an experience,” and (3) “aesthetic experience.” Although not literally a part of this continuum because they are only honorifically described by the word experience, two other categories of thought illuminate Dewey's thinking on this broad topic, that is, what may be called the courteously labeled experiences of (1) the anesthetic and (2) the nonaesthetic. When these five categories are combined, they range from deadening activities (anesthetic) to enlivening experiences (aesthetic).

      The courteously labeled experiences are dulling and numbing (anesthetic) or, perhaps, disconnected and aimless (nonaesthetic). The authentically labeled experiences include those activities that involve interactive and connected learning and reflection (experience); enhance experience to make it memorable, fulfilling, and complete (an experience); and enrich an experience by stimulating the enjoyable processes and outcomes of making sense, perceiving holistically, and feeling consummated (aesthetic experience).

      In summary, Dewey's ideas about learning, thinking, teaching, knowing, and acting form an intellectual gestalt that is founded on his naturalistic, pragmatic, experimental, or instrumentalist philosophy. To the extent that his ideas are warranted, they offer the educator important considerations for her or his theorizing and practice. To the degree that they are unwarranted, the educator is advised to search for different grounds and support.

      Douglas J.Simpson
      Further Readings
      Martin, J. (2002). The education of John Dewey. New York: Columbia University Press.
      Ryan, A. (1995). John Dewey and the high tide of American liberalism. New York: Norton.
      Simpson, D. (2006). John Dewey primer. New York: Peter Lang.
      Simpson, D., Jackson, M., & Aycock, J. (2005). John Dewey and the art of teaching: Toward reflective and imaginative practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452232386
      Dewey, Melvil (1851–1931)

      Melvil Dewey devised the Dewey Decimal System, as it came to be called, which is still the primary classification system at most school and public libraries. He also was among the early leaders of the American Library Association and was the first editor of the Library Journal.

      Dewey was born in Adams Center, New York. He earned his BA from Amtierst College in 1874 and completed his MA there in 1877. During his time at Amtierst, he worked in the college library and visited many other libraries to compare their organizational systems and procedures with those in place at Amtierst. In 1876, he published a pamphlet titled “A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloguing and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library.”

      The system he described is made up often main categories that are divided into ten subcategories. Each subcategory then has ten subclasses of its own. This system was almost immediately popularized. Moving to Boston in 1876, Dewey arranged the librarians' conference in October of that year, which led to the formation of the American Library Association (ALA). Dewey became the new association's secretary, and later its president and treasurer. That same year, Library Journal began publication, with Dewey as its editor. In 1883, Dewey became the librarian at Columbia College, where he founded the Columbia School of Library Economy in 1887. This was the first library school in the United States. Dewey also advocated use of the metric system and English-language spelling reform.

      Although he is credited with opening the library profession to women, his personal views on gender, ethnicity, and race led to professional difficulties in his own time and would be considered sexist and racist today.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Wiegand, W. A. (1996). Irrepressible reformer: A biography of Melvil Dewey. Chicago: American Library Association.
      Du Bois, William Edgar Burghardt (1868–1963)

      William Edward Burghardt Du Bois wrote extensively on the subject of education but has been recognized only recently as a significant contributor to the field of educational thought. Well ahead of other figures in the fields of sociology and education, Du Bois understood that education was a two-edged sword that could be used to either liberate or subjugate specific social and cultural groups. For example, in his 1903 essay, “The Training of Negroes for Social Power,” Du Bois wrote that many of the people who were involved in educating Blacks were interested in making them a subject caste “to be led, but not to lead themselves.”

      Du Bois was an elitist who believed that only a selected few, and “not the majority of men,” were capable of “higher training.” He felt this was true for both Blacks and Whites—an idea he outlined in detail for Blacks in Chapter Two (“The Talented Tenth”) of the 1903 book The Negro Problem. In this essay, republished the same year in his own book, The Souls of Black Folks, Du Bois called for the most talented tenth of the Black population to be educated to the largest degree possible so that they could assume leadership of their less-talented brothers and sisters. In doing so, Du Bois was echoing an idea put forward in antiquity by Plato and following the American Revolution by Thomas Jefferson.

      For Du Bois, education was not simply limited to schooling. Instead, he felt it also included the training found in one's home and daily life and in one's social class. Education was essential to Du Bois because he believed it to be the principal means available for Black empowerment. Along with the ballot, he felt that education would defend the Negro from a “second slavery.”

      Du Bois advocated the concept of a meritocracy. Although his views were clearly elitist, they were not undemocratic and provided an important counterpoint to the “Hampton model” of education advocated by Samuel Chapman Armstrong and his protégé, Booker T. Washington. Under the Hampton model, Blacks were taught trade-related skills, which would give them a place in the emerging industrial economy. They were not seen as being sufficiently developed as a people, however, to assume higher levels of education that would have directed them toward positions as lawyers, businessmen, doctors, university professors, and political leaders.

      In fact, as pointed out by the historian James Anderson, during its first twenty years, approximately 84 percent of Hampton's 723 graduates became teachers. Hampton did not offer a trade certificate until 1895. In 1900, only 45 of its 656 students were enrolled in the trade school program, and only 4 students were listed as majoring in agriculture. In reality, Hampton took students who had completed an elementary school program and gave them two years of coursework that provided them with the training to become elementary school teachers.

      While training in manual and shop skills was provided to both male and female students at Hampton (initially under the leadership of Armstrong), and later at Tuskegee (founded by Washington), as part of its “industrial” model, its actual purpose was not, according to Anderson, to develop skilled workers in these areas, but instead to inculcate into these future teachers the importance of hard work and the “dignity of labor.” In his 1903 The Souls of Black Folks, Du Bois published his essay “Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others.” Specifically, Du Bois argued that as a result of the Hampton model, and its implementation by Washington, three things had occurred: the dis-franchisement of the Negro, the legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro, and the steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for the higher training of the Negro.

      Du Bois felt that Washington's actions were essentially contradictory. In the case of education, he argued that while Washington advocated common school and industrial training for Blacks, he discouraged the development of Black higher education. Those opposing Washington and his policies, according to Du Bois, asked for three things: the right to vote, civic equality, and the education of youth according to ability. Du Bois's criticism of Washington in The Souls of Black Folks represented the greatest challenge the “Tuskegee Machine” had faced. By the beginning of World War I, as a result of Du Bois's efforts and those of other Black leaders, Washington's model had been overturned.

      Du Bois, as a key member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and, more specifically, in his editorship of The Crisis magazine (1910–1934), wrote regularly about elementary and secondary education, as well as higher education. He argued, for example, that segregating Black and White children from one another in school was to virtually guarantee “their separation through life.” At the same time, Du Bois was enough of a pragmatist to realize that racial prejudice was so strong in many parts of the country that the integration of the schools from a practical point of view was impossible.

      In his article “The Tragedy of Jim Crow,” which appeared in the July 1923 issue of The Crisis, Du Bois stated that segregation in the schools was “the greatest possible menace to democracy.” At the same time, he believed that even with their lack of resources, Black schools were an infinitely better place for Black children to be in than in White-dominated and -controlled institutions. In the end, although favoring the idea of desegregation in education, Du Bois supported such programs only if they were founded on the basis of true equality for the races.

      Du Bois experimented with writing Black-oriented textbooks during the 1930s and continued to comment on educational ideas throughout his life. Although not specifically a philosopher of education, he developed a significant body of educational writings that is increasingly becoming appreciated and valued in the social and cultural foundations of education.

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Further Readings
      Alridge, D. P.Conceptualizing a Du Boisian philosophy of education: Toward a model for African-American education. Educational Theory, 49 (3) 2009., 359–380.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00359.x
      Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
      Aptheker, H. (Ed.). (1973). The education of Black people: Ten critiques, 1906–1960. Amtierst: University of Massachusetts Press.
      Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903a). The souls of Black folks. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
      Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903b). The talented tenth. In The Negro Problem: A Series of Articles by Representative American Negroes of Today (pp. 33–75). New York: James Pott.
      Du Bois, W. E. B.The tragedy of Jim Crow. The Crisis, 262009., 169–172.
      Franklin, V. P.W. E. B. Du Bois and the education of Black folkHistory of Education Quarterly, 16 (1) 2009., 11–118.
      Provenzo, E. F., Jr. (2002). Du Bois on education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
      Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917)

      Émile Durkheim, a Frenchman, was the founder of modern sociology, emphasizing empirical studies of society to develop sociology as a rigorous, modern science. He founded France's first social science research journal, the Année Sociologique, in 1898. Durkheim's academic success led to his appointment as Professor of the Science of Education at the Sorbonne in 1906. Durkheim's position at the Sorbonne was changed by the French Ministry of Education in 1913 to Professor of the Science of Education and Sociology, giving sociology a prestigious presence at the highest levels of the French university system.

      Durkheim's major sociological concern was how societies were held together, specifically how different kinds of social organizations and social relationships created what he called “social solidarity.” Durkheim was particularly concerned with the lack of social solidarity in modern society, which led to what Durkheim called anomie, or the absence of social norms that leaves individuals isolated from one another.

      Durkheim's efforts to analyze and solve this problem were reflected in his sociology and in his involvement in French educational reforms, which he hoped would create a secular, civic morality for the French republic. Shortly after losing his son André in World War I in 1916, Durkheim suffered a stroke while giving a speech opposing the war and died. His major works were The Division of Labor in Society (1893), The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897), and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912).

      Steven E.Rowe
      Further Readings
      Bellah, R. N. (Ed.). (1973). Émile Durkheim: On morality and society: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Giddens, A. (Ed.). (1972). Émile Durkheim: Selected writings. London: Cambridge University Press.
      Thompson, K. (1982). Émile Durkheim. London: Tavistock.
      Eisner, Elliot (1933-)

      Elliot Eisner is Emeritus Professor of Art and Education at Stanford University. Trained as a painter, Eisner then earned a Ph.D. in education from the University of Chicago (1962). His scholarship has focused on arts education, curriculum studies, educational evaluation, and qualitative research.

      Eisner has been an advocate throughout his career for the inclusion of artistic thinking in academic discourse. In “Ten Lessons the Arts Teach,” he argued that

      • The arts teach children to make good judgments about qualitative relationships.
      • The arts teach children that problems can have more than one solution.
      • The arts celebrate multiple perspectives.
      • The arts teach children that in complex forms of problem solving, purposes are seldom fixed, but change with circumstances.
      • The arts make vivid the fact that words do not exhaust what we can know.
      • The arts teach students that small differences can have large effects.
      • The arts teach students to think through and within a material.
      • The arts help children to say what cannot be said.
      • The arts enable us to have experience we can have from no other source and through such experience to discover the range and variety of what we are capable of feeling.
      • The arts' important position in the school curriculum symbolizes to the young what adults believe is important.

      Eisner believes that art education should be discipline-based and that the arts merely provide an emotional outlet for children. Art education has to be content-oriented if it is going to contribute to a child's education. His influence can be seen in the fact that during the 1990s, discipline-based art education became the norm in the United States, with almost every state in the United States using this model.

      Eisner has published more than 300 articles and 16 books, including The Educational Imagination (1979), Evaluation: A Personal View (1985), The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice (1990), and The Kind of Schools We Need (1998).

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Further Readings
      Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
      Eisner, E. W. (1988). The role of discipline-based art education in America's schools. Los Angeles: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
      Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliott W. Eisner. New York: Routledge.
      Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1803–1882)

      Ralph Waldo Emerson was a preacher, philosopher, poet, outspoken critic, sage, and the leading advocate of the American Transcendentalist movement, although reducing Emerson to “transcendentalist” would ultimately be a disservice to someone who vehemently opposed categorization, a process that he thought limited scope, influence, and potential. Even though Emerson criticized formal schooling, a tuition that ultimately impeded intuition, his work remains relevant to educators today.

      Emerson assailed standardization and conformity, bemoaning a society wedded to the past, still dependent upon Europe for innovation and growth. For Emerson, life was change and required a departure from the comfortable past. “New arts destroy the old,” he wrote in “Circles.” Unlike today's market-based reformers who rate schools by test scores, Emerson believed schools should be judged by examining society, refusing to see the distinction between the two. He once remarked that “a vicious society cannot have virtuous schools.”

      Although Emerson is best known for his essays, collected and published several times during his life (1841, 1844, 1850, 1860), he also produced a number of poems (1847, 1867, 1876) and delivered hundreds of lectures.

      Philip EdwardKovacs
      Further Readings
      Emerson, R. W. (1966). Emerson on education: Selections. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Foucault, Michel (1926–1984)

      Michel Foucault, French philosopher and intellectual historian, emerged as one of the more controversial thinkers in the Western world during the twentieth century, shaping much of postmodern philosophical thought. Foucault demonstrated the socially constructed and historically contingent nature of both persons and disciplines, including his detailed account of the creation and sexualization of the modern subject. His impact has been palpable in the academy, where his writings are studied in disciplines as diverse as the social sciences, philosophy, psychology, and queer theory.

      Foucault's early works focused on psychology and were influenced by Karl Marx, the existential philosophers, and Friedrich Nietzsche. He was most indebted, however, to Martin Heidegger's conceptualization that humans have no pre-given essence. Foucault particularly drew on Heidegger's notion that people self-interpret as they move through the concrete situations of their lives, becoming what they make of themselves.

      The more or less standard divisions of Foucault's works follow from his chosen methodologies: archaeology, which characterizes his work from 1961–1969; genealogy, which forms the basis of his most widely read books and interviews published from 1971–1976; and ethics, which characterizes his last two books, both published in 1984, as well as his last interviews.

      Foucault developed his archaeological methods from his studies in psychiatry History of Madness in the Classical Age, 1961, his doctoral dissertation), medicine (The Birth of the Clinic, 1963), and the social sciences (The Order of Things, 1966). The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) was his reflection on the historical and philosophical importance of the archaeological method.

      As developed by Foucault, the archaeological method is a critical inquiry directed at disciplines in the human sciences that seeks to elucidate the ways in which discourse and expert opinion come to constitute what is perceived as learned practice and how that practice, in turn, infiltrates and shapes human behavior. Thus, for Foucault, discourse is more than the singular channels of oral and written communication among experts in a particular discipline. He understood discourse as composed not only of words but also of the disciplinary boundaries that limit what is acceptable within that communication. In other words, discourse, as conceptualized by Foucault, is composed not only of what is said, but also of what is left unsaid—that which the accepted boundaries of the discipline prohibit, dismiss, or leave unquestioned.

      The starting point for the archaeologist's research, then, is anything within the discipline that is considered natural, obvious, or incontrovertible. The goal is not to assess its “truth” or to offer an alternative theory, but to expose the circumstances within which this “truth” was manufactured through discourse. Attentive to confusion, accidents, aberrations, and insurrections, the archaeologist seeks out discourse that has been disqualified, labeled insufficient, or located low in the hierarchy of knowledge in order to include it in the discipline's history. The archaeological method shows that disciplines are far more randomly constructed and personality-dependent than their practitioners' scientific posturing suggests.

      Foucault's genealogical method challenged traditional philosophical methods and assumptions by demonstrating how morals, ideals, and concepts that appear to be predetermined and inevitable are formed through conglomerations of blind forces: accidents, petty malice, suppressed deviations, complete reversals, errors, and false appraisals, all of which take place within relationships of power. His conceptions of truth, knowledge, power relations, and the construction of the subject, widely considered to be his greatest contributions to philosophical thought, are raised most definitively in Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality, Volume One (1976).

      Discipline and Punish details how lawful punishment has changed from violent, retributive justice to disciplinary techniques that operate through internal-ization of norms that operate within power relations. Foucault refused concepts of power that posited a binary structure of dominators and the dominated. Rather, he spoke of a web of relations composed of both power and resistance, a force field that is dispersed, heteromorphous, and multivocal. This web of power relations subjects individuals through normalizing power that “disciplines” individuals to become simultaneously more productive and more docile. Because disciplinary techniques work most effectively when the individual is complicit in the process, the individual must perceive the norms as integral to his or her self-image. The modern “soul” emerges: a creation of discourse, thoroughly imprinted by history, the “interiority” of a disciplined and docile body.

      In The History of Sexuality, Volume One, Foucault examined the role played by norm-based sexuality, which came to be regarded as truth about “natural” sexual natures. Foucault's premise is that power has operated primarily not by repressing sexuality but by creating a proliferation of expert discourse—religious, medical, psychiatric, and governmental—that determined the modern forms sexuality has taken. By creating the dualities of healthy/ill, normal/perverse, and legal/criminal, the terms themselves become an effective means of social control through marginalizing and medicalizing “deviancy.” Hence, individuals internalize the “truths” about sexuality that have been manufactured through the discourse of these various expert groups, understanding themselves in light of those internalized “truths” and despising in themselves anything that contravenes them. One of the most significant philosophical consequences of his genealogical work is this: If a subject cannot be prediscursive, then truth must be a product of history and the forces that have shaped the ideas that come to be known as truth.

      In his last two volumes of The History of Sexuality (1984), Foucault shifted his attention from power/knowledge to ethics, which, for Foucault, meant how the individual constitutes himself or herself as a moral agent. He was particularly interested in creating one's self as a work of art, rather than conforming to moral codes. Exploring Greek and Roman sexuality and ethics suggested to Foucault that contemporary mechanisms that create and instill norms are culturally specific, creating a gap into which differing conceptions of self-constitution might enter in the future.

      Foucault's work has been difficult to appropriate for education, in part because he said little about it explicitly, except in Discipline and Punish, where he makes a scathing comparison between schools and penitentiaries. As a result, most of what can be said about Foucault and education must be constructed from related analyses of his work. Feminist theorists took the lead in these analyses by producing insightful critiques that not only furthered feminist thought, but served as exemplars for using Foucauldian critique in education.

      Philosophers of education have engaged Foucauldian analytics to interrogate the complex power relations pervading educational institutions, professional discourse on educational reform, and the ways in which teachers and students alike are held in the sway of powerful forces like curriculum, evaluation, and assessment.

      SusanBirden
      Further Readings
      Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A.Sheridan, Trans.). Paris: Editions Galimard.
      Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality: An introduction, volume 1 (R.Hurley, Trans.). Paris: Editions Galimard.
      Hekman, S. J. (Ed.). (1996). Feminist interpretations of Michel Foucault. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
      Prado, C. G. (1995). Starting with Foucault: An introduction to genealogy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
      Freire, Paulo (1921–1997)

      Paulo Freire was a Brazilian educator who is one of the twentieth century's most important educational theorists. His ideas have been globally influential upon a wide variety of social and educational movements, and they have played a central role in founding the contemporary international movement in education known as critical pedagogy.

      During his lifetime, he directed literacy programs aimed at empowering the poor and dispossessed, first in Brazil—for which he was jailed as a subversive in 1964 after a military coup took power—and then throughout the developing world during his period of exile from Brazil (lasting until 1980) when he worked for organizations such as UNESCO, the World Council of Churches, and the Institute for Cultural Action. From 1989 until 1991, he served as the city of Sáo Paulo's Secretary of Education, an experience chronicled in his book Pedagogy of the City (1993).

      Freire's pedagogical approach includes, but is not limited to, a highly innovative and successful adult literacy method, the “culture circle,” which he helped develop in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as his critique of authoritarian “banking pedagogy” in conjunction with his demand for an emancipatory, radically dia-logical, and problem-posing form of education as outlined in his most famous work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972). Freire continually responded to critics and friends over the course of his lifetime, thereby developing a series of books that sought to update and resituate his pedagogical praxis in order to take account of changing political conditions and progressive advances in theories such as feminism, multiculturalism, and postmodernism.

      Certain themes are common across the Freirean oeuvre, such as his critique that schools are never value-neutral or apolitical institutions; his belief that there is a dialectical relationship between practice and thought; his humanistic love and belief in people's creative freedom; his ethical demand that educators work to excoriate and transform the dehumanizing forces at work in the world; and his conclusion that the goal of true education should be critical consciousness as generated through the active, equal learning of teachers and students together as part of their attempt to realize the dream of a truly democratic community.

      Many of Freire's books incorporate experiments with style in order to highlight the dialogical and personal nature of his texts. These include books of letters, such as Pedagogy in Process (1978), an account of his literacy campaign in service of Amilcar Cabral's independence movement in Guinea-Bissau, and Letters to Christina (1996), in which he reflects autobiographically on his career in pedagogy, politics, and philosophy. He also published a number of conversational “talking books,” including A Pedagogy for Liberation (1987) with Ira Shor, the first of Freire's books to examine at length the applicability of his ideas to schooling in the developed world; Literacy: Reading the Word and the World (1987) with Donaldo Macedo, which critiqued technocratic forms of reading and writing as ways in which dominant interests are always served and socially reproduced; and We Make the Road by Walking (1990) with Myles Horton, wherein Freire shares and contrasts his views about social justice education with the legendary cofounder of the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.

      Upon his death, he was at work on a book of eco-pedagogy, parts of which have since been released as Pedagogy of Indignation (2004); he hoped it would rearticulate his commitment to the need to educate for planetary sustainability and create societies that embodied a love and respect for all creatures and the experience of nature.

      RichardKahn
      Further Readings
      Kahn, R., and Kellner, D.Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich: Technology, politics and the reconstruction of education. Policy Futures in Education, 5 (A) 2009., 431–448.http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2007.5.4.431
      Roberts, P. (2000). Education, literacy, and humanization: Exploring the work of Paulo Freire. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
      Froebel, Friedrich (1782–1852)

      Friedrich Froebel is best known for his book The Education of Man (1826) and for being the founder of the kindergarten movement. In the book, he described his educational philosophy in which all life was based on an eternal law of unity. Because Froebel believed that God was the “Divine Unity,” everything was interconnected because the spirit of God infused all things. The purpose of education was to teach children how to observe and understand the world in which they lived. According to him, children should not have ideas forced on them but should be encouraged to realize their own natural potential.

      Froebel opened his first kindergarten in Blankenberg, Germany, in 1837. His curriculum emphasized that children best learn through play. He developed a series of twenty toys and activities called “Gifts” and “Occupations” that were supposed to help the child gain an understanding of the world. The second Gift, in particular, demonstrated the philosophical nature of Froebel's curriculum. It consisted of a wooden sphere, a cube, and a cylinder. The sphere was rounded on all sides. The cube, its opposite, had carefully defined edges. The roundness of the sphere and the flat edges of the cube were combined in the cylinder, demonstrating, in Hegelian terms, thesis and antithesis combined to result in a synthesis. The most popular of the Gifts, however, were the third through sixth, which were a series of building blocks. The interrelated blocks taught the child to “distinguish, name, and classify,” according to Froebel, as well as providing the child with tools to help him shape and master the world in which he lived.

      Although the kindergarten movement died out in Germany because of political opposition, widespread interest in kindergarten education developed in the United States by the time of the Civil War. The first successful public kindergarten was begun by Susan Blow in 1873 at the Des Peres School in St. Louis, Missouri. As the kindergarten movement spread, Froebel's “Gifts” and “Occupations,” and in particular, his building blocks, came to be considered important tools for children's play and learning experiences.

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Further Readings
      Downs, R. B. (1978). Friedrich Froebel. Boston: Twayne.
      Provenzo, E. F., Jr., & Brett, A. (1983). The complete block book. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
      Snider, D. J. (1900). The life of Friedrich Froebel, founder of the kindergarten. Chicago: Sigma.
      Gardner, Howard (1943-)

      In his groundbreaking 1983 book, Frames of Mind, Gardner challenged educators to change how they define and value intelligence. His theory of multiple intelligences continues to shape curriculum and instruction.

      Gardner was born July 11, 1943, in Scranton, PA. He earned a bachelor's degree at Harvard University, completed his Ph.D. in social psychology there in 1971, and continues to teach and conduct research at that institution.

      Frames of Mind begins with Gardner's discussion of the two intelligences that have classically been thought of as comprising all of intelligence: linguistic intelligence and logical/mathematical intelligence. These first two intelligences involve the ability to communicate through language and the ability to solve problems and understand and use mathematical functions. He goes on to argue for five additional intelligences.

      Spatial intelligence, which involves understanding objects in relation to one another, might typically be associated with artistic ability. Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence can be understood as relating to athletic ability. Musical intelligence relates to the ability to understand, distinguish, and recall types of musical sound and notes. Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with knowledge of how others might feel, be motivated, or act. Intrapersonal intelligence is defined as the individual's ability to understand his or her own thoughts and emotions. In the mid-1990s, Gardner posited an eighth intelligence, naturalistic intelligence. This intelligence is concerned with the ability to understand and distinguish between living things and objects in nature. Discussion of this intelligence appears in his 1999 book, Intelligences Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century.

      In recent years, Gardner has responded to many criticisms of his theories. Additionally, he continues to try to clarify his theories, which some educators and laypeople alike either confound or misunderstand. Gardner has won numerous prestigious grants and honors and continues to be among the forefront of American educational theorists.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
      Schaler, J. A. (Ed.). (2006). Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics. Chicago: Open Court Press.
      Goodman, Paul (1911–1972)

      Paul Goodman was a poet, novelist, psychoanalyst, social critic, and educational innovator whose critique of American schools, Growing Up Absurd (1960), was a bible for educational radicals during the 1960s. Goodman condemned American schools for repressing children's creative instincts while leaving them incompetent to do anything worthwhile as adults. Combining a countercultural lifestyle with New Left political ideals, Goodman became a guru to youthful 1960s rebels.

      Goodman was a complex man who reconciled seeming contradictions in his personal life and his political ideas that often baffled both critics and followers. He was an anarchist who promoted large-scale government social programs, a socialist who called for market-oriented reforms, and a radical who looked to liberals as natural allies and called himself a “Neolithic conservative.” He was an avant-garde artist devoted to the classics, a cultural pluralist who advocated a core cultural canon, and an openly gay man who confronted homophobia while counseling his followers to practice pragmatic politics. Goodman sought to combine Utopian ideals with practical proposals, trying to resuscitate old ideas by applying them to new situations, building on the old to make something radically new. He sought ways of making revolutionary change within an evolutionary framework.

      Goodman claimed that anarchism—which he described as a program of universal human rights implemented through locally controlled participatory democracies—represents the best ideals of humanity from the stone age to the present day. He portrayed history as the struggles of ordinary people trying to develop ever more sophisticated cultures while retaining the simple political virtues of small-scale, cooperative Neolithic communities. Goodman condemned the neurotic will-to-power of individuals and elites for deforming society and warping history. Citing colonial New England towns as an example of locally controlled, participatory democracy, he argued that anarchism was the underlying premise and promise of the American way of life.

      Goodman's educational ideas followed from his political commitments. Citing John Dewey's progres-sivism as the best twentieth-century version of his ideals, Goodman promoted free expression through dedicated craftsmanship and individual liberation through social cooperation. Goodman was a devotee of the Great Books—he received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago with a dissertation on Aristotle's Poetics—but advocated an inclusive, evolving cultural canon for a multicultural American society. He was a proponent of open classes and open, locally controlled schools, combining this view with an apprenticeship model of education based on medieval guilds that encouraged individual innovation within traditional standards of excellence.

      Although his writings were well received, Goodman labored for most of his life in relative obscurity and poverty, often complaining that he was “the most widely unknown writer who is so highly esteemed by only a few.” Then, from the mid-1960s until his untimely death in 1972, Goodman enjoyed a period of celebrity as the “Father of the New Left.” When the New Left declined in the late 1960s, Goodman complained that New Leftists had focused too much on personal liberation and too little on social and intellectual competence—they did not understand that anarchism was not an excuse for selfish individualism but a vehicle for self-disciplined socialism. But he tempered his disappointment with an overriding belief that no democratic revolution is ever lost, only postponed.

      Goodman's other best-known works include Empire City (1942, 1946, 1959), a five-volume novel satirizing social repression in America; Communitas (1947), a manual on decentralized city planning with his brother Percival; Gestalt Psychology (1951), a theoretical analysis and practical handbook on liberation psychotherapy with Frederick Perls and Ralph Hefferline; People or Personnel (1964), essays in social criticism and participatory democracy; and The Open Look (1969), a collection of poetry.

      BurtonWeltman
      Further Readings
      Weltman, B.Revisiting Paul Goodman: Anarcho-syndicalism as the American way of life. Educational Theory, 50 (2) 2009., 179–199.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00179.x
      Gramsci, Antonio (1891–1937)

      Antonio Gramsci, one of the most important Marxists, theorized on many aspects of Italian society and culture in the early part of the twentieth century. Among his key ideas were the notions that a system of political and cultural dominance, which he called hegemony, maintained an elite in power and that education was a tool of that elite to control the rest of society.

      Gramsci was born into a society that was geographically divided between the rich industrial North and the poorer, rural South. Gramsci did well enough in school to earn himself a scholarship at the University of Turin. It was here, in prewar Italian society, that he developed his communist ideas. He became politically active and worked as a journalist and party member of the Italian Socialist Party. During this time, the Russian Revolution took place in 1917, with the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. His ideas were becoming more radical and vocal, so much so that Mussolini threw Gramsci into jail. Gramsci spent the last nine years of his life behind bars, ironically writing his most important work in the Prison Notebooks, the majority of which was smuggled out of jail and later published in Russia.

      Gramsci's key idea was hegemony, a notion that underlined how a dominant system of political and cultural values, beliefs, and morality controlled society and helped maintain those in power. Education helped maintain the ideological hegemony. Gramsci highlighted how education systems were divided between classical and vocational methods of schooling. The classical schools were for the dominant classes and the intellectuals, and the vocational schools for the working classes.

      Gramsci saw how schooling and the number of people being educated was growing. He suggested that vocational schools were becoming more specialized to deal with newer, modern methods of industrial activity. This created new forms of indoctrination and exploitation, both in the classroom and the workplace. Gramsci pondered on how this change in education would shape Italy's future. Would this be an opportunity for simple social reform or more radical revolution?

      Gramsci was interested in the role and function of the intellectual. If revolution was to take place, then academic intellectuals would have to be won over with ideological arguments. The school and the teacher were agents in this process. Gramsci wrote about the moral development of pupils and the aims that the school set itself. Unfortunately for Gramsci, this was being hegemonically controlled during the 1920s and 1930s by the Italian fascist state.

      Gramsci's solution to this education problem was for schools to be organized like a college, along progressive lines, free from state control and discipline. The common school would be built upon the comprehensive principle, reflected in aspects of culture and therefore in Gramsci's belief, ultimately changing society along socialist lines. Whether educational change could lead to revolution is, of course, debatable. One thing that Gramsci considered was why European working classes had failed to develop revolutionary consciousness post-1917. Hegemony controlled that impulse, and education was one means of preserving the powerful elites, he thought.

      Gramsci's theories are still important today and can be applied to educational contexts. His theoretical framework offers an argument for how the powerful arrive and stay in power and provides a wider understanding about how the possibility of a hegemonic shift can theoretically change education systems, cultures, and societies.

      RichardRace
      Further Readings
      Gramsci, A. (1990). Selections from political writings, 1910–1920. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
      Jones, P., & Jones, S. (2006). Antonio Gramsci. New York: Routledge.
      Nowell-Smith, G. (Ed.). (1973). Antonio Gramsci: Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
      Greene, Maxine (1917-)

      Maxine Greene uses her skills as philosopher, imaginer, and inquirer to explore the meaning of human existence and the means to engage in epistemology. Through her inquiries into sociology, history, and especially philosophy and literature, she explores living in awareness and “wide-awakeness” in order to advance social justice. To engage in such living, Greene argues, requires active attention to the beautiful spaces of souls and landscapes as well as shadows and darkness. Although it might be easier to withdraw from literal and metaphorical burned-out buildings, doing so disconnects oneself from a significant realm of human experience, she believes.

      The full range of human experience is not available to most individuals, but it can been explored, according to Greene, through literature and the arts. The arts represent full expressions of experience and imagination, and fundamentally provide ideal vehicles to learn capacities for living. Her thinking about existence and the power of imagination have been brought to life through her study; her academic appointments, including at Teachers College; her essays and books; and her founding appointment as the philosopher-in-residence of the Lincoln Center Institute for the Arts in Education. This entry summarizes her accomplishments.

      Greene received her doctorate in education from New York University in 1955. After teaching at New York University, Montclair State College, and Brooklyn College, she joined the faculty at Teachers College, Columbia University, where she is the William F. Russell Professor in the Foundations of Education (emérita). In 1976, Greene became philosopher-in-residence of the Lincoln Center Institute for the Arts in Education. In 2003, she founded the Maxine Greene Foundation for Social Imagination, the Arts, and Education, which supports the creation of and engagement with works of art with the goal of enabling people to actively envision and create humane communities. She is past president of the American Educational Research Association, the Philosophy of Education Society, and the American Educational Studies Association.

      Greene found herself perpetually an outsider, as echoed in much of her life and an early book, Teacher as Stranger: Educational Philosophy for the Modern Age (1973). As a young woman growing up in New York City, she longed to be a writer rather than assume the traditionally feminine career of teaching; writing was a foreign occupation to her family and friends. She traveled alone in 1963 to the civil rights march on Washington. Her full-time appointment in 1973 to the faculty of Teachers College established her as a lone female voice among her male philosophy of education colleagues, who found her “too literary.”

      Throughout her prolific writing, her distinctive language continues to set her apart from her contemporaries. Her persistent references to art objects, particularly literature, reaffirm her conviction that, through art, the full imagination of the human spirit is manifest. In her teaching, Greene desires to educate rebels who speak, write, and resist in their own voices, rather than mimic her ideas and language.

      Known for her lyrical and expansive style, Greene has influenced several generations of social and cultural foundations scholars with her writings and lectures. She views the social foundations of education as a network of social epistemology, spurring her readers and students to live by the social constructions of our world and to do so in full awareness and exploration of such constructions. By living in full awareness, the individual can choose which social constructs to refuse, accept, or disrupt.

      Although Greene does not regard herself as a feminist, generations of feminist students and readers have regarded her work and her life as emblematic of pushing past boundaries imposed upon women. Freedom, Greene contends, is locating the limits of one's existence and then breaking through such limits. It is an identification of the fabric of shared reality, and then actively deciding how one lives in that reality.

      For several decades, Greene has conducted a series of salons in her home adjacent to Central Park. At each salon, a wide range of participants discuss a work of literature chosen by Greene. Some participants are former students, others are academic colleagues, and many are socially engaged intellectuals from a range of New York City and international institutions. Through literature, they consider the possibilities of imagination. These salons characterize her ambition to communally investigate the possibilities of social existence.

      For Greene, a life of freedom involves identifying limits and then breaking through those limits; freedom without boundaries is incomprehensible. Through her writing and teaching, she identifies arenas of social control and mechanisms for rebelling against such controls in the service of social justice. Rebellion for rebellion's sake is not the point—all must be done in the service of social justice. All of this from a woman who recognizes that her own position, particularly as an academic, is a comfortable one. By example and by her writing, she teaches people to push themselves into locations of discomfort from where they can stretch beyond their own limits and imaginations, as well as the limits of the world around them.

      Mary BushneilGreiner
      Further Readings
      Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Ayers, W. C., & Miller, J. L. (1997). A light in dark times: Maxine Greene and the unfinished conversation. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigee.
      Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational philosophy for the modern age. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
      Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
      Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center lectures. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Merleau-Ponty, M. (1995). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge.
      Grumet, Madeleine (1940-)

      Madeleine Grumet, a curriculum theorist, professor, feminist, and former dean of education at the University of North Carolina, addresses how societal influences and norms influence schooling practices as well as the educational process. In her seminal work, Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching, she reveals that “knowledge evolves in human relationships.” In addition, she makes the influence of gender and sexism hypervisible within teaching and knowledge construction itself. Building on Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological work as well as psychoanalytic and feminist theories, she argues that there is a “body knowledge,” which is developed in the intersubjective realm of the body and the body consciousness, social relations, and negotiations.

      Grumet strives to bridge the divide between the public and private worlds as she drives educators and scholars to construct new ways of knowing and being. While focusing on gender in educational experiences, such as teaching and learning, Grumet explores and uses autobiographical narratives to depict the ways that schools (acting as external barriers and obstacles) diminish students and silence the body in the academic discourse.

      ElizabethHendrix
      Further Readings
      Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amtierst: University of Massachusetts Press.
      Haley, Margaret (1861–1939)

      Margaret Haley was an early-twentieth-century educator and union leader who was concerned about social reform, particularly with regard to the working conditions of teachers. For three decades, Haley led the Chicago Teachers' Federation, the first teachers' labor union in America. During her tenure, she campaigned for increases in teacher salaries, pensions, and tenure laws.

      Haley's notable career in education was launched in a one-room schoolhouse in Illinois when she was sixteen. During the weekends and summers when Haley was not teaching, she attended a normal school in Morris, Illinois. In 1883, Haley and her Irish Catholic immigrant family relocated to Chicago, where she started teaching in the Hendricks School in a poverty-stricken area. She taught there for sixteen years and also studied briefly under the direction of Francis Wayland Parker, a leader in progressive educational practice.

      When she was thirty-six, Haley joined the newly founded Chicago Teacher's Federation and became a representative of the organization. Her participation evolved and she became involved in a variety of legal cases, including one that focused on large corporations that escaped paying property taxes that Haley knew the Chicago Treasury could use the money to pay for increases in teacher salaries. Haley became a leader at the state and national levels in the education profession and advocated for a democratic voice of teachers in their professional careers.

      KellyKolodny
      Further Readings
      Rousmaniere, K. (2002). Margaret Haley: Progressive education and the teacher. In A. R.Sadovnik, & S. F.Semel (Eds.), Founding mothers and others: Women educational leaders during the Progressive Era (pp. 147–162). New York: Palgrave.
      Smith, L. G., & Smith, J. K. (1994). Lives in education: A narrative of people and ideas (
      2nd ed.
      ). New York: St. Martin's Press.
      Hall, G. Stanley (1844–1924)

      G. Stanley Hall founded the American child study movement, shifted the American school curriculum to the developing nature of the child as part of early progressive educational reforms, advanced psychology and human development as integral dimensions in the study of education and its professional practice, supported the beginnings of the educational testing movement, and furthered the study of education and higher education as academic multidisciplinary fields of study. During his lifetime, his theories and practices were known as Hallianism, as his biographer Dorothy Ross describes.

      Born on February 1, 1844, Hall grew up in rural western Massachusetts. After preparatory studies, he completed his bachelor of arts at Williams College in 1867. Seeking to become a Congregational minister, his academic career led him to divinity studies at Union Theological Seminary. Yet Hall's growing intellectual appetite pushed him toward more philosophical interests, especially positivism and evolution. Upon the advice of American theologian Henry Ward Beecher and others there, he went to study philosophy at the University of Berlin.

      With the Franco-Prussian War, he returned to Union and finished his bachelor's in divinity in 1871. As pastoral duties did not suit him, he took a faculty position at Antioch College the next year until 1876. He further embraced there the philosophical ideas of Hegel, the evolutionism of Spencer, and the psychology of Wundt. This mix of academic “fads” of that day led him next to study psychology under William lames at Harvard, where he earned the first American Ph.D. in the developing discipline in 1878.

      Eventually, Hall gained lecturer positions in pedagogy at Harvard in 1881 and in psychology at lohns Hopkins University in 1882 through offering public lecture series on education to enthusiastic teachers in Boston and Baltimore. This emergent study of psychology, of which Hall became one of the first major proponents, thus was derived from philosophical, historical, scientific, and educational studies and literatures. His successes resulted in being appointed professor of psychology and pedagogics at lohns Hopkins in 1884.

      As one of the first professors of education in the country, he launched the evolutionist branch of what became early educational progressivism, complementing Hegelianism and Herbartianism. In 1888, he became president of Clark University in Worchester, Massachusetts, and held its professorship of psychology and education. In these positions, his critiques of educational practice, critical studies of education, a major journal, degree programs in education and higher education, master's and doctoral graduates, and the central place of psychology in the early study of education secured his founding role in launching the multidisciplinary field of education as one of the modern social sciences.

      Hall became the founder of the American child study movement at Johns Hopkins. His assessment of educational practices in a series of articles led him to proclaim a new “natural” method of education, following his idea of the child's evolutionary nature rather than the old cram method of content study in 1882. In bringing psychological development to education, Hall championed the slogan “the child's nature as it actually is” for the movement, which focused on the study of children's behaviors in an article for the North American Review in 1883. His first empirical studies centered on children's knowledge and their learning through an observation questionnaire method.

      The force of his lectures and studies also played a major role in developing the study of education. His major book, Bibliography of Education, offered one of the first taxonomies of the field in 1886. At Clark University, he furthered child study through beginning the first modern educational research journal, The Pedagogical Seminary: An International Record of Educational Literature, Institutions, and Progress (currently The Journal of Genetic Psychology) in 1891. Two years later, he began an annual education summer school and then graduate degree programs in education and higher education.

      His fundamental two-volume works on Adolescence in 1904 and Educational Problems in 1911, as well as three other books for teachers, shifted pedagogical focus to child development and learning in schools. Hall called his natural method “a slow Copernican revolution” in his 1923 autobiography, yet “its effects” were “legion” in creating the “pedocentric school,” according to educational historian Lawrence Cremin in his 1958 classic book, The Transformation of the School. Unfortunately, he argued against coeducation and women's higher education generally, because of his pervasive “evolutionism” and fear of race suicide. Nonetheless, child study led to pedagogical reform and was one force along with the significant influence of his Johns Hopkins student, John Dewey, and others in the later social progressive changes to public schooling.

      Not only did Hall influence schooling, he greatly furthered the academic study of education by beginning the first graduate program in education at Clark University, leading to it becoming a multidisciplinary field of study in the social sciences at other universities. In his courses and lectures, he argued for a more theoretical approach to education and teacher education, grounding it in psychology and human development. His doctoral graduates as faculty championed the role of psychology in teaching education at major research and state universities.

      Hall's study of children's psychology also led his doctoral students, Henry Herbert Goddard and Lewis Terman, to develop American intelligence testing. Concerning the study of higher education, he launched the first program and spoke often of its condition and problems as president. Finally, Hall retired from the presidency in 1920, and died on April 24, 1924.

      Lester F.Goodchild
      Further Readings
      Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957. New York: Vintage.
      Goodchild, L. F.G. Stanley Hall and the study of higher educationReview of Higher Education, 202009., 69–99.http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1996.0005
      Goodchild, L. F. (2006). The beginnings of education at American universities: Curricular conflicts over the study of pedagogy as practice or science, 1856–1940. In R.Hofstetter, & B.Schneuwly (Eds.), Passion, fusion, tension: New education and educational sciences, end 19th-middle 20th century (pp. 69–105). Bern: Lang.
      Hall, G. S. (1923). Life and confessions of a psychologist. New York: Appleton.
      Ross, D. (1972). G. Stanley Hall: The psychologist as prophet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Zenderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intellectual testing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
      Harris, William Torrey (1835–1909)

      William Torrey Harris, educator, philosopher, and policy maker, influenced the foundation for the American public school system that exists today. As Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, Harris advocated for equal education, the grade-school system, and free universities. He was also instrumental in establishing the first permanent kindergartens in the United States.

      Under Harris, the curriculum was broadened to include the arts and modern history in addition to basic literature, science, and mathematics. Although he believed that all children should be allowed to realize their full potential, his philosophy left no room for questioning. Students learned in an environment governed by rules of silence, punctuality, and rote learning. The teacher was the fundamental authority, and Harris set the stage for teacher credentialing.

      Harris was an ardent follower of German philosopher George W. F. Hegel. Inherent in Hegelianism is an ideal, the idea that the perfect is knowable, if not attainable. The educational system fashioned by Harris is based in Hegelianism.

      Additionally, Harris was president and life director of the National Educational Association from 1875 until his death; a member of its select Committee of Ten, then the Committee of Fifteen, which determined educational policy for the nation's schools; and president of the National Association of School Superintendents. Founder and editor of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Harris wrote Logic: A Book on the Genesis of the Categories of the Mind (1890), Psychologic Foundations of Education (1898), Elementary Education (1900 and 1904), and The School City (1906).

      John-MichaelBodi
      Further Readings
      Goetzmann, W. H. (Ed.). (1983). The American Hegelians: An intellectual episode in the history of western America. New York: Knopf.
      Herbart, Johann Friedrich (1776–1841)

      Johann Friedrich Herbart is best known for the educational movement known as Herbartianism that took hold after 1865 when Tuiskon Ziller, a professor at Leipzig, published Grundlegung zur Lehre vom erziehenden Unterricht (Basics of the Doctrine of Instruction as a Moral Force), but he also wrote purely philosophical and psychological works, and he was an influence on Wilhelm Max Wundt, Fechner, and Helmhotz. He is of importance to the theoreticians of education because he was, as John Dewey noted in Democracy and Education, the first to observe that education was an activity that could be studied directly.

      When he began his university studies at Jena, Herder, Goethe, Schiller, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte were there. His initial interest was jurisprudence, but he soon abandoned it in favor of philosophy. He did not become a disciple of Fichte. Rather, Herbart was a realist when the fashion was idealism, but, like Fichte, he was impressed by Pestalozzi's educational work. He left Jena in 1796 to serve as tutor to the three sons of Herr von Steiger, Interlaken's governor. He visited Pestalozzi at Burgdorf in 1799. The five letters he wrote to Herr von Steiger, the works he subsequently published on Pestalozzi, and his subsequent work demonstrate that his long-standing attention to education, including the school he established in Koningsberg, was an integral part of his philosophical agenda.

      He received his doctorate from Göttingen in 1802 and taught there until 1809, when he was called to Koningsberg to succeed Immanuel Kant. After his unsuccessful application to succeed Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel at Berlin, he returned to Göttingen in 1833, where he remained until his death.

      Although he did receive some modest attention in William Torrey Harris's Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Herbart received considerable attention as a theoretician of education at the end of the nineteenth century when Americans, notably Charles DeGarmo and Charles and Frank McMurry, returned from their study in Germany where they were introduced to Herbartian teachings from Ziller, Wilhelm Rein, and Stoy. Subsequently, educators were applying the five formal steps of instruction and the culture epoch theory to the rapidly expanding public schools in the United States.

      Erwin V.Johanningmeier
      Further Readings
      Bartholomai, F. (1903). Johann Friedrich Herbart's Leben. In E.VonSallwürk (Ed.), J. J. Herbarts pádagogische Schriften. Langensalze: H. Breyer and Söhne.
      Dunkeh, H. (1970). Herbart and Herbartianism: An educational ghost story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Van Liew, C. C. (1893). Life of Herbart and the development of his pedagogical doctrines. London: Swan Sonnenschein.
      Hill, Patty Smith (1868–1946)

      Patty Smith Hill was a leader in the kindergarten movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hill was an outspoken advocate for progressive education within the International Kindergarten Union (IKU), was influential in professionalizing teacher training, and was the first woman to head a department at Teachers College Columbia (TCC). At TCC, she established laboratory classrooms, conducted research on children at play, and developed degree programs for early childhood educators. Hill published articles on instruction; composed stories and songs for children, including “Happy Birthday to You”; and designed developmentally appropriate classroom furniture and equipment. The “Patty Hill Blocks” were a fixture in many kindergarten classrooms throughout the twentieth century.

      Patty Smith Hill was born in Anchorage, Kentucky, and completed her kindergarten training at the Louisville Collegiate Institute. She became head teacher of the Holcombe Mission Kindergarten in Louisville in 1888. Following summer institutes with Colonel Francis Parker and G. Stanley Hall, she began to depart from the Froebelian orthodoxy of the traditional kindergarten. In 1893, she demonstrated her teaching methods at the World Columbian Exposition and attended John Dewey's classes at the University of Chicago.

      By the end of the century, she had become a leading figure in debates within the kindergarten movement. In 1903, she and the Froebelian Susan Blow were invited to offer a joint series of lectures at TCC. The progressive views of Hill, “that young radical from the South,” prevailed. She was appointed to the TCC faculty in 1905, elected president of the IKU in 1908, and became head of TCC's Department of Kindergarten Education in 1910. Her edited collections, Experimental Studies in Kindergarten Education and A Conduct Curriculum for the Kindergarten and First Grade, became foundational texts within the field of early childhood education.

      Susan DouglasFranzosa
      Further Readings
      Davis, O. L. (2003). Patty Smith Hill and the U.S. kindergarten. In S. L.Field, & M. J.Berson (Eds.), They led by teaching. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
      Hill, P. S. (Ed.). (1915). Experimental studies in kindergarten education. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Hill, P. S. (Ed.). (1923). A conduct curriculum for the kindergarten and first grade. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
      Hooks, Bell (1952-)

      bell hooks is the pen name of Gloria Jean Watkins, who is recognized nationally and internationally as an African American intellectual, feminist, social activist, and educator. Her work focuses on how race, class, and gender play a role in social, economic, and political systems.

      hooks was born in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Prior to completing her doctorate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1983, she worked as an English professor and senior lecturer in the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Southern California. During her three years there, she released her first published work, a collection of poems titled And There We Wept (1978), written under her pen name, bell hooks.

      In 1981, she published her first major work Ain't I a Woman ? Black Women and Feminism, which discusses how issues of racism and sexism affect Black women, the education system, and the media. More specifically, the work addresses how these systems among others marginalize Black women and disregard issues of class, race, and gender within feminism.

      Since Ain't I a Woman, she has published more than thirty books, written scholarly and mainstream articles, and appeared in several documentary films. Some of hooks's other works include Breaking Bread: Insurgent Black Intellectual Life (1991) (with Cornel West), Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (1994), and Witness (2006). In addition to her scholarly publications, hooks has written four children's books. In 2004, she joined the faculty of Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, as a Distinguished Professor in Residence.

      Lisa J.Scott
      Further Readings
      Leitch, V. B. (Ed.). (2001). The Norton anthology of theory and criticism. New York: Norton.
      Stanley, S. K. (Ed.). (1998). Other sisterhoods: Literary theory and U.S. women of color. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
      Hu Shih (1891–1962)

      Hu Shih (known in Mandarin Chinese as Hu Shi) was among the main liberal thinkers in the Chinese Revolution in the decades of the 1920s and 1930s. A philosopher and educator, Hu Shih played a critical role in introducing Western philosophical ideas into Chinese culture, in particular the pragmatist theories of the American philosopher lohn Dewey.

      In July 1910, Hu Shih passed the American-sponsored Boxer Indemnity scholarship examinations. Late in 1910, he sailed to the United States, where he remained to study until 1917. In September 1910, he enrolled in the College of Agriculture at Cornell University following the then-prevalent Chinese belief that literature and philosophy were not of any practical use. Abandoning his work in the sciences, he transferred in 1912 to the College of Arts and Sciences, where he majored in philosophy. Completing his bachelor's degree in early 1914, he moved on the following fall to the Sage School at Cornell to graduate studies in philosophy.

      Discovering John Dewey's work in 1915, Hu Shih decided to move to Columbia University to continue his studies under Dewey's guidance, thus beginning his lifelong interest in pragmatic evolutionary change. His dissertation, titled “The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China,” was clearly influenced by Dewey.

      In June 1917, Hu Shih returned to China. There he accepted a professorship in philosophy at the prestigious Peking National University (now known as Beijing University)—the leading center for China's intellectual revolutionaries. Hu Shih was interested in the search for a “practical philosophy.” Beginning in 1917, he wrote for New Youth, the most influential, avant-garde review of the period. He campaigned for a “literary revolution,” calling public attention to supplementing the obscurely styled classical literature with spoken language.

      Hu Shih's work contributed significantly to the New Culture Movement, which started in the early republican period (1911). The movement had as its purpose introducing to China Western concepts such as democracy, equality, and liberty. In addition, it also introduced a modern system of writing and the latest scientific and technological discoveries of the period. The period from 1917 to 1923, which saw the New Culture Movement at its height, has been called by some “The Chinese Renaissance.” For many, it represents one of the most intellectually revolutionary periods in Chinese history since the time of Confucius.

      The New Culture thinkers like Hu Shih were prolific, publishing their theories of government, education, culture, economics, and Western science in books and journals. Never before in Chinese history had political and social issues been discussed so openly and so publicly. Soon, Chinese students were publishing their own journals and attacking all the traditions of China: Confucianism, hsiao (filial piety), the Chinese classics, and Neo-Confucian science. In the journals of the New Culture Movement and their student followers, few sectors of Chinese culture were free from ridicule or criticism.

      Although Hu Shih continued throughout the 1920s and 1930s to participate actively in culture and politics, his influence went into gradual decline as his ideas lost relevance in the escalating fever of revolution. However, his contribution to scholarship regarding China's literature and history continued to play an important role, particularly in the inspiration of other writers.

      Dewey thought highly of the literary reforms initiated by Hu Shih and others, praising the resolution by the Federation of Educational Associations in 1919 to use spoken language for textbooks in elementary schools. He and his followers in China felt that the school should be the basic unit in the reconstruction of China. Modern education in China needed to begin from the child's interests and emphasize individual development through the child-centered curriculum. Socialization in the school would select appropriate elements of the present society for incorporation into school life to promote social progress. These characteristics of progressive education were aimed at preparing the child for participation in and helping to build a democratic society.

      The educational ideas of Dewey and Hu Shih had a lasting influence on Chinese education for thirty years, and their social philosophy and general philosophy also influenced part of the Chinese people. However, in 1951, the People's Education Press in Shanghai published “The Introduction to the Criticism of Dewey,” which not only deplored Dewey's influence but also attacked Hu Shih as Dewey's spokesman. In 1954 and 1955, more than 3 million words were published by the Communists for purging both Hu Shih's and Dewey's ideas.

      LiMa
      Further Readings
      Keenan, B. (1977). The Dewey experiment in China: Educational reform and political power in the early republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Ou, T. C. (1978). Dewey's influence on China's efforts for modernization. Jamaica, NY: St. John's University Press.
      Huebner, Dwayne (1923-)

      Dwayne Huebner is a philosopher and curriculum theorist who helped shepherd the reconceptualist movement of the late 1960s and 1970s. Through Huebner's work, curriculum scholars began to consider language, environment, politics, and history as critical elements within their theorizing.

      Language was a significant element within Huebner's curriculum theorizing. He rejected the scientific and empirical basis of curriculum theorizing, including such basic traditional curriculum concepts as learning and purpose. He argued that such technical terms limited the curriculum process to things that were finite and measurable. Instead, Huebner argued for a new language that was influenced by phenomenology and existential philosophy.

      Huebner also argued that although the language of politics could provide educators a means through which they could address problems of power, educators have no strong ideology through which to use a political language to make a difference in education. Instead, educators typically search for empirical truths and scientific generalizations, and this pursuit prevents them from using their collective power for good.

      Huebner's work, in many ways, focused on the complex and moral nature of the environment. He posited that curriculum workers create environments, and these spaces should be designed so that students and teachers can engage in mutual and loving relationships.

      Huebner left curriculum studies in 1982 to pursue Christian education at Yale Divinity School. Nevertheless, his influence continued to be felt through the work of his immediate students such as William Pinar and Michael Apple and through the ideas he introduced regarding the reconceptualization of curriculum.

      Donna AdairBreault
      Further Readings
      Hillis, V. (Ed.). (1999). Lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
      Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
      White, K.The work of Dwayne Huebner: A summary and response. Journal of Curriculum Theory, 2 (2) 2009., 73–87.
      Illich, Ivan (1926–2002)

      Ivan Illich was a historian, theologian, and social critic who dedicated his life to understanding people and the joys and hardships that all humans share. He called for the disestablishment of compulsory education, arguing that it should be replaced with student-driven learning webs. This entry summarizes his life and contributions.

      Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1926, Illich moved frequently in his youth. His mother was Jewish, so in order to avoid the increasing Nazi persecution in the late 1930s, he and his younger brothers sought refuge in Italy. It was at this time that Illich became a priest, choosing to devote himself to Christ and the Catholic Church. He studied theology and philosophy at Rome's Gregorian University and later earned his doctorate in the philosophy of history at the University of Salzburg.

      In 1951, Illich left Europe and came to the United States to serve as assistant pastor at Incarnation Parish in Washington Heights and later at an Irish-Puerto Rican parish in New York City. There, working with the immigrant Puerto Rican community, he became acutely aware of social justice issues and honed his talents as an activist. Working his way up the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, he was appointed as the Vice-Rector of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico at Ponce in 1955. During his tenure at the Catholic University, Illich's primary responsibility was to introduce American priests to Latin American and Puerto Rican culture. This led to the creation of the Institute of Intercultural Communications. At this point in his career, Illich became increasingly critical of what he believed was cultural colonialism on the part of industrialized countries in North America and Western Europe.

      After leaving Puerto Rico, Illich founded the Center of Intercultural Documentation in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in 1961. At the Center, Illich undertook his first systematic critiques of the export to Latin America of materialistic, consumer-oriented capitalism by industrialized countries such as the United States. Although Illich's faith never wavered, he became very critical of the Catholic Church as an institution. He saw the Church operating with very clear political, social, and economic agendas. He found this aspect of the institution to be contradictory to his vision of the true aim of the Church: to care for and love mankind. Because of his criticism of the Church, Illich was reprimanded by Catholic leaders. He was eventually granted a formal leave from the Church. As a result of Illich's departure from the traditional priesthood, the Church ended its formal relationship with the Center as a place for training clergy.

      However, the Center remained a force in the social justice movement and became an increasingly important center for community development and educational reform. Based upon seminars and workshops with Paul Goodman, Paulo Freire, Joel Spring, and others, Illich published his most influential work in the social foundations of education: Deschooling Society.

      Illich's two most influential works with respect to the social foundations of education are Deschooling Society and In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh's Didascalicon. In Deschooling Society, Illich argued for the disestablishment of compulsory schooling. Just as he felt that the Church as an institution was perverting grace and salvation, he felt that compulsory schooling was perverting learning and education. Illich was critical of what he believed were the hidden agendas associated with compulsory schooling, including social and economic stratification, intellectual dependence, and homogeneous modes of thinking.

      According to Illich, school had replaced academic notions of lifelong learning with notions of control, accreditation, and uniformity. He believed in student-guided education. He thought that what he called learning webs should be the foundation of one's educational experience. Illich's ideas about webs of collective knowledge were particularly prescient because he was suggesting something like the Worldwide Web and similar types of networked information sources.

      Illich's In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh's Didascalicon contributes to the social foundations of education with its historical analysis of technology and how it has affected literacy. Illich discusses the revolution of typographic literacy in the fifteenth century and the evolution from typographic literacy to posttypographic literacy. Illich's talent for critical thought and analysis, coupled with his determination as an activist to make the world a better place, allowed him the means by which to deconstruct compulsory schooling and literacy. His impact as a theorist and activist continues to be felt.

      Benjamin T.Lester
      Further Readings
      Illich, I. (1970). A celebration of awareness: A call for institutional revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
      Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row.
      Illich, I. (1992). In the mirror of the past: Lectures and addresses, 1978–1990. London: Marion Boyars.
      Isaacs, Susan B. (1885–1948)

      An influential educational theorist, teacher, and psychologist, Susan B. Isaacs was born in Lancashire, England. She studied philosophy and psychology at Manchester University. She earned a first-class degree from Manchester University in 1912 and went on to a research position at the Psychology Laboratory at the University of Cambridge. From 1913–1914, she taught at Darlington Training College, a preparation program for early childhood educators. From 1914–1915, she returned to teach at Manchester University.

      Influenced by Froebel, John Dewey, and Sigmund Freud, Isaacs believed that early childhood experiences were very important educational experiences. In 1921, Isaacs completed the first of many books, titled An Introduction to Psychology. In 1922, Isaacs completed the qualification process to see patients as a psychoanalyst and began her practice, which she would continue until her death. In 1924, she and her husband founded Malting House. A progressive school, the curriculum was centered on experience rather than instruction. In 1927, Isaacs left the school to focus on research, writing, and her patients in her psychoanalytic practice. In 1929, she began writing an advice column under the name Ursula Wise. She continued this column until 1940. In 1933, she was offered the chance to direct the Department of Child Development at the University of London, and she held this post until 1944. During the evacuation of London during World War II, Isaacs studied the psychological problems of children who were relocated as a result. Susan Isaacs died in 1948 after a long battle with cancer.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Isaacs, S. B. (1949). Childhood & after: Some essays and clinical studies. New York: International Universities Press.
      Smith, L. A. (1985). To understand and to help: The life and work of Susan Isaacs (1885–1948). Toronto: Associated University Presses.
      Jackson, Philip W. (1928-)

      Philip W. Jackson is best known for instigating the study of the “hidden curriculum” in schools. His best known work is Life in Classrooms, although he has written and edited numerous books, essays, and articles throughout his career.

      Jackson was born in Vineland, New Jersey. He studied at Glassboro State College and went on to earn his M.Ed, at Temple University. In 1954, he completed his Ph.D. at Teacher's College, Columbia University. He went on to teach educational psychology at Wayne State University and the University of Chicago. At Chicago, he led the laboratory nursery school and became director of laboratory schools. He served as chair of the Department of Education and Human Development and Dean of the Graduate School of Education.

      Since 1973, he has been the David Lee Shillinglaw Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Education and Psychology. Jackson has also taught as a visiting faculty member at Teachers College, Harvard University, Queens College, and New York University. His work continues to interest scholars and has served as the focus of books, articles, and dissertations.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
      Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Jackson, P. W. (1992). Untaught lessons. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Jefferson, Thomas (1743–1826)

      With historic accomplishments ranging from Founding Father and third president of the United States, author of the Declaration of Independence, architect of the Louisiana Purchase, and visionary of the Lewis and Clark expedition, Thomas Jefferson also made great contributions to education in America.

      Jefferson was born in 1743 in Albemarle County, Virginia, to a wealthy and prominent family. He attended the College of William and Mary from 1760–1762, then studied law. He was admitted to practice law in Virginia in 1767 and the following year was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, which began his political career. He was propelled onto the national scene in 1774 with the publication of A Summary View of the Rights of British America and in 1775 was elected to the Continental Congress.

      Jefferson believed that a stable democracy was possible only with an educated citizenry and was a lifetime advocate of free public education. He had a uniquely American conception of education as a tool for democracy, from the elementary schools through the university level. In 1778, as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, he wrote A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge. Although his plan was not adopted, it provided for free basic universal education, free education at an advanced level for selected students, and free tuition to William and Mary College for a more limited number of students.

      Jefferson's Enlightenment-era philosophy did not apply to everyone, however. Jefferson was a plantation owner and held slaves. He also did not include women in his proposals for universal education.

      After his second term as president ended in 1809, Jefferson concentrated on a variety of other projects. An intellectual and scholar of history, philosophy, architecture, languages, and the natural sciences, Jefferson amassed the largest private library collection in the United States, totaling more than 6,400 volumes. In 1815, Jefferson sold his library to the United States in order to replace the books destroyed when the British burned the Library of Congress.

      In 1816, construction on the University of Virginia began. Jefferson worked tirelessly, personally designing the original campus and working to raise funds. Jefferson saw this vision completed in 1825. He died on July 4, 1826. In creating his own epitaph, Jefferson closed with the line “Father of the University of Virginia.”

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Hellenbrand, H. (1990). The unfinished revolution: Education and politics in the thought of Thomas Jefferson. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
      Heslep, R. D. (1969). Thomas Jefferson & education. New York: Random House.
      Johnson, Marietta Pierce (1864–1938)

      Founder of the School of Organic Education in Fairhope, Alabama, Marietta Johnson built an international reputation as a progressive educator. Johnson viewed the Organic School as an ongoing experiment, an original demonstration of her idea that students should be educated as complete organisms with balanced attention to body, mind, and spirit. As director of the most child-centered school in the United States, she spoke throughout the nation, lectured abroad, and took her place in the front ranks of founders of progressive schools.

      Under Johnson's guidance, the Organic School opened in 1907 as an experimental school in an experimental community. The small town of Fairhope was a single-tax colony dedicated to the principles of collective land ownership advocated by Henry George in Progress and Poverty (1879). Johnson and her husband, who were socialists, moved to the Gulf Coast from Minnesota in 1902 and felt immediately at home in the Utopian community of idealists, artists, and freethinkers.

      Johnson arrived in her late thirties as a seasoned teacher and normal school instructor who was undergoing an educational conversion. She embarked on a self-directed reading program that led her to the thought of Rousseau, Froebel, Dewey, and developmental psychologists. Soon, she rejected traditional teaching methods in favor of a new pedagogy, one keyed to the needs and interests of students. For the rest of her career, she would downplay external standards—along with grades, report cards, and other competitive measures—and emphasize instead the internal standard of doing one's best.

      Directing the Organic School gave Johnson the chance to put her ideas into practice. Everyday, students at the school spent an hour folk dancing and another hour working in the shop. She postponed formal reading instruction until students reached age eight or nine. Much teaching and learning took place out of doors. This extremely child-centered pedagogy, infused with left-of-center politics, perfectly suited its community. Financial support from the single-tax colony and several philanthropists allowed local children to attend the Organic School tuition free, while well-to-do boarding students enrolled from throughout the country.

      The success of the school during the 1910s and 1920s was so encouraging that Johnson set the goal of developing a model for reforming public education nationwide. A group of socially prominent women in the New York City area organized a foundation to sponsor her work, booking as many lectures and other engagements as she could handle. A full-page interview in the New York Times in 1913 brought her tremendous public exposure and set the stage for a visit by John Dewey, who gave Johnson and her school a rave review in Schools of Tomorrow (1915).

      In 1919, she cofounded the Progressive Education Association, an organization of university teacher educators and leaders of progressive schools, hoping that it would become another avenue for promoting organic education. Her lectures and workshops for parents and teachers, which kept her on the road and numbered in the hundreds over the course of her career, stimulated the establishment of several other schools on the organic model.

      The Great Depression of the 1930s, however, wreaked financial havoc on the Organic School, and Johnson lost status within the progressive education movement. Despite her long-standing commitment to social reform, her version of child-centered education came across as out of touch with the times. In addition, Fairhope's commitment to experimentation and reform weakened as the town grew and the founding generation passed. In the years following Johnson's death in 1938, the Organic School lost the support of the community and drifted away from her genuinely radical pedagogy. Now a full century old, the school is struggling to reclaim its heritage.

      Joseph W.Newman
      Further Readings
      Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of to-morrow. New York: Dutton.
      Johnson, M. (n.d.). Organic education: Teaching without failure. Fairhope, AL: Marietta Johnson Museum.
      Newman, J. W. (2002). Marietta Johnson and the Organic School. In A. R.Sadovnik, & S. F.Semel (Eds.), Tounding mothers and others: Women educational leaders during the Progressive Era. New York: Palgrave.
      Johnston, Frances Benjamin (1864–1952)

      Frances Benjamin Johnston, during the latter part of the nineteenth century, became one of the first and most prominent American female photographers in the United States. Her 1899 photographs of children and youth at work in the Washington, D.C., schools were her most significant work that related to American schooling and were honored at an international showing in Paris. They are probably the most extensive portrayals of turn-of-the-century American education that exist.

      Initially interested in drawing and painting, she studied at the Academie Julien in Paris. Upon her return to the United States, she settled in Washington, D.C, and transferred her artistic talents to photography. By 1895, she opened a studio in Washington, D.C, and quickly attracted clients from among the city's social and governmental elite on the basis of the quality of her portraiture. Indeed, she gained a reputation as the “photographer of the American court.” She soon added to her status by becoming a documentary photographer and author of articles, illustrated with her photographs, in popular magazines of the day. During the latter part of her life, she focused her attention on architecture, particularly historic homes and gardens in the southern states.

      Johnston's photographs of D.C. schooling were part of the U.S. exhibit of American education at the 1900 International Exhibition in Paris. They portrayed students and teachers at work in most curriculum areas, academic and vocational, at all school levels from kindergarten to normal school, and in schools in all parts of the city. Photographs showed children studying with ubiquitous schoolroom objects such as chalkboards, maps, and notebooks as well as class groups in ordinarily uncommon settings such as field trips to a creek, a nearby store, and federal buildings. Also, many of these photographs included details of school architecture. Inasmuch as D.C. was racially segregated with separate schools for Blacks and Whites, these photographs illuminate distinctions in the schooling provided for these two groups. For this collection of photographs, exhibition judges awarded Johnston a Gold Medal.

      She also gained substantial notice for her photographs of students at Hampton Institute, Carlisle Indian School, and Tuskegee Institute. The Hampton photos were included in a separate and popular Paris Exposition display about American Negroes. Included in this collection were images of students engaged in several types of “industrial” activities (e.g., carpentry) as well as in academic courses. These exceptional photographs won Johnston a special Grand Prix.

      Although Johnston's photographs of American education gained recognition in Europe, they were ignored for many years in the United States. After she donated her papers and extant negatives and photographs to the Library of Congress, her work was discovered by historians of photography and of the history of American education.

      O. L.DavisJr.
      Further Readings
      Daniel, P., & Smock, R. (1974). A talent for detail: The photographs of Miss Frances Benjamin Johnston, 1889–1910. New York: Harmony.
      Kallen, Horace Meyer (1882–1974)

      Horace Meyer Kallen crafted a political vision in which valuing the culture of others could coexist with a commitment to democratic principles. Kallen's form of pluralism is the progenitor of the multicultural movements of the 1970s.

      As an early- to mid-twentieth-century social and political philosopher, Kallen's scholarship was greatly informed by the American milieu of the time. Within the context of the turbulent social upheavals wrought by the massive influx of new immigrants at the turn of the nineteenth century, he defended the notion of equality among various kinds of cultural forms of life. Kallen's definition of cultural pluralism is the seminal account, rejecting the simplistic homogeneity implied by America as a melting pot.

      The dilemma of cultural pluralism in a democracy is reconciling tolerance of cultural diversity with privileging liberty, freedom, and respect for others. Kallen saw no prima facie contradiction in wholeheartedly embracing both. In his conception of the American ideal, groups are self-contained, able to both fully realize their cultural uniqueness and happily coexist with other groups. Kallen argued that given the major significance that cultural identity holds for individual meaning, it is an implicit demand of democracy that cultural identity be allowed expression. Furthermore, the definition of an American is not based on a singular identity but rather on the amalgamation that a hyphenated nationality represents.

      Shewn AndreaFraser-Burgess
      Further Readings
      Kallen, H. (1956). Cultural pluralism and the American idea. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
      Kilpatrick, William Heard (1871–1965)

      William Heard Kilpatrick was a progressive educator and influential interpreter of John Dewey's educational philosophy. A native of Georgia, Kilpatrick began his career teaching in the public schools and at Mercer University (GA). In 1908, he became a doctoral student at Teachers College, Columbia University. John Dewey, his major professor, said of him, “He was the best student I ever had.” In 1911, Kilpatrick attained a full-time faculty appointment in philosophy of education at Teachers College.

      Kilpatrick's rise in educational circles began with the 1918 publication of his article “The Project Method” in the Teachers College Record. Kilpatrick's progressive education message maintained that schools must be child-centered, democratic, and socially oriented. His popularity was such that the New York City press called him “Columbia's Million-Dollar Professor” because of the tuition his 35,000 students (1911–1937) generated for Columbia University. In his retirement, Kilpatrick was the first president of the John Dewey Society.

      Kilpatrick's major works include Foundations of Method (1925), Selfhood and Civilization: A Study of the Self-Other Process (1941), and Philosophy of Education (1951). Lasting innovations derived from his work include classroom projects, activity-based learning, cooperative learning, and the experiential elements of the middle school movement. These student-centered practices, along with Kilpatrick's unswerving commitment to democratic principles in the schools, form the bedrock of his legacy.

      JohnBeineke
      Further Readings
      Beineke, J. A. (1998). And there were giants in the land: The life of William Heard Kilpatrick. New York: Peter Lang.
      Kincheloe, Joe (1950-)

      Joe Kincheloe is the Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy at McGill University, where he has founded with his partner, Shirley Steinberg, the Paulo and Nita Preire International Project for Critical Pedagogy. Kincheloe is regarded as having been a formative influence upon the development of critical pedagogy over the past two decades, during which time he has used critical complexity theory to explore the manner in which pedagogical acts are constructed out of the social, cultural, political, economic, and cognitive dimensions of experience.

      An eclectic scholar with a diverse array of interests and a prodigious outpouring of books and essays on a wide variety of topics broadly related to the generation of emancipatory educational research, Kincheloe is a leading expert who has helped to shape fields such as critical qualitative research methods and epistemol-ogy, critical multiculturalism, subjugated and indigenous knowledge studies, curriculum theory, media pedagogy, and cultural studies.

      A major focus for Kincheloe has been the creation of what he terms “postformal” thinking and inquiry. Kincheloe's postformalism mounts a bricolage of multiple research methods and transformative critiques of the conditions that have given rise to a Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm of scientific objectivity and positivism, on one hand, while also politicizing naturalistic accounts of cognitive development that he feels create reductive and hegemonic psychological structures in education, on the other hand. Some of his recent book-length work includes Critical Constructivism Primer (2005), Critical Pedagogy Primer (2004), Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment (2nd ed., 2002) and The Post-Formal Reader (with Steinberg and Hinchey, eds., 1999).

      RichardKahn
      Further Readings
      Horn, R. A.Joe L. Kincheloe: Teacher-as-researcher. Educational Researcher, 28 (A) 2009., 27–31.
      Kohlberg, Lawrence (1927–1987)

      Remembered by students of education for his theory which posits six stages of moral development, Lawrence Kohlberg was born October 25, 1927, in Bronxville, New York. He earned a BA at the University of Chicago and in 1958 completed his Ph.D. at that institution as well. After teaching at Yale and the University of Chicago, Kohlberg moved to Harvard in 1968 as professor of education and social psychology. The following year, he published an article titled “Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization.” This article, which appeared in the Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, is considered a seminal work in the field of developmental psychology.

      Influenced by Jean Piaget, Kohlberg offers six stages of moral development to explain the evolution of the development of “principled conscience.” The first stage, when a child understands only punishment and reward, gives way to higher levels of moral development as the individual matures. The early stages of development are labeled “re-conventional” under this theory. The next grouping of stages are labeled “conventional,” and the highest levels of moral reasoning are labeled “postconventional” and include understanding of universal principles.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press.
      Kozol, Jonathan (1936-)

      Jonathan Kozol's first book, Death at an Early Age, was published in 1967. It was a damning indictment of American education and its treatment of minority children. In it, Kozol, a Harvard graduate, describes his experience teaching in, and being fired from, an economically poor and segregated Boston public school. Functioning largely outside of the academic establishment, Kozol has spent the forty years since the publication of Death at an Early Age as a critical observer of public education—primarily concerned with issues of racial and social inequality.

      In works such as Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools (1991) and The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America (2005), Kozol addresses the consistently unequal funding provided to urban versus suburban schools. The research for his books has been based primarily on careful observation and interviews. Through the information he collects, he creates powerful narratives about the lives of the children and the conditions of the schools in which they learn.

      Kozol has been criticized for a lack of objectivity in his research and for not having academic and research credentials. Although a polemical writer, he is, in fact, a powerful and thoughtful voice who has focused carefully and systematically on structural inequalities in American culture and its schools. He may be criticized for occasional inconsistencies in his arguments, but he has documented and examined throughout his work the unequal treatment of the poor in our schools, and has tried through reason and moral suasion to point out the need for the United States to develop a more just and equitable educational system.

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Further Readings
      Kozol, J. (1967). Death at an early age. New York: Penguin.
      Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.
      Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Crown.
      Ladson-Billings, Gloria (1947-)

      Gloria Ladson-Billings serves as the Kellner Family Chair in Urban Education and Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is also affiliated with the African Studies Program. Her research interests center on educational anthropology, cultural studies, and critical race theory applications to education. Noted for her concept of “culturally relevant pedagogy,” she continues to study the successful teaching of African American students. She helped to develop Teaching for Diversity, the university's teacher education program focused on teaching racially, culturally, and socioeconomically diverse students.

      Ladson-Billings is the author of several books and numerous scholarly journal articles. Some prominent book titles include Educational Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action and Policy (co-authored with William F. Táte, 2006); Beyond the Big House: African American Educators on Teacher Education (2005); Crossing Over to Canaan: The Journey of New Teachers in Diverse Classrooms (2001); and The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children (1994). In 1997, she coedited the Dictionary of Multicultural Education with Carl A. Grant.

      The winner of many awards for scholarship and service, she is past president of the American Educational Research Association (2005–2006). She received the George and Louise Spindler Award from the Council on Anthropology and Education in 2004. She was inducted into the National Academy of Education in 2005 and received the University of Wisconsin's Woman of Color Award in 2006. Also, she received an honorary doctoral degree from Umea University, Sweden.

      Melinda MooreDavis
      Further Readings
      Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
      Locke, John (1632–1704)

      John Locke is considered the father of the empirical tradition in philosophy, and his ideas about democracy are at the heart of the founding documents of America. His ideas about education are focused around the widely known metaphor of tabula rasa, or blank slate. He thought that knowledge or learning was impressed upon youngsters and that teachers and parents thus played a crucial role in their moral education. The ideas in his seventeenth-century works are still pertinent today.

      Locke was born in Somerset, England, in 1632. He was educated at the Westminster School and then at Christ Church College, Oxford. At Oxford, he studied natural philosophy and earned both his bachelor's and master's degrees. He went on to earn his medical degree and became a private physician and advisor for the Earl of Shaftesbury and his family.

      In 1683, Shaftesbury, who was active in politics, fell on the wrong side of the controversy surrounding the ascension to the throne of the Catholic James II. Shaftesbury was forced into exile in the Netherlands and brought Locke with him. Shaftesbury died soon after he arrived in the Lowlands. Locke remained there until James II was deposed and William and Mary of Orange came to the throne in 1689. On returning to England, Locke was able to secure a government post and publish his key contributions to philosophy, including “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.” He died in 1704.

      To fully appreciate Locke's ideas on education, one must first understand the broader agenda that his work represents. Locke is remembered for two great contributions to philosophy. First, he is the father of the empirical tradition in Anglo-American philosophy. The empiricist beliefs that are accessible through the senses—that there is no essential disconnect between the mind and the body, and that truths must be learned rather than innately delivered—have dominated the philosophic quest since Locke's time.

      His second widely known contribution is in the field of political philosophy, where he sought to show, in a quasi-historical sense, how civil society came to be founded, and within this context explained which rights belong naturally to the governed and which rights must necessarily be retained by the sovereign. In doing so, he formulated the conception of democracy that lies at the heart of modern liberal democratic institutions. Indeed, the claim in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was borrowed from Locke.

      The marriage of the core ideals of empiricism and self-governance are seen in Locke's key work in educational philosophy, “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.” Originally published in 1693, this work is not a guide for democratic education, but rather education for democracy. Although he was typical of his time in concentrating on education for the privileged classes, Locke was ahead of his time in that he was concerned with the whole child as a physical, moral, and intellectual being. What Locke describes is the way in which children should be raised, not merely educated, to have the physical, moral, and intellectual stamina necessary for the world as envisioned in his other philosophical works.

      Locke's view of the necessity and role of education is captured in his use of the term tabla rasa—literally, blank slate or tablet—which he introduces in his 1694 Essay Concerning Human Understanding. According to him, the individual is a medium on which knowledge and learning are inscribed or impressed. This conception is also present in “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.” Here, Locke talks about what children are, and what they need from their parents, teachers, and other role models.

      He compares children to travelers in a strange country, and it is the role of the educator to guide them and illuminate their world. This description, echoed in the conception of the tabula rasa, does come with one vital caveat that sets Locke apart from many of his contemporaries' thoughts on the topic. Locke argues passionately that children should be respected and treated as rational beings. Locke's nearest philosophical rival, Thomas Hobbes, is noted for succinctly expressing the more common view of the time, in that he included the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and children in a singular category of intellect.

      Locke begins by giving much detailed advice on the physical care of the young in “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.” He offers recommendations on the topics of nutrition, clothing, and general health. However, it is his second major topic, moral education, or education for virtue, to which this concern, and his subsequent concern for academic or professional education, are subsumed. On the topic of virtue, Locke goes to lengths to explain what will lead a young man to become virtuous. For parents and educators, he offers admonitions against hypocrisy and corporal punishment. This places modeling at the center of Locke's conception of education for virtue and sets the bar very high for those charged with this task.

      The topic of learning in an academic setting is reserved for last. Locke chooses to make no apologies for this and offers a charged and colorful critique of existing educational practices with reference to the use of punishments, rewards, and misplaced efforts at curriculum design. While his remarks on many academic practices are scathing, to qualify Locke as an anti-academic would, of course, be an error. What Locke is concerned with is the methods and priorities by which education takes place.

      Locke does have specific advice for what children should know and how they should be taught. He stresses, for example, that children should be taught to read as early as possible in their lives. The role of the parent or teacher in this situation is to not only teach the child to read, but also structure the instruction in such a way that the child will one day enjoy reading, rather than view it as a chore. This idea permeates the multiple examples offered on the topic of educational methodology.

      Locke goes on to detail ways in which learning can be structured to appeal to children. He also offers a sequence of what topics should be covered, from initial reading instruction through abstract reasoning, philosophy, and accounting. Locke's practical streak, which is sometimes more hidden in his political philosophy, is evident in recommending this last topic in education.

      Locke's overall contribution to educational thought in modern times is great. The themes of his work underlie much of the current debates in the field. In “Some Thoughts Concerning Education,” he initiates dialogues about developmental stages of children, intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, appropriate curriculum and instructional methodologies, and meeting the needs of individual learners.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Gay, P. (Ed.). (1964). John Locke on education. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Locke, J. (1801). Some thoughts concerning education. In The works of John Locke (
      10th ed.
      ). London: J. Johnson & Company.
      Macdonald, James (1924–1982)

      James Macdonald was a curriculum theorist who helped to shape the reconceptualist movement of curriculum studies throughout his work in the 1960s and 1970s. For Macdonald, curriculum was like a microcosm of life itself and posed similar social, moral, and spiritual challenges. He believed curriculum theorizing was a creative act stemming from the critical question, “How shall we live together?”

      Macdonald spoke out against the discipline-based curriculum work of the 1960s that identified phenomena and people as objects within categories within systems and argued instead for an aesthetic rationality where curriculum workers addressed issues at an intuitive level and allowed individuals to transcend existing systems and categories. Macdonald further argued that curriculum workers needed to move beyond the discipline-based structure of their work in order to create a more person-oriented curriculum that could respond to issues of social injustice.

      In 1971, Macdonald mapped out a curriculum theory in which he identified three categories of theorists: one category in which theorists used theory as a guide for curriculum development and research as a tool for evaluating curriculum; a second in which theorists used scientific theory to identify and define variables within curriculum development; and a third category in which theorists used theory to think more creatively about curriculum. He associated himself with the third group.

      Macdonald's challenges to current practices in curriculum work of the 1960s and early 1970s helped to usher in the new movement of curriculum studies where scholars would look at work in schools through phe-nomenological, autobiographic, and theological lenses.

      Donna AdairBreault
      Further Readings
      Macdonald, B. J. (Ed.). (1995). Theory as a prayerful act: The collected essays of James B. Macdonald. New York: Peter Lang.
      Pinar, W. E, Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
      Mann, Horace (1796–1859)

      Horace Mann is justly remembered as the father of the public school system. Committed to a progressive religious vision of the American republic, he devoted his life to shaping institutions that would shape the nation.

      Born into a modest farming family in Franklin, Massachusetts, Mann received little formal schooling. The most significant influence on his developing mind was the town's orthodox minister, Nathaniel Emmons. Breaking with Calvinism during adolescence, Mann embraced liberal Christianity and a passion for personal betterment. With the help of tutors, he quickly mastered sufficient Latin and Greek to enter Brown University; three years later, he graduated class valedictorian.

      After two unsuccessful years teaching the classics, Mann entered Litchfield Law School. Passing the bar in 1823, he set up office in Dedham. He soon made a name for himself, and in 1827 was elected to the state legislature. Strongly supportive of scientifically grounded moral reform, Mann was the moving force behind the establishment of the state's first public asylum for the insane. Based upon the principles of moral treatment perfected in America by the physicians of the Hartford Retreat, this experience introduced Mann to physiological and pedagogic theories that would inform his future ideas on education.

      Mann's political success—he eventually became president of the Massachusetts Senate—was accompanied by private sufferings. The death of his first wife in 1832 took an enormous emotional toll; his hair is said to have turned gray overnight. At the same time, Mann inherited crippling debts that forced him to live out of his law office for three years. Although he received support from Elizabeth and Mary Peabody and the famed Unitarian minister William Ellery Channing, Mann's rise from despair seems to have been secured through his missionary-like commitment to the cause of education.

      After a ten-year campaign highlighting the deplorable condition of Massachusetts schools, James Carter, an important champion of public schooling, persuaded the legislature to establish a state board of education. But if Carter expected to be appointed secretary, powerful friends of education realized that the board's limited charge (collecting facts and diffusing information) necessitated a leader with Mann's moral force and legal knowledge.

      Why did Mann abandon his political career for such a poorly paid and nebulous appointment? In his diary, he speaks of a religious awakening brought on by reading George Combe's Constitution of Man. Grounded in principles governing the innate structure and development of the brain, Combe's phrenological text drew moral imperatives from physiological laws. Knowledge of God's workmanship was the key to Christian duty and human happiness. By revealing practical ways to regulate the passions and strengthen reason, it promised the possibility of educating the population for rational and virtuous citizenship in the new urban industrial world. To this end, Combe and his co-worker James Simpson had formulated a comprehensive plan for a national system of public schooling in Great Britain. Embracing child-centered pedagogy, a scientific curriculum, standardized systems of administration, and teacher training, the scheme eventually fell foul of religious opposition to nondenominational instruction.

      However, as Mann's crusade demonstrated, the phrenologists' plan was perfectly suited for Protestant New England. Resonating with nativist ideals, it provided a compelling political script fusing Christian duty, personal improvement, and social progress. On his appointment as secretary in 1837, the first book Mann turned to was Simpson's Necessity of Education. The following year, Combe visited Boston and the two men developed a lifelong bond. A true disciple, all of Mann's subsequent writings bear the stamp of Combe's philosophy.

      To promote his cause, Mann toured the state collecting information, establishing a network of local support groups, and delivering lectures on the importance of education to the future of the republic. As a panacea for social ills, he promised a system of tax-supported common schools to meet the needs of all children, irrespective of class or creed. Eschewing privilege, distinctions were to be founded solely on merit. Mann did recognize significant moral and intellectual differences between the sexes, but demanded a full, if distinct, education for women in order that they could fulfill their unique sphere of influence in society.

      In the Common School Journal, Mann promoted scientifically informed instruction; in his annual reports, he presented statistics designed to pressure local action and government legislation. His first major initiatives included founding normal schools, establishing school libraries, and improving facilities. Although such sweeping changes inevitably stirred political and religious opposition, he was able to marshal the broad support necessary to cement the authority of the board and the basic elements of his statewide plan.

      But Mann had his sights on more far-reaching reforms. After touring Europe, he publicized the Prussian system, making a powerful case for the superiority of child-centered practices over the hard-line methods of traditional teachers. This caused a good deal of controversy among a group of Boston masters, but Mann's subsequent exposé of their questionable successes and harsh discipline only added to his case. By the end of his twelve-year tenure, he could boast a standardized curriculum, teacher training, and a statewide system of administration—all of which he codified in legal statutes that would serve a template for the advancement of public schooling across America.

      In 1848, Mann was elected to the House of Representatives, where he fought a bitter six-year battle against the expansion of slavery. Tiring of Washington, he mounted an unsuccessful bid for the Massachusetts governorship before accepting the presidency of Antioch College in Ohio. Ever the phrenologist, he spent the last five years of his life cultivating the physical, intellectual, and moral qualities of the West's future leaders. He banned alcohol, tobacco, and coffee; offered instruction in the laws of physiology, political economy, and moral philosophy; and ensured that only the virtuous received diplomas. Secure in the achievement of his life's work, he famously used his final baccalaureate address to implore students not to “die until they have won some victory for humanity.”

      StephenTomlinson
      Further Readings
      Messerli, J. (1972). Horace Mann: A biography. New York: Knopf.
      Martin, Jane Roland (1929-)

      Jane Roland Martin challenged the presumed gender neutrality of the late-twentieth-century analytic philosophy of education with her 1981 critique of R. S. Peters's ideal of the educated person. She proposed the democratic necessity of constructing a “gender-sensitive” educational ideal, meaning that philosophers and educators should take gender into account when it is of educational consequence and ignore it when it is of no educational consequence.

      Citing epistemological inequality that excludes, distorts, and marginalizes women as subjects and objects of educational thought, she analyzed the ideal of the educated woman as formulated by Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Mary Wollstonecraft, Catharine Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman and concluded that education itself requires radical redefinition. Focused upon “productive processes of society,” Martin argued, education reflects preoccupation with matters of cultural, political, and economic significance, but also should reflect the significance for both men and women of “reproductive processes of society” that historically philosophers have designated as women's characteristic social functions alone: bearing and rearing children; managing households; and offering various sorts of care, concern, and connection in daily life.

      Martin's subsequent prolific writings have reformulated this normative claim by critically investigating its conceptual significance for transformation of both sexes' schooling, higher education, and general cultural transmission through “multiple educational agency,” as well as for “culture-crossing” individuals' educational metamorphoses.

      Also influential, Martin's contributions to the analytic philosophy of education before 1981 formulated conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary curriculum theory: hidden curriculum, basics, disciplines, subjects, choice and chance, knowing how and knowing that.

      SusanLaird
      Further Readings
      Laird, S. (2001). Martin, Jane Roland. In J. A.Palmer (Ed.), Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present day (pp. 203–209). London: Routledge.
      Martin, J. R. (1985). Reclaiming a conversation: The ideal of the educated woman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
      Martin, J. R. (1992). The schoolhome: Rethinking schools for changing families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Martin, J. R. (1993). Changing the educational landscape: Philosophy, women, and curriculum. New York: Routledge.
      Martin, J. R. (1999). Coming of age in academe: Rekindling women's hopes and transforming the academy. New York: Routledge.
      Martin, J. R. (2002). Cultural miseducation: Toward a democratic solution. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Martin, J. R. (2007). Educational metamorphoses: Philosophical reflections on identity and culture. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
      McGuffey, William Holmes (1800–1873)

      William Holmes McGuffey was the author of the McGuffey Readers (their unofficial title), which epitomized the transformation of school reading texts over the first third of the nineteenth century. Designed to replace spelling books as the child's introduction to reading, they were child-friendly, featuring large type, numerous illustrations, and short tales about children in familiar settings. Over time, they have sold some 135 million individual copies.

      Born in Washington, Pennsylvania, McGuffey attended Washington College and then went on to teach Latin and Greek at Miami University, Ohio, from 1826 to 1836, becoming active in midwestern educational circles that included such reformers as the textbook writer Albert Picket and Alexander Kinmont.

      In 1836, Truman and Smith published McGuffey's First Eclectic Reader and Second Eclectic Reader, soon issuing four additional graded readers. Their comprehensibility to children, McGuffey's midwestern location, and the publishers' excellent marketing contributed to their great success. Although McGuffey's association with the series had ceased by 1843, the readers dominated the market in the second half of the nineteenth century. They were constantly revised by their publishers and are still in print.

      McGuffey's early books borrowed heavily from competitors: McGuffey and his publisher had to settle out of court a suit brought by the textbook author Samuel Worcester and his publisher. McGuffey finished his career at the University of Virginia (1845–1873), where he was a professor of moral philosophy.

      CharlesMonaghan
      Further Readings
      Sullivan, D. P. (1994). William Holmes McGuffey: Schoolmaster to the nation. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
      Vail, H. H. (1911). A history of the McGuffey Readers. Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers.
      McLaren, Peter (1948-)

      Peter McLaren, Professor of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, is a leading educational theorist who, since the 1980s, has played a central role in the development of critical pedagogy worldwide and the organization of what he terms the “educational left.” Tremendously prolific as an author, and known for his virtuosic rhetoric and conceptual imagination, McLaren has made wide-ranging contributions over the course of his career to myriad educational discourses including critical ethnography and qualitative research, educational policy debates, ritual and performance studies, literacy theory, multiculturalism and the development of postcolonial pedagogy, cultural studies, critical media pedagogy, and curriculum studies, as well as work on globalization in education.

      McLaren spent much of his early career in founding what he terms critical, or resistance, postmodernism in education through the deployment of novel syntheses of Frankfurt and Birmingham School critical theory, French poststructuralism, the Freirean and Deweyean philosophic traditions, and other radical ideas. Since 1994, he has turned toward a more specifically Marxist humanist analysis that seeks to illuminate the crucial function played by political economy and the relations of production in blocking truly democratic forms of schooling, culture, and general politics across society.

      Although his work since the later 1990s should be understood as an evolution, and not rejection, of his earlier work, McLaren has become an outspoken critic of scholars' wide reliance upon faddish forms of postmodernism, which he believes often result in an inattention to the underlying reality of economic exploitation or unwittingly play into Rightist political agendas through the postmodern desire to deconstruct and de-universalize all forms of macro social analysis and struggle.

      Consequently, beginning with books such as Revolutionary Multiculturalism (1997) and Che Guevara, Paulo Freire and the Pedagogy of Revolution (2000), up to the more recent Capitalists and Conquerers (2005) and Life in Schools (5th ed., 2006), McLaren has sought to delineate a “revolutionary critical pedagogy” that challenges the domestication of critical work in education under capitalism, works internationally to organize resistance to imperialist and neoliberal policies, and attempts to resituate the necessity for sustained Marxist critique both popularly and within educational research proper.

      Despite his radical goals, McLaren's theories appear to be finding wide audiences. In 2005, La Fundación McLaren de Pedagogía Critica was inaugurated to more widely establish knowledge of his work throughout Mexico as a basis for political action, and in 2006, the Venezuelan Ministry of Higher Education created the Peter McLaren Chair for the Study of Critical Pedagogy at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela.

      RichardKahn
      Further Readings
      Pruyn, M., & Huerta-Charles, L. (2005). Teaching Peter McLaren: Paths of dissent. New York: Peter Lang.
      Meier, Deborah (1931-)

      A former kindergarten teacher, Deborah Meier has worked for more than forty years as a teacher, principal, and activist. Educated at Antioch College and the University of Chicago, Meier spent most of her career working to understand and remedy schooling through educational reforms.

      Meier began her career as an elementary and Head Start teacher in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. In 1974, the superintendent of New York City's schools, Tony Alvardo, asked her to implement her theories in a Harlem school that was known for having extremely low test scores. In response to this request, Meier founded Central Park East, which emphasized active learning. Her school also fostered democratic community, increased teacher autonomy, and encouraged parents' feedback and participation in their children's schooling. As a result of her efforts, overall student test scores increased considerably. She documented her efforts and the success of the school in her well-known book, The Power of Their Ideas.

      Following this success, she opened two more elementary schools and one secondary school in cooperation with the Coalition of Essential Schools, an organization based on the principles that every child can learn, schools should foster democracy and equity, and school practices should meet the needs of individual students. Her schools have been lauded as models of urban reform and boast high standards, nurturing adults, and high college-going rates for their graduates.

      Meier has written extensively on school reform and educational policies from the perspective that all children can learn and be successful. She affirms the importance of democratic community, active student learning, teacher autonomy, and hope in public schooling.

      BethPowers-Costello
      Further Readings
      Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons to America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
      Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education?Boston: Beacon Press.
      Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust. Boston: Beacon Press.
      Meier, D. (2004). Keeping school, with Ted and Nancy Sizer. Boston: Beacon Press.
      Meier, D. (2004). Many children left behind. Boston: Beacon Press.
      Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1908–1961)

      Maurice Merleau-Ponty was an existential philosopher (influenced by Husserl) along with his contemporaries Sartre and de Beauvoir; however, Merleau-Ponty's work defied traditional conventions and even challenged Sartre's anguish, conflicting relations, and uncompromising Marxism and Cartesian ontology. Merleau-Ponty emphasized the embodied experience, especially the perception, and he argued that phenomena could not be comprehended fully with philosophical traditions and norms because of the leakiness and complexity of what he referred to as equally disappointing alternatives, empiricism and intellectualism. His ideas about knowledge have influenced educators.

      Along with Saussure, Merleau-Ponty was one of the philosophical innovators who brought structuralism and linguistics into an interdependent relationship with phenomenology, and his work refuted Western idealism and sought to (re)articulate the various relationships of subject and object in the intersubjective state, self, and world, as well as many other dualisms through an account of the lived and existential body within The Phenomenology of Perception.

      For contemporary educational scholars, such as Madeleine Grumet, Merleau-Ponty's emphasis on the body—or the body-subject, as he refers to it—and theory of the body are too often underestimated by educators who tend to view the body as simply an “object” that a transcendent mind orders to perform various activities, so that students may get back to their “mental” work. Merleau-Ponty's philosophies ground knowledge within the body's experiences in conjunction with the world.

      With philosophical analyses of perceptions, embodied experiences, difficulties of human existence, and the body and intersubjectivity, Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological works are gaining more attention within contemporary educational research and scholarship because he challenges dualisms and offers a more holistic approach to educational philosophy and curriculum. Educators who embrace Merleau-Ponty's philosophy challenge the mind/body split and incorporate the body into the curriculum and classroom in a multitude of ways—from discussing the misogynistic body philosophy from Plato and the early Greeks (which has guided educational “norms” and practices)—to discussing the pregnant body; able and disabled bodies; and how the body is “disruptive” and “leaky” in schools with regard to race, class, gender, ability, ethnicity, and sexuality, to actually using and integrating the body in the learning process with individual and collaborative hands-on experiences—such as dancing to learn mathematical patterns, building muscles and using the muscles on the body itself, and/or performing a play.

      ElizabethHendrix
      Further Readings
      Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C.Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge.
      Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception, and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history, and politics (J.Edie, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
      Mill, John Stuart (1806–1873)

      Although it was not his professional career, John Stuart Mill wrote widely and influentially on philosophy, supporting the rights of the individual against the rights of society. Today, he is considered an important thinker in the utilitarian school.

      Mill was born in London, England. He was taught by his father, who in turn had been much influenced by the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. Mill was given a classical education, focusing on Greek, Latin, and mathematics. From an early age, Mill also learned philosophy. He was influenced by the Romantic philosophy of Wordsworth as well as the French philosopher Auguste Comte.

      Mill worked until his retirement as an administrator for the East India Company, writing philosophy and lecturing in his spare time. In retirement, he ran successfully for Parliament. His best known treatise is On Liberty. Here he addresses the balance between the rights of societies and the rights of individuals and asserts that only in cases of necessity should the rights of the individual be curtailed. In his writing and lectures, Mill also examined logic and mathematics as well as social issues such as women's suffrage, political reform, and economics.

      Mill never wrote a unified treatise on education, but in his 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Mill outlined his views on education in liberal societies. Although his definition of education encompasses everything that might have an impact on human development, his focus is on society working to positively affect those factors. In Mill's view, parents are largely responsible for structuring the education of their children. Mill asserted an obligation of societies to educate their children, but was not specific as to particular ways this might be achieved.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Capaldi, N. (2004). John Stuart Mill: A biography. New York: Cambridge University Press.
      Garforth, F. W. (1980). Educative democracy: John Stuart Mill on education in society. New York: Oxford University Press.
      Montaigne, Michel de (1533–1592)

      Referred to as the French Socrates, Renaissance humanist thinker Michel de Montaigne ranks among the more influential philosophers in the Western world. His writings, called essays, are central contributions to philosophy and education.

      Born February 28, 1533, he was given a classical education and then studied law. He became a city counselor in Bordeaux, a post he held until he took over the running of his family's estate in 1571. In 1572, he began his essays, a series of discussions on many topics that were published in 1580, 1588, and 1595. He broke with Western philosophical tradition in that he wrote in French rather than in Latin.

      Although his writings have been considered discursive and sometimes rambling, the central message that the reader should take from Montaigne is one of skepticism and questioning. In his essay on education, titled “Of the Education of Children: That It Is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity,” Montaigne stresses the importance of the teacher and at the same time insists that the teacher, however competent, must be sure to move at the same pace as the student.

      Montaigne does not prescribe what is to be taught, as other philosophers of education have done, but rather is concerned with the pace and methodology. He reiterates the importance of skepticism, but with useful limits. In other works, he also argued that religious beliefs must be accepted on faith alone, which contrasted sharply with the efforts of other intellectuals of his time to ground religious teachings in logic and reason. Montaigne is often studied in contrast with René Descartes, although Montaigne's writings did indeed influence this other great philosopher.

      John P.Renaud
      Montessori, Maria (1870–1952)

      Maria Montessori was a physician, an educational reformer, and an advocate for children and peace. She is best known for designing the educational system known as the Montessori Method, which flourishes today in more than 8,000 schools on five continents.

      The first Montessori School, known as the Casa dei Bambini, was opened in 1907 as part of an urban renewal project located in the poor district of San Lorenzo in Rome. The well-publicized success of her experiments in the Casa marked a decisive turning point in her life. In 1907, she left the practice of medicine and devoted the remainder of her life to education. From this point, until her death in 1952, Montessori traveled the world establishing Montessori schools; training centers for teachers; and the professional society charged with perpetuating the integrity of the method, The Association Montessori Internationale.

      Having spent the better part of her life as a war refugee, Montessori was inspired by the belief that education based on the developmental needs of children could create a new generation of adults who, through proper formation, would be able to forge a new vision for peace. She called this “the science of peace,” and it infused all aspects of her method of education.

      JacquelineCossentino
      Further Readings
      Kramer, R. (1988). Maria Montessori: A biography. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
      Newman, John Henry (1801–1890)

      John Henry Newman was a priest, a theologian, and an educator. First an Anglican priest and eventually a Roman Catholic cardinal, Newman wrote on the relationship between faith and reason, and his The Idea of a University continues to be an important work on higher education.

      Newman was born in London on February 21,1801, to John Newman and Jemima Fourdrinier Newman and baptized into the Anglican Church on April 9 of the same year. In 1808, he was sent to the private school at Ealing to begin his education. In 1817, he entered Trinity College, Oxford, and was eventually elected a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, in 1822. Ordained a priest in the Anglican Church, Newman was eventually called in 1828 to serve as the vicar of St. Mary's Church, the university church for Oxford.

      Newman was initially characterized as a young man of equally deep commitment to the learned life and the religious life. However, the early to mid-1800s were times of great theological transition. As a result, some of Newman's earliest writings reflect how his historically orthodox understanding of Anglicanism called him to question the currents of liberalism he believed were beginning to infiltrate the Church.

      Newman's concern with liberalism led to his involvement in what became known as the Oxford or Tractarian Movement. This movement, and the individuals who helped to guide it, believed the Church was called to pass from one generation to the next the essential components of doctrine that allowed the Church to be of service to the world. They believed that doctrine was not simply an exercise of intellect but one that also led to religious devotion. Initially, these concerns propelled Newman to argue that the Anglican Church was the rightful bearer of Church doctrine. However, his views began to change and he eventually became convinced that the rightful bearer of Church doctrine was actually the Catholic Church.

      In 1845, he was received into the Catholic Church and eventually ordained a priest in 1847. Newman's reputation as an educator led to his appointment in 1851 as the founding rector of the Catholic University of Ireland, a post in which Newman found both success and failure. In addition to his efforts in education, he helped to establish an oratory in Birmingham, England, and was named a cardinal in 1879. He died in 1890 and was declared venerable in 1991. Movements are also underway to recognize Newman as a saint.

      Newman continued to write prolifically over the course of his career. Regardless of the particular concern of any given writing, the questions that inspired the Oxford or Tractraian Movement were never far from his mind.

      These questions even found their way into Newman's writings about education. Defenders of the tradition of Western civilization often include Newman's efforts among their canon of great books. However, a closer reading of Fifteen Sermons, The Idea of a University, and My Campaign in Ireland demonstrates that the relationship shared by doctrine and religious devotion defines Newman's thinking. Published two years prior to his conversion to Catholicism, Newman's Fifteen Sermons details his beliefs concerning the rightful relationship shared by faith and reason. Although The Idea of a University was not published under a single cover until 1873, the lectures that led to this volume include an argument for the need for Christian higher education in Ireland. My Campaign in Ireland is essentially a record of the successes and the failures Newman encountered as he sought to establish a place in Ireland for an institution of Christian higher education.

      Todd C.Ream
      Further Readings
      Barr, C. (2003). Paul Cullen, John Henry Newman, and the Catholic University of Ireland, 1845–1865. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
      Culler, A. D. (1955). The imperial intellect: A study of Newman's educational ideal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
      Ker, I. (1988). John Henry Newman. New York: Oxford University Press.
      McGrath, F. (1951). Newman's university: Idea and reality. London: Longman, Green.
      McGrath, F. (1962). The consecration of learning: Lectures on Newman's idea of a university. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Son.
      Newman, J. H. (1896). My campaign in Ireland, Part I. Catholic University reports and other papers. Aberdeen, Scotland: A. King.
      Newman, J. H. (1986). The idea of a university: Defined and illustrated. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in 1873)
      Newman, J. H. (1997). Fifteen sermons preached before the University of Oxford between A.D. 1826 and 1843. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in 1843)
      Nieto, Sonia (1943-)

      Sonia Nieto's research has focused on the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students, multicultural education, bilingual education, teacher education, educational equity, and curriculum reform.

      A graduate of the New York City public schools, she began her career as a fourth-grade teacher in the Northeast's first completely bilingual school. In addition to numerous articles, her books include Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education (1992), The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities (1999), and What Keeps Teachers Going? (2003). She also edited the books, Puerto Rican Students in U.S. Schools (2000) and Why We Teach (2005).

      Nieto has worked tirelessly toward educational equity for all students by serving on national and international boards and commissions, including the Massachusetts Advocacy Center, Facing History and Ourselves, and Educators for Social Responsibility. Nieto's work has been particularly important in the areas of teacher training and multicultural education.

      Through her twenty-six years as a professor in language, literacy, and multicultural education at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, she has advocated for children and families. She has firmly espoused the ideas that all children can learn, that the role of families is paramount in children's learning, that all people have culture, that a student's language and culture should be honored, that multicultural education benefits all children and all people, and that education can be a force for positive social change.

      BethPowers-Costello
      Noddings, Nel (1929-)

      Nel Noddings is among the leading philosophers of education in the United States. At a practical level, and in books such as The Challenge to Care in Schools, she argues that schools need to become more caring places.

      Noddings began her career as a sixth-grade teacher and then took a position in secondary mathematics. After completing a master's degree in mathematics at Rutgers University, she earned a doctorate of education from Stanford University.

      Noddings has made many contributions to mathematics education and the philosophy of education. She is best known for her work on the ethics of care. Rejecting more traditional philosophical models, Noddings posited an alternative approach to ethics based on a feminist model of care—that is, the care a mother might have for a child. Her approach, which has been described as relational ethics because of its emphasis on relationships, maintains that caring involves three principles: receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness. Through a process of what she describes as “engrossment,” the teacher receives what the cared-for (i.e., the student) is feeling and wants to express. Drawing on the work of John Dewey, Noddings argues that the teacher and students should be involved in a process of interaction in which each affects the other through a process of moral interdependence. According to her, students are more likely to trust teachers whom they perceive not as trying to interfere or impose their beliefs on them, but as concerned with nurturing and guiding them. Through dialogue with their students, teachers develop an understanding of them as individuals and how best to work with them to help them achieve their educational needs. During this process of caring and guiding, teachers work at becoming more skilled and competent in what they do.

      For Noddings, caring relationships provide the most appropriate basis for moral education. Students learn to care for others and their needs as they are cared for. Her general approach clearly resonates with many of Dewey's progressive models and provides a challenging alternative to the current standards movement and the extreme regulation and control of the curriculum. Ultimately, in her system, teachers achieve agency and the ability to grow and develop as they nurture, guide, and help sustain the students under their charge.

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Further Readings
      Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
      Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview.
      Ogbu, John Uzo (1939–2003)

      John Uzo Ogbu was an anthropology professor known for his theories on race and intelligence and their relationship to academic and economic achievement. Born in the village of Umudomi in the Onicha Government Area of Nigeria, he taught at the University of California, Berkeley, from 1970 until his death in 2003.

      Ogbu's pivotal work was regarding “voluntary and involuntary minority” groups. Obgu observed that minority groups who are academically successful in spite of discrimination are characterized as “voluntary minorities” (immigrants who chose to come to the United States) versus “involuntary” or “caste-like” minorities (born in the United States). He believed that “involuntary minorities” often adopt an “oppositional identity” to the mainstream culture, which inhibits their ability to navigate through dominant economic and academic systems. He also examined the historical treatment of these minorities in society at large in both social and economic domains as well as in education.

      In 1996, Ogbu played a role in the debate about the use of African American vernacular English. At the time, he was a member of a task force on African American education in Oakland. He observed that the “standard” or “proper” English required in the classroom differed from Black vernacular English spoken at home and outside school and encouraged the teaching of Ebonics as a way to help African American students transition to traditional English.

      Some of his works include “Black-American Students and the Academic Racial Stratification in the United States: Why Inequality Persists” (2002), and “Understanding the School Performance of Urban Blacks: Some Essential Background Knowledge” (1997).

      Lisa J.Scott
      Further Readings
      Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
      Ortega y Gasset, José (1883–1955)

      José Ortega y Gasset was a Spanish professor, philosopher, publisher, editor, essayist, and political leader. A passionate, uncompromising, and complex thinker, he was the most significant person to come from Spain in the first half of the twentieth century. Ortega y Gasset was a prolific writer; his work took the form not only of books, but also of essays, journal articles, and even articles for the newspapers.

      Ortega y Gasset was educated in Spain, obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Madrid in 1904. He went on to postdoctoral studies in Germany, returning in 1910 to a professorship in Madrid, where he served until he left Spain at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War. From that point on, his life moved between posts in South America, North America, and Europe until his death in 1955.

      Ortega y Gasset's incisive critique of higher education matured throughout his lifetime and remains relevant to contemporary discourse on the nature and proper function of colleges and universities. Over the course of his life, he moved from an early Neo-Kantian idealism to a vitalistic middle period that placed much greater emphasis on the emerging life of the average individual in a culture. His mature educational conceptions were his most pungent: A university existed to teach the essentials (abstract “research” and advanced science did not qualify) and to teach those essentials to the average person so that the main body of a society might learn the contours of its own culture in its own historical setting. Only then would these students be able to critique that culture and forge creative new possibilities within their own circumstances.

      The mission of higher education, then, ought to be to provoke a creative crisis or turmoil in individuals so that they might find their own way in their own generation. And much of what was to be found in the modern university by 1930 was, in Ortega y Gasset's estimation, an enormous roadblock to this larger end.

      Ortega y Gasset's prolific writings include Mission of the University (1944), History as a System: Essays Toward a Philosophy of History (1941), and The Dehumanization of Art; and Other Essays on Art, Culture, and Literature (1956).

      David W.Robinson
      Further Readings
      McClintock, R. (1971). Man and his circumstances: Ortega as educator. New York: Teachers College Press.
      Ortega y Gasset, J. (1944). Mission of the university (H. L.Nostrand, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
      Owen, Robert (1771–1858)

      Robert Owen, a wealthy cotton manufacturer turned Utopian visionary, had an important influence on schooling in early nineteenth-century Britain. Convinced that character was determined by the social environment, he instituted disciplinary practices designed to regulate habits and improve industrial efficiency. His success in shaping behavior convinced him that education could be used to engineer a more moral world.

      At New Lanark, a Scottish village dominated by the local cotton mill, Owen attempted to regulate almost every aspect of his workers' lives. Central to his scheme was the village infant school, where he sought to shape character during the impressionable early years of childhood. In an atmosphere of reason and kindness, boys and girls learned an ethic of cooperation and the basic lessons of science. Owen's pedagogy, if not his religious and political views, caught the attention of leading reformers. During the 1820s and 1830s, infant education swept Britain, promising a cure for the social ills of urban-industrial life by instructing working-class children in the rudiments of reason and morality.

      By this time, Owen's thought had taken a radical turn. Disgusted by the economic and social effects of capitalism, he promoted the construction of self-supporting socialist villages. Again, education was the key. Eschewing self-interest, members of the community would be taught to embrace reason, cooperation, and the well-being of all. However, as witnessed in the ill-fated society at New Harmony, Indiana, Owen's dream inevitably fell foul of human nature.

      StephenTomlinson
      Further Readings
      Harrison, J. (1969). Quest for the new moral world. New York: Scribner.
      Peabody, Elizabeth Palmer (1804–1894)

      Elizabeth Palmer Peabody was an American transcendentalist, lecturer in the Concord School of Philosophy, and the leader of the campaign to establish kindergartens in the United States during the second half of the nineteenth century. Committed to reform and highly erudite, Peabody wrote essays on social and educational reform, translated classic and European philosophic texts, served as the editor of the transcendentalist journal The Dial, founded and edited The Kindergarten Messenger, and was the president of the American Froebel Union.

      Peabody was born in Billerica, Massachusetts, and grew up in Salem, Massachusetts. She attended her mother's academy for girls and later studied with Ralph Waldo Emerson and William Ellery Channing. In 1825, Peabody founded the Beacon Hill School in Boston with her sister, Mary, who later became the wife of Horace Mann. Peabody's work at the school attracted the attention of Bronson Alcott, and in 1830, she agreed to join his experimental Temple School in Concord.

      Alcott's classroom discussions of sex and the gospels caused a public controversy, but Peabody defended him in her Record of a School published in 1835. Their collaboration ended in 1837 when Peabody returned to Boston to open a transcendentalist bookstore; organize philosophic discussion groups; and become active in abolitionist, suffragist, and common school causes.

      In 1860, in Boston, Elizabeth Peabody and Mary Peabody Mann opened the first English-speaking kindergarten in the United States. In 1863, they published Guide to the Kindergarten and Moral Culture of Infancy, which was widely considered the most authoritative work in English on the theory and practice of the kindergarten during the 1860s and 1870s. In the late 1860s, Peabody visited German kindergartens and recruited Froebel's students to train kindergarten teachers in Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. Peabody organized a demonstration kindergarten class for the American Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia in 1876, formed a national network for kindergarten teachers, and remained active in the cause well into her eighties.

      Susan DouglasFranzosa
      Further Readings
      Baylor, R. M. (1965). Elizabeth Palmer Peabody: Kindergarten pioneer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
      Peabody, E. P. (1886). Lectures in the training schools for kindergartners. Boston: D.C. Heath.
      Peabody, E. P., & Mann, M. P. (1863). Guide to the kindergarten and moral culture of infancy. Boston: T.O.H.P Burnham.
      Ronda, B. A. (1999). Elizabeth Palmer Peabody: A reformer on her own terms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich (1746–1827)

      Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi was a Christian humanist concerned about the debilitating effects of the Industrial Revolution on the traditional family. He attempted to use the school as a tool for self-fulfillment but, politically astute, sought to balance freedom with the role of the citizen. His work was influenced by the Enlightenment and romanticism.

      Politically and romantically, Pestalozzi championed the rights of the poor and their children, clearly a theme in his most noted work Leonard and Gertrude (1781). In this work, he emphasized the importance of creating an environment of safety and emotional security. Pestalozzi put Rousseau's Émile (1762) into practice. He accepted Rousseau's principle of the innate goodness of children and his idea that education could serve as the foundation for social reform. Like Comenius and Rousseau, Pestalozzi grounded learning in the senses and was attentive to the culture and local environment of the children. This formed the basis for his object lessons, characterized by his attention to form, number, and name.

      Pestalozzis pedagogical approach attracted many, including common school reformers Henry Barnard and Horace Mann, who were intrigued by his moral yet compassionate nurturing school. Pestalozzis early work in the United States was planted by William Maclure and Joseph Neef, later influencing Edward Sheldon at Oswego, New York. Pestalozzis interest in occupations as educational is clearly evident in the work of progressive educators, including John Dewey and William H. Kilpatrick.

      Sam F.StackJr.
      Further Readings
      Gutek, G. (1999). Pestalozzi and education. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
      Piaget, Jean (1896–1980)

      Jean Piaget was a Swiss-born biologist, psychologist, and philosopher who developed the theory of cognitive development for children. Piaget was the codirector of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute in Geneva, Switzerland; director of the International Office of Education; and on staff at the Universities of Paris and Geneva.

      Piaget's academic work led him to the conclusion that life consisted of totalities affecting the thinking processes. Turning to the discipline of psychology, Piaget studied under Carl Jung and worked with Alfred Binet's colleague Theodore Simon to understand intelligence testing. Professor Piaget worked with and studied both children and the teaching process. His writings ultimately influenced a variety of academic disciplines, such as developmental psychology, education, primatology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive and human intelligence.

      Piaget's theory of cognitive development identified four stages: infancy, preschool, childhood, and adolescence. At each stage, a child's understanding is affected by the world in which the child resides. Knowledge is derived from both within and outside the child. The child tests the accumulated knowledge at each stage to reject, modify, or reconstruct the information by assimilation and accommodation processing before advancing to the next stage. The knowledge is organized into schemes for future use.

      Piaget was a prolific writer. His major writings include The Origins of Intelligence in Children (1936), Intelligence and Affectivity (1954), The Psychology of Intelligence (1963), Genetic Epistemology (1970), and Memory and Intelligence (1973).

      William A.Paquette
      Further Readings
      Ginsburg, H. (1988). Piaget's theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
      Palmer, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Fifty modern thinkers on education. London: Routledge.
      Piaget, J. (1997). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
      Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development. New York: Longman.
      Pierce, John Davis (1792–1882)

      The first Superintendent of Public Instruction in the state of Michigan, the Reverend John Davis Pierce was among the vanguard of educationalists in nineteenth-century America. Pierce combined his unique educational vision with Victor Cousin's writings on the Prussian system of public education to create a comprehensive system of schooling. Michigan's system of education and the policies developed by Pierce became the model for many states in the Midwest and West.

      What is most remarkable about Pierce's accomplishments is that, unlike his contemporaries in the field of education, who established their systems of public instruction in the more established states of the East Coast, Pierce carved a public school system, a state university, an agricultural college, and a state teacher's college out of the wilderness of the Michigan Territory.

      Convinced that the organization of schools should unite all levels of schooling in a system provided at public expense and under state control, Pierce was able to convince the authors of Michigan's constitution to create a special department of public education controlled by the state and governed by a state officer—the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Appointed to this new post, Pierce became the first in the United States to hold such an office under a state constitution (1836) and oversee a constitutionally distinct department of education.

      In addition, rather than having the sixteenth-section lands created by the Northwest Ordinance to fund schools allocated to the townships, Michigan's ordinance of admissions was worded so that these school lands were conveyed to the state. Consequently, a state school system rather than a local system of schooling was developed. To ensure that these would be “public” schools, Pierce saw to it that Michigan's constitution became the first to include a specific prohibition against appropriating funds for the use of sectarian or religious institutions.

      Pierce was also determined to create a system of public instruction capped by a single state university. Rather than creating a pool of money from the lands granted to the territory by the U.S. Congress that would be available to any and all who would seek to establish a college, Pierce structured higher education funding into a specific trust to be used only by a single college—the University of Michigan. In addition, Pierce would see to it that the University of Michigan was the only institution able to grant degrees in the state until 1850. He believed that this would make Michigan's state university a stronger institution, avoiding the competition from various interests that would otherwise dilute the state's resources. Like the primary schools, the university was to be open to all citizens. As a result, the University of Michigan became the first Western state university founded and constitutionally maintained on nonsectarian principles.

      To create an intermediate level of schooling and provide access to all citizens, Pierce formed university branches with the dual purpose of preparing teachers for the common schools and more advanced students for admission to the university. These intermediate academies became the first public institutions in the United States engaged in the training of teachers. Established in 1837, these schools were opened prior to the first public normal school in the United States, which opened in Lexington, Massachusetts, in 1839. These schools would be the forerunners of public high schools that would emerge in Michigan and across the country in the 1860s and 1870s.

      Recognizing the need for a method of communicating with his far-flung school system, Pierce established the Monthly Journal of Education in 1838. This publication was the first educational journal west of the Appalachians and the first in the United States to circulate to a whole school system. It preceded by almost a year the publication of the Common School Journal by Horace Mann in Massachusetts.

      Leaving his post in 1841, Pierce continued to influence the development of public education until his death in 1882. He led the way in founding the first normal school west of the Alleghenies in 1849 (today Eastern Michigan University) and the first state-supported agricultural school in 1855 (today Michigan State University). He also played an influential role in the founding and development of the Michigan Schoolmasters Club, a predecessor of today's North Central Association.

      Ronald D.Flowers
      Pinar, William F. (1948-)

      William F. Pinar has been the key scholar to transform much of the scholarship in curriculum studies from issues of design and development to a field focused on understanding through the use of phenomenology and existentialism. Since the publication of his seminal work, Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists in 1975, Pinar has ushered in a powerful movement in curriculum studies that has resulted in a significant shift in the philosophical composition of curriculum scholars, numerous publications devoted to recon-ceptualized curriculum theorizing, and multiple curriculum associations.

      Two primary ideological forces have characterized much of Pinar's work: curriculum as currere and the significance of autobiographical inquiry. Pinar worked with Madeline Grumet to articulate the concept of curriculum as currere—the course to be run. Currere involves an existential experience allowing individuals to see themselves more clearly and thus to be able to run the course more fully aware. Pinar identified four steps within currere: regressive, progressive, analytical, and synthetical. These steps involve autobiographical inquiry in order to understand the educational experience. In doing this, teachers and their students can imagine possible futures.

      Pinar has a long history of publications, including 22 authored or edited books such as The Synoptic Text Today and Other Essays: Curriculum Development After the Reconceptualization (2006), What Is Curriculum Theory? (2004), and Autobiography, Politics, and Sexuality: Essays in Curriculum Theory (1994). In addition to his numerous publications, Pinar's work is evident through the publications and critical work of the many students he has mentored.

      Donna AdairBreault
      Further Readings
      Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., Allen, L. A., Roberts, P. A., & Schubert, W. H. (2007). Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary American memoir (
      2nd ed.
      ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
      Pinar, W. F. (1994). Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory. New York: Peter Lang.
      Plato (c. 427–347 BCE)

      Plato was a thinker in ancient Greece who often wrote in a dialogue format that featured his own teacher, the philosopher Socrates. Plato's legacy, which includes ideas about education and knowledge, has influenced Western thought from his lifetime to the present.

      Plato was born into a patrician, Athenian family, and he likely had a future in politics, but instead he became enthralled with philosophy as a student of Socrates. After Socrates' execution in 399 BCE, Plato traveled around the Mediterranean. Upon returning to Athens, he opened the Academy as a center of learning. Except for two trips to Sicily, he remained in Athens teaching until his death.

      Plato's writing primarily used the dialogue format. Several of the most significant dialogues from each era follow. The early works (Crito, Ion, Meno, and Gorgias) are considered the best repository of the philosophy of Socrates. These works demonstrated a distinct interest in ethics. The middle works (Phaedo, Republic, and Phaedrus) begin to display Plato's own philosophical thinking. The focus of this period moved to issues of truth and justice. The final period of works (Sophist, Philebus, and Timaeus) sees Plato taking a look back at issues that he had previously confronted in a more logical manner.

      For scholars of education, the Republic is likely the most familiar dialogue as it speaks directly to how a population should educate its citizens. A key tenet of Plato's thinking on education was that training on character needed to come before training of the intellect. In modern times, Plato's views have been regarded as elitist and undemocratic because he thought certain types of education should be restricted to people with the best capacities for knowledge.

      AaronCooley
      Further Readings
      Taylor, A. E. (2001). Plato: The man and his work. New York: Dover.
      Postman, Neil (1931–2003)

      Neil Postman was a teacher, a scholar, a journal editor, a general semanticist, a social and cultural critic, a time-binder, a media ecologist, and a public intellectual. Time-binding, which Postman both studied and practiced, refers to humanity's ability to connect to the past, present, and future via language, something Postman accomplished with 18 books and more than 200 articles. His accessible style helped him reach multiple audiences, and in addition to scholarly work, he published in periodicals such as The New York Times Magazine, Harper's, Time, The Washington Post, and Le Monde.

      Although Postman developed and taught in New York University's Media Ecology Program, focusing his attention on America's evolving media landscape, he also devoted significant time to the education of children. “Children,” explained Postman in The Disappearance of Childhood (1982), “are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” Over time, Postman grew increasingly concerned about the condition of that message, as he believed television, “the first curriculum,” and other forms of media were affecting humanity's ability to think critically and independently. Postman feared that technology was replacing culture (Technopoly, 1993), but he never wrote as if it were a forgone conclusion, and he believed that schools could engender a critical consciousness while preserving America's cultural heritage (The End of Education, 1995).

      His significant works include Television and the Teaching of English (1961); Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1969), coauthored with Charles Weingartner; Teaching as a Conserving Activity (1979); Conscientious Objections (1988); and Building a Bridge to the 18th Century (1999).

      Philip EdwardKovacs
      Further Readings
      Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage.
      Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf.
      Pratt, Caroline (1867–1954)

      Caroline Pratt built an educational philosophy on observations of children and is remembered as a visionary in the education of young children and the inventor of unit blocks.

      Born and raised in Fayetteville, New York, Pratt began her career in education at seventeen, teaching in a one-room rural school. Her formal education consisted of two years at Teachers College in New York City. She rejected the then-popular method of kindergarten education advocated by Friedrich Froebel as inappropriate for young children and instead graduated with a certificate in manual training. While teaching at a normal school in Philadelphia, Pratt met Helen Marot, a liberal librarian who became her lifelong companion.

      Pratt and Marot moved to Greenwich Village, New York, in 1901, where Pratt taught manual training. In 1914, Pratt began the Play School with six 5-year-olds from working-class families. Although she resisted being labeled with any specific educational ideology, her school was considered to be the quintessential example of progressive education. The curriculum was centered on children recreating their experiences through play, primarily with unit blocks. These blocks remain a staple in many early childhood classrooms.

      Pratt was an early advocate of field trips, which provided direct experience in learning. The school was a democratic environment in which students held grade-specific jobs. Teachers facilitated a child-centered environment. As grade levels were added, the school grew to pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.

      In 1939, she was recognized for her work in bringing her educational practices to public schools in the New York area. She retired as principal emérita in 1945. Many private progressive schools came and went during the early part of the twentieth century, but her school, renamed the City and Country School, still thrives in Greenwich Village.

      Mary E.Háuser
      Further Readings
      Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of tomorrow. New York: Dutton.
      Hauser, M. (2006). Learning from children: The life and legacy of Caroline Pratt. New York: Peter Lang.
      Pratt, C. (1948). I learn from children. New York: Harper & Row.
      Sadovnik, A., & Semel, S. (Eds.). (2002). Founding mothers and others: Women educational leaders in the Progressive Era. New York: Palgrave.
      Semel, S., & Sadovnik, A. (Eds.). (1999). “Schools of tomorrow,” schools of today: What happened to progressive education?New York: Peter Lang.
      Ravitch, Diane (1938-)

      Diane Ravitch is a historian of education and educational reformer who has written extensively on all aspects of American culture that relate to education.

      She was born the third of eight children in Houston, Texas, where she attended public elementary and secondary school. She completed her BA degree at Wellesley College in 1960. After having children and spending time at home as a mother, she completed her Ph.D. degree in history at Columbia University's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in 1975. Her mentor was educational historian Lawrence Cremin, who later became president of Columbia's Teachers College.

      In 1974, while completing the requirements for her degree, Ravitch published her first book, The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public Schools. The book was accepted in 1975 as her dissertation, the first published work to be accepted as a doctoral dissertation at Teachers College.

      Ravitch served as adjunct professor of history and education at Teachers College from 1975 to 1991. She published her second major book, The Revisionists Revised: A Critique of the Radical Attack on the Schools, in 1978. In this work, she criticized 1960s-era historians for their depiction of schools as oppressive institutions that merely reproduced class distinctions. In contrast to this negative interpretation, Ravitch described how schools can and have served as liberating institutions that provide opportunities for students to rise out of their impoverished situations. The book inspired much heated conversation, which helped to raise Ravitch's name to a nationwide audience.

      In 1983, Ravitch published a third book on the history of education, but this time she expanded her topic to cover the entire United States. The result was The Troubled Crusade: American Education, 1945–1980. During the mid-1980s, Ravitch began to direct her research more toward policy makers and less toward an audience of strictly scholars and historians. Major changes were taking place in American education and politics during this time.

      The highly influential A Nation at Risk report was released in 1983, and Ravitch became deeply involved in many of the reform movements that grew out of it. The policy-minded turn in her work is evident in her next book, The Schools We Deserve: Reflections on the Educational Crisis of Our Time, which appeared in 1985. As the subtitle of the book indicates, Ravitch's ideal was no longer the publication of straightforward history; rather, her goal was to influence education in practical ways by producing scholarship that spoke directly to policy makers and others who have an impact everyday on the teaching of children and youth in America's schools.

      In 1988, Ravitch was the lead writer of the California Framework for History-Social Science Education. As part of this work, she became an outspoken advocate for the revival of history in the school curriculum and was a founder of the National Council for History Education. This work coincided with the publication of What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?, which she coauthored with Chester Finn, Jr.

      Ravitch's work on educational policy continued to gain national attention, which culminated in her appointment as Assistant Secretary of Education by President George H. W. Bush in 1991. At this point, Ravitch left Teachers College to serve as Assistant Secretary from 1991 to 1993. During this time, she helped to create the Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement. As Assistant Secretary, she also spearheaded the federal government's effort to promote the creation of state and national academic standards.

      After the completion of two years as Assistant Secretary, Ravitch accepted an invitation to become a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., where she wrote National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide. In 1994, she returned to New York City, where she joined the faculty at New York University as a Research Professor of Education, a position she continues to hold today. Ravitch remains affiliated with the Brookings Institution as holder of the Brown Chair on Education Studies and a nonresident Visiting Fellow.

      During the late 1990s, Ravitch returned her attention to writing on the history of education. In 2000, she published Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform, which continues to be discussed widely in both history and education policy circles. She also recently published The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, which describes the distorted world of textbook creation and provides suggestions on how it may be improved. In addition to these and other single-authored works, Ravitch has edited fourteen books.

      Ravitch has received numerous awards, including membership in societies such as the National Academy of Education (1979), the Society of American Historians (1984), and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1985). In 2005, she received the John Dewey Award for Excellence in Education from the United Federation of Teachers. She also has received honorary degrees from eight institutions, including Williams College, Amherst College, and the State University of New York.

      J. WesleyNull
      Further Readings
      Ravitch, D. (1974). The great school wars: A history of the New York City public schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
      Ravitch, D. (1978). The revisionists revised: A critique of the radical attack on the schools. New York: Basic Books.
      Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade: American education, 1945–1980. New York: Basic Books.
      Ravitch, D. (1985). The schools we deserve: Reflections on the educational crisis of our time. New York: Basic Books.
      Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen's guide. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
      Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster.
      Ravitch, D. (2003). The language police: How pressure groups restrict what students learn. New York: Knopf.
      Ravitch, D., & Finn, C., Jr. (Eds.). (1987). What do our 17-year-olds know?New York: Harper & Row.
      Rice, Joseph Mayer (1857–1934)

      Joseph Mayer Rice, born in Philadelphia, was a pediatrician and school reformer of the 1890s who wrote a series of articles on teaching methods used in urban school systems. Educational historians describe him as a pioneer of educational measurement and the progressive movement in education. Others have argued that he is the first modern education reporter.

      Rice's interest in physical fitness programs in New York City public schools led to an interest in the schools as educational institutions. In 1888, he embarked on a career-altering journey to study psychology and pedagogy in Germany, a place known at the time as the center for such study. After his return to the United States, Rice examined the state of American education in a series of articles in the Forum in 1892 and 1893, criticizing U.S. education as unscientific and comparing it to instruction in the Middle Ages.

      During a six-month trip from Boston to Minneapolis, Rice visited schools in thirty-six cities to document instructional methods, note general conditions of the schools, and investigate how schools were managed. Rice's criteria for evaluating a school included the appearance of the room, attitude of the teachers toward children, manner of recitation, the busy-work given, the teacher's pedagogical knowledge, attendance at school meetings, and efforts at intellectual self-improvement. Despite citing these complex variables, Rice made judgments about schools based mostly on how they used “new education” methods in place of antiquated mechanical methods, which amounted to the memorization of facts. “New education” focused on the learner, and whether interest, meaning, and understanding were being developed.

      Rice's report was highly critical, citing only four school systems, located in the Midwest, as approaching the educational ideal based on the German schools he had visited. This investigation, although rudimentary by today's standards of educational measurement, is often considered a seminal part of the progressive or reform movement of the early 1900s because it brought the idea of reform to public consciousness, eventually leading to organization and action for this cause. Additionally, the prevailing educational theories and classroom methods of the 1800s that came under Rice's scrutiny did little to enlighten an educational system dealing with increasing numbers of students enrolling in public schools, including many immigrants in urban settings.

      Rice's findings were published in what is often cited as the first widely read series of articles on American education. Although European educational pioneers such as Pestalozzi, Herbart, and Froebel had written about progressive education decades earlier, Rice's work was essential to American society during a time of change in the schools' role that emphasized the importance of education for a successful future. Educational historian Lawrence Cremin, in The Transformation of the School (1961), cites Rice as one of the fathers of progressive education.

      Rice is also recognized as an originator of comparative methodology in educational research. His spelling investigation of thousands of children that began in 1895 is often considered the first full-scale comparative “experiment” ever done in schools and published. This research, described in Rice's “The Futility of the Spelling Grind” (1897), is less memorable for its results than for its lasting impact in the world of educational measurement. The most commonly established conclusion from Rice's data seems to be a lack of relationship between minutes per day devoted to drill in spelling and achievement in spelling.

      Although Rice's work has raised concerns with reliability, validity, and variability, his efforts to conduct widespread testing were pioneering in an era before modern statistical methodologies were available. Rice's intuitive comments on the challenges of experimentation using school groups rather than random assignment and other insights on educational measurement came at a time when such an exercise was considered unnecessary or irrelevant. Even though Rice's study laid the groundwork for research by Thorndike and Terman, it is clear from Rice's later writings that he believed his mark on educational reform and measurement did not receive the recognition he felt it deserved in academic circles.

      Lina LopezChiappone
      Further Readings
      Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Knopf.
      Rice, J. M.The futility of the spelling grind, I and II. Forum, 232009., 163–172, 409–419.
      Stanley, J. C.Rice as a pioneer educational researcher. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32009., 135–139.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1966.tb00869.x
      Richman, Julia (1855–1912)

      Julia Richman was a nationally recognized nineteenth-century educator and reformer in the New York City school system, the first female and first Jew to be appointed a district superintendent in the city's schools. Richman's reform efforts focused on the Americanization of immigrant children, as she believed strongly in the school's ability to socialize immigrants for a successful life in the United States. Working with the schools of New York City's Lower East Side immigrant communities, she enacted such progressive practices as English-language immersion classes and continuous, rather than yearly or social, promotion.

      Eschewing the expectations of her traditional Jewish middle-class upbringing, Richman chose to pursue a lifelong career in education. She graduated from normal school at age 17, entering the New York City public schools as a grammar school teacher; Richman was later appointed to the position of grammar school principal, which preceded her appointment to district superintendent.

      Throughout her career, Richman advocated the socializing capacity of the public school and worked to refashion immigrant children into American citizens. To that end, Richman's reforms were both educational and social, from teaching particular aspects of hygiene and American culture to immigrant children to training immigrant students in specific vocational skills.

      MelanieShoffner
      Further Readings
      Berrol, S. C. (1993). Julia Richman: A notable woman. Philadelphia: Balch Institute Press.
      Rogers, Carl R. (1902–1987)

      Carl R. Rogers was an American psychologist, psychotherapist, and the acknowledged father of humanist psychology, which he named both client-centered and later person-centered psychotherapy. Rogers developed his theories of psychotherapy as a professor at a series of universities that included Ohio State, the University of Chicago, and the University of Wisconsin before joining the staff at the Western Behavioral Studies Institute and later founding his Center for Studies of the Person in La Jolla, California.

      Professor Rogers's ideas centered on the client or person and developed from his travels and experiences in China, the seminary, and the study of children at Columbia Teachers College. In On Becoming a Person (1961), Rogers detailed how he abandoned preconceived categories to interpret human behaviors in favor of listening to the client by establishing an accepting, empathetic relationship to gain insight that would enable the person to reshape his or her life and reduce the deployment of defense mechanisms, particularly distortion and denial. Rogers was frequently criticized for his failure to analyze and diagnose. Rogers's ideas were built on the earlier theories of Abraham Maslow in encouraging individuals to seek a positive direction, achieve self-actualization, gain maturity, and become more socialized.

      Rogers was the founder of the American Association for Applied Psychology and the American Academy of Psychotherapists, and also the president of the American Psychological Association. His writings include Client-Centered Therapy (1951), Person to Person: The Problem of Being Human (1967), Freedom to Learn (1969), and Carl Rogers on Personal Power (1977).

      William A.Paquette
      Further Readings
      Demorest, A. (2005). Psychology's grand theorists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
      Nye, R. D. (1996). Three psychologies: Perspectives from Freud, Skinner, and Rogers. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
      Thome, B. (2003). Carl Rogers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446215135
      Rogers, William Barton (1804–1882)

      William Barton Rogers is best known as the conceptual founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). A common thread that runs through his writings is the social dislocation of laboring classes affected by industrialization. His educational reform efforts were directed at addressing this dislocation by way of formal instruction in the practical and theoretical branches of science.

      Born in Philadelphia to a family of scientists (his father and three brothers all were professors of science), his early studies were largely scientific at home under his father's instruction. At age fifteen, he enrolled at the College of William and Mary; later taught at his alma mater; and, in 1835, became professor of natural philosophy at the University of Virginia until 1853. While in the South, he directed the first geological survey of Virginia, published widely on geological and natural philosophical topics, and drafted two major proposals for schools of science or “polytechnic institutes.”

      Rogers's ideas about developments in antebellum education and society informed the founding of MIT in 1861. The specific plan he advocated for MIT included three major components: a society of arts, a museum of technology, and a school of science. Of the three branches, the school of science attracted the most attention and became the primary focus of the public's response to the idea of the Institute. Rogers became the Institute's first president as well as professor of physics and geology. He died in the midst of delivering a commencement speech at the Institute in 1882.

      A. J.Angulo
      Further Readings
      Angulo, A. J. (in press). William Barton Rogers and the idea of MIT. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
      Rosenblatt, Louise (1904–2004)

      Louise Rosenblatt holds a unique position in the fields of education and literary studies. This legendary authority engaged in teaching teachers of literature and in researching the teaching of literature. In 1992, her peers elected her to membership in the Reading Hall of Fame.

      Her 1938 publication Literature as Exploration is still in print and is one of the most widely cited works of its type. In this and dozens of other publications such as The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (1978), she outlines a theory of reading as a transactional process. According to her, the reader brings to the text his or her past experience and present personality. This revolutionary idea—based in an anthropological and social perspective—challenged the authority of the author and emphasized the importance of the reader and his or her experience in the interpretation of a text.

      Rosenblatt began her career teaching courses in introductory literature and composition. It was out of this context that she developed her particular approach to reading that proposed that efferent and aesthetic purposes for reading influence the meaning and comprehension of a text. She wanted to be remembered for “teaching for democracy.”

      Rosenblatt attended Barnard College, the women's college at Columbia University in New York City. Her roommate in college was Margaret Mead, the world-renowned anthropologist. She completed her doctoral studies in comparative literature at the Sorbonne (University of Paris) in 1931. She taught at Barnard College (from 1927 to 1938), Brooklyn College (from 1938 to 1948), and New York University's School of Education (from 1948 to 1972). Upon retirement, she taught doctoral candidates at Rutgers University, Michigan State University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Miami.

      PhilomenaMarinaccio-Eckel
      Further Readings
      Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Appleton-Century.
      Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
      Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712–1778)

      Best known as a philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wanted to be a composer and moved from his home in Geneva to Paris, where he spent most of his life, to pursue this career. He had some success, but he became more interested in political debates through his association with Diderot.

      Rousseau began writing, and his first major work was Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. His most widely known work is the Social Contract, published in 1762. In it, Rousseau contends that sovereignty should be extended over the citizenry and that the general will is communicated through legislative objectives. This general will supports liberty, equality, and fraternity among the populace. One can see how these ideas would be exploited during the excesses of the French Revolution.

      Throughout his work, Rousseau maintained that people were good-natured, though often led astray and corrupted by society. He acknowledged that corruption came from within people, but it was sustained and enlarged by societal pressures such as competition. However, Rousseau was not pessimistic on the prospect for improvement in humankind. Quite the contrary, he thought that individual people had the potential to contribute to a new and different basis for society that would engender a better future for all people. For Rousseau, a main avenue for this revolution in thought and action would come from education, which he detailed in his Émile, also published in 1762.

      AaronCooley
      Further Readings
      Damrosch, L. (2005). Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless genius. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
      Rousseau, J.-J. (1979). Émile: Or on education. New York: Basic Books.
      Rugg, Harold (1886–1960)

      Harold Rugg was a professor at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, and his work as a curriculum writer was linked with several educational ideologies from the twentieth century. These included not only scientific curriculum-making and child-centered education, but especially social reconstructionism. His greatest contribution was the articulation of a fused social studies curriculum conceived out of several individual disciplines.

      Into this kind of reconstructionist, interdisciplinary approach to curriculum, begun in the 1920s and extending into the 1940s, Rugg injected a new vision of America. His six-volume textbook series, Man in a Changing Society (1929–1937) for junior high school students, represented the apex of his achievements as a curriculum reformer. Cutting across these textbooks and his other curriculum writings was the thinking of a social progressive. Eschewing the dry memorization of isolated and meaningless facts in school knowledge, Rugg sought a means to challenge students to think about drawing interconnections between the great economic, social, and political ideas of the age. With a reformist zeal, Rugg drew together a series of generalizations from history and the social sciences that he felt represented the “glue” for higher-thinking process.

      Unlike most other curriculum writers in the social studies, Rugg placed special emphasis on the importance of understanding the dynamics of propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion under both democracy and dictatorship. The tone of social protest that laced much of his curriculum material encouraged a growing conservative opposition to his work during the late 1930s.

      Although receding into the background with the advent of World War II, Rugg's curriculum ideals re-emerged once again during the tumultuous 1960s.

      Gregory PaulWegner
      Further Readings
      Carbonne, P. (1977). The social and educational thought of Harold Rugg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
      Riley, K., and Stern, B.Reflecting on the common good: Harold Rugg and the social reconstructionists. Social Studies, 922009., 56–59.
      Salmon, Lucy Maynard (1853–1927)

      Lucy Maynard Salmon was a highly accomplished academic leader during the Progressive Era, at a time when opportunities for women were extremely limited. During her forty-year Vassar College career, she earned a reputation as a nationally prominent historian, suffrage advocate, author, and teacher.

      Having earned bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan in 1876 and 1883, respectively, Salmon took advanced graduate studies from Bryn Mawr professor, and future U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson. Before she began an academic career, Salmon worked in K-12 education. She taught high school in McGregor, Iowa; later, she became the principal of the high school. She also taught at the State Normal School in Terre Haute, Indiana. A pioneer educator, Salmon continued her career in education by teaching history at Vassar College from 1887–1927.

      In her work, Salmon clearly dismissed the notion that memory by itself was a primary value of history learning. She insisted that historical studies should cover a broad range of topics and that critical thinking skills and independent research should be encouraged for both mature and young students. Salmon's beliefs about the nature of history and her pedagogical practices constitute an important aspect of her legacy.

      A leader in many fields, Salmon helped found the American Association of University Women, the American Association of University Professors, and the Middle States Council for the Social Studies. Clearly a prominent academic leader, Salmon was the only woman to serve on the American Historical Association's Committee of Seven and the first woman to be elected to its Executive Council. An advocate of the new social history, Salmon's teaching methods were novel at the time and continue to be relevant today.

      Chara HaeusslerBohan
      Further Readings
      Bohan, C. H. (2004). Go to the sources. New York: Peter Lang.
      Brown, L. F. (1943). Apostle of democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
      Sanchez, George I. (1906–1972)

      George I. Sanchez was a leader and mentor to leaders in the Mexican American community who came after him, but his contributions to equity issues for Mexican Americans remain little known to the general public. Sanchez's contributions were recognized by a retrospective at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley in 1984, which recognized him as the single most influential person in the area of law in the pursuit of equity for Hispanics.

      Sanchez was born in New Mexico Territory and was educated in Albuquerque and Jerome, Arizona. He received his bachelor's degree in Spanish from the University of New Mexico, his master's in educational psychology from the University of Texas, and his doctorate in educational administration from the University of California, Berkeley. His master's thesis concerned the use of intelligence testing with Spanish-speaking students. His master's and doctorate were funded by grants from the General Education Board (GEB), a Rockefeller foundation.

      After Sanchez completed his doctorate in 1934, he returned to New Mexico, where he served as Director of Information and Statistics for the New Mexico Education Agency, a position funded by the GEB. As the president of the New Mexico Teachers Association, he was a leader in an early fight for equity in school funding for rural and urban districts. During the latter part of the 1930s, he served as a research associate for the Julius Rosenwald Fund, a fund that was noted for building more than 6,000 schools for African Americans in the South. His field research for the Rosenwald Fund led to his book Mexico: A Revolution by Education. From 1937–1938, he served as director of the Instituto Pedagógica Nacional, a normal school for secondary teachers in Venezuela.

      In 1940, his book Forgotten People: A Study of New Mexicans, which resulted from his work for the Carnegie Foundation, was published; he became president-elect of the League of Latin American Citizens; and he accepted a position at the University of Texas in Austin as a full professor with tenure. During the 1940s, he wrote Spanish textbooks, taught, wrote The People: A Study of the Navajo, served for a time as a part-time consultant for the U.S. Office of Civil Defense on Latin America, and began his interest in attaining equity through the courts.

      After World War II, he became interested in a California equity case, Méndez v. Westminster (1946). This inspired him to walk several school districts with a young lawyer, James De Anda, within the Colorado Common School District near Austin, Texas, and note the discrepancies between schools built for “Latins” and those built for “Anglos.” The information he gathered resulted in a lawsuit that ended in an agreed judgment. The judge ruled that the Texas State Board of Education must adopt a formal policy against the discrimination of Spanish-surname children on the basis of the surname. This policy was cited in future discrimination cases.

      In the early 1950s, Sanchez worked with Carlos Cadena and Gustavo Garcia on developing the brief for the first case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning discrimination against Hispanics, Hernandez v. Texas (1954), which was decided unanimously in favor of the plaintiff two weeks before Brown v. Board of Education. These two cases gave legal precedents to attorneys fighting against discrimination.

      Until he died in 1972, Sanchez was called as an expert witness in equity cases concerning Mexican Americans, especially schoolchildren. His master's thesis, “A Study of Scores of Spanish-Speaking Children on Repeated Tests,” was the first study of its kind for many years and served as the landmark case in that area. As a result of this thesis, he often was called as an expert witness.

      In 1995, the University of Texas at Austin named the College of Education the George I. Sanchez College of Education. Schools in Texas and California also have been named for him. During his lifetime, he served as a member of the editorial board of The Nation's Schools; as a consultant to the U.S. Office of the Interior, the U.S. Office of Education on migrants, and the Navajo Tribal Council; as a member of John F Kennedy's Committee of Fifty on New Frontier Policy in the Americas; as a board member of the Migrant Children's Fund; and as a member of the National Advisory Committee for the Peace Corps.

      Martha MayTevis
      Further Readings
      Romo, R.George I. Sanchez and the civil rights movement: 1940–1960La Raza Law Journal, 7 (3) 2009., 342–362.
      Sanchez, G. I.Bilingualism and mental measures: A word of caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 182009., 765–772.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0072798
      Sanchez, G. I. (1936). Mexico: A revolution by education. New York: Viking.
      Sanchez, G. I. (1940). Forgotten people: A study of New Mexicans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
      Sanchez, G. I. (1948). The people: A study of the Navajo. Washington, DC: U.S. Indian Service.
      San Miguel, G. (1987). Let all of them take heed: Mexican Americans and the campaign for educational equality in Texas, 1910–1981. Austin: University of Texas Press.
      Tevis, M. M. (2007). G. I.Sanchez, In Encyclopedia of activism and social justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
      Wiley, T. (1965). Politics and Purse Strings in New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
      Sarason, Seymour B. (1919-)

      Considered the founder of community psychology and a leader in the practice of clinical psychology, Seymour Sarason was born in Brooklyn, New York, and earned his BA from the University of Newark. He earned an MA and Ph.D. from Clark University, completing the latter degree in 1942. From 1942–1946, he served as chief psychologist at the Southbury Training School in Connecticut. He then taught at Yale University from 1946 until his retirement in 1989.

      In the area of education, he studied anxiety and children as well as the problems of the mentally challenged in schools. His interests included the preparation of teachers and the culture of schools. He was an advocate of the application of psychological principles to the problems of schooling. The best known of his more than thirty books are his 1971 work, The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change and Schooling in America: Scapegoat and Salvation, which was published in 1983. In the first of these, he took up the complex relationships between students and teachers and teachers and administrators. In 1996, the American Educational Research Association held a symposium celebrating the 25th anniversary of the initial publication of The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. That same year, a third edition of the book, under the title Revisiting the Culture of the School and the Problem of Change, was published. During his long career, he has been honored by the American Psychological Association four times, including the Gold Medal Award for Life Contribution by a Psychologist in the Public Interest. Sarason also received two awards from the American Association on Mental Deficiency.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
      Sarason, S. B. (1983). Schooling in America: Scapegoat and salvation. New York: Free Press.
      Sarason, S. B. (1988). The making of an American psychologist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
      Scheffler, Israel (1923-)

      Israel Scheffler has been a key figure in philosophy of education in the United States and, indeed, along with R. S. Peters in Great Britain, is the preeminent philosopher of education in the English-speaking world in the second half of the twentieth century.

      Scheffler has made four major contributions to philosophy of education. First is his introduction of methods of logical analysis—attention to language, clarity, objectivity of method, and careful and rigorous argumentation. Second is his utilization of these methods to pursue issues of value in an effort to develop our most defensible conceptions of education, teaching, and so on, so as to have the best possible understanding of education, and of educational aims and ideals, which in turn most adequately serve educational practice. Third is his development of specific accounts of key educational concepts: (1) education, namely, the conception of education aimed at the fostering of rationality; and (2) teaching, namely, as an activity restricted by manner such that the teacher must submit his or her teaching and the substance of what is taught to the independent judgment of the student, respect the student's sense of reason and reasonableness, and treat students with respect, and as a concept with a deeply moral component that cannot be understood or analyzed behavioristically. Fourth is his demonstration of the benefits to be gained by bringing philosophy of education into close contact with general philosophy, and the mistake of removing philosophy of education from contact with its parent discipline.

      As with any broad philosophical position, there is room for critical reaction, and philosophers have criticized various aspects of Scheffler's views. In particular, some have questioned whether philosophy of education should be viewed as solely a matter of rigorous logical analysis; whether philosophy of education need be as intimately connected with general philosophy as Scheffler suggests; whether teaching is rightly analyzed in moral rather than behavioral or other terms; and whether the fostering of rationality really is as basic to education as Scheffler argues.

      Whatever the case, Scheffler has set a standard for serious work in philosophy of education that, in its way, is his most important contribution of all.

      HarveySiegel
      Note: This entry is adapted from a chapter in Fifty Modern Thinkers on Education, ed. J. Palmer (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 142–148, and is used with the permission of Cengage Learning Services Limited, on behalf of Taylor & Francis Books (UK).
      Further Readings
      Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of education. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
      Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge: An introduction to epistemology and education. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
      Scheffler, I. (1989). Reason and teachingIndianapolis, IN: Hackett.
      Schön, Donald Alan (1930–1997)

      Donald Alan Schön, skilled first as a philosopher, is most known for his work with the development of reflective practice and learning systems within communities. His innovative ideas of a learning society and reflection-in-action have become important, well-known terms in education. Schön's work is grounded in lohn Dewey's theory of inquiry. Starting with Dewey's concept of thinking in problematic situations, he moved beyond this by clarifying the process of practical inquiry. His life's work was devoted to encouraging individuals to be constantly effective in practice.

      Schön was born in Boston and raised in Brookline and Worcester. He graduated from Brookline High School in 1947 and Phi Beta Kappa from Yale in 1951. He studied philosophy at Yale and at the Sorbonne. He received a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship and continued his education at Harvard, where he earned his master's and doctorate in philosophy. The focus of his doctoral dissertation was lohn Dewey's theory of inquiry.

      Schön taught philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles, briefly before serving two years in the U.S. Army. He also lectured periodically during this time as an assistant professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas City. In 1963, he joined the Department of Commerce in the Kennedy administration and directed a new Institute for Applied Technology in the Bureau of Standards. In 1966, he left government service and returned to Cambridge, where he cofounded and directed the Organization for Social and Technological Innovation (OSTI), a nonprofit social research and development firm.

      Schön believed that change was a fundamental feature in life and that change was necessary in order to develop social systems that could learn and adapt. He argued for the need to learn, understand, guide, influence, and manage these transformations. Schön wanted people to become adept at learning, a theme he wrote about in Beyond the Stable State.

      In 1972, Schön was appointed Ford Professor of Urban Planning and Education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he maintained until his retirement in 1992.

      He was committed to developing alternatives in which actual practices acquired from experience (rather than science) constituted the core of professional knowledge. It was this thinking, conceptualized in his 1983 book The Reflective Practitioner, that created a new model for higher education. In 1987, Schön published Educating the Reflective Practitioner in which he created a model for reflection-in-action and examined implications for improving professional education.

      From 1990–1992, Schön served as the Chair of MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning. He died from leukemia at age 66. At the time of his death, he was Ford Professor Emeritus and senior lecturer in MIT's School of Architecture and Planning.

      Jodi C.Marshall
      Further Readings
      Schön, D. (1967). Technology and change: The new Heraclitus. New York: Delacorte.
      Schön, D. (1971). Beyond the stable state: Public and private learning in a changing society. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
      Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
      Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
      Schubert, William H. (1944-)

      William H. Schubert is professor of Education, University Scholar, coordinator of the Ph.D. in Curriculum Studies, and formerly the chair of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he has worked since 1975.

      Schubert grew up on a farm within a family of educators in Butler, Indiana; received his bachelor's degree from Manchester College (1966); received his master's degree from Indiana University (1967); taught in Downers Grove, Illinois; and received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1975).

      Schubert's scholarship, teaching, and service focus on curriculum theory, history, and development, especially on the place of teachers, learners, and nonschool educators in progressive endeavors. He has authored more than 150 articles and book chapters; presented 200 papers at scholarly conferences; and (with colleagues) has written and edited 14 books, including Curriculum Books: The First Eighty Years (1980); Conceptions of Curriculum Knowledge: Focus on Teachers and Students (1982); Toward Excellence in Curriculum Inquiry (1985); Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (1986/1997); Reflections From the Heart of Curriculum Inquiry (1991); Teacher Lore: Learning From Our Own Experience (1992); The American Curriculum (1993); Turning Points in Curriculum (2000/2007); and Curriculum Books: The First Hundred Years (2002).

      Schubert has chaired more than 40 doctoral dissertations (and served on more than 100 others). His award-winning teaching uses original role-playing he commonly calls “guest speakers” to portray diverse curriculum orientations, a style he also uses in consulting and writing. Five of his frequently used fictionalized personae include a social behaviorist, an experientialist, an intellectual traditionalist, a critical reconstructionist, and a postmodernist.

      Schubert's recognitions and awards include president of The Society for the Study of Curriculum History, president of the John Dewey Society, president of the Society of Professors of Education, factotum of Professors of Curriculum, chair of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Special Interest Group on Critical Issues in Curriculum, secretary and program chair of the AERA Curriculum Studies Division, and vice president of AERA. He is associate editor of Educational Theory and currently serves or has served on the editorial boards of Educational Studies, Phenomenology and Pedagogy, Teaching Education, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Curriculum and Teaching, Taboo, and Educational Horizons, as well as being a member of the ASCD Publications Committee. Schubert is an elected member of Professors of Curriculum and Tlie International Academy of Education. He received the AERA Lifetime Achievement Award in 2004 and the Mary Anne Raywid Award from the Society of Professors of Education in 2007.

      Schubert works to keep alive basic curriculum questions: What's worthwhile? What is worth knowing, needing, experiencing, doing, being, becoming, overcoming, sharing, and contributing? Why, how, when, where, and with what consequences? Who decides these matters, and who should decide them? Who benefits? Who should benefit more fully? Schubert strongly believes that we need to embody such questions in all of the educational situations of our lives—past, present, and possible.

      Brian D.Schultz
      Further Readings
      Schubert, W. H. (1997). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.
      Schwab, Joseph J. (1909–1988)

      Joseph J. Schwab developed the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which proposed changes to the way biology was taught at most high schools by centering the curriculum on key biological concepts.

      Schwab was born in Columbus, Mississipi; studied at the University of Chicago as an undergraduate; and went on to earn his Ph.D. in biology there in 1938. He taught at the University of Chicago from 1938–1974, where he was professor of both biology and education. His articles on the philosophy and teaching of science appeared in the 1962 book The Teaching of Science. His primary work on educational theory appeared in Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education,which was published in 1978. He is also noted for his 1969 book College Curriculum and Student Protest, his analysis of the campus protests of the 1960s. During his long retirement, he held fellowships at Harvard University and the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Schwab, J. J. (1969). College curriculum and student protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Schweitzer, Albert (1875–1965)

      Nobel Peace Laureate Albert Schweitzer helped readers think intelligently and imaginatively about the values and purposes of education. Schweitzer's decision to dedicate his life to medical service in equatorial Africa came after years of study and reflection in other disciplines.

      As a young man, Schweitzer was a noted Biblical scholar, minister, organist, and author of a number of philosophical and theological works before choosing to study medicine in 1905 at the age of 30. He encouraged others to “find their own Lambaréné” in their lives and communities, where they could construct and enact their own moral narratives. Schweitzer's legacy for current educational practice is in three particular areas: education for service, education for environmental awareness, and education for hospitality and community.

      First, Schweitzer's philosophy of life and his actions demonstrate that education should teach people how to serve others and their world rather than to be mere consumers. Second, through an interpretation of his principle “Reverence for Life,” Schweitzer offers an understanding of the environment as more than home and neighborhood, as nature itself, an organic, living source of all that has value. Finally, education in learning the arts of hospitality helps people to form meaningful, respectful, fulfilling communities of learning.

      Anthony G.Rud
      Further Readings
      Schweitzer, A. (1998). Out of my life and thought (A. B.Lemke, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
      Sizer, Theodore R. (1932-)

      Theodore R. Sizer is the founder and Chair Emeritus of the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), a national network of schools and centers engaged in restructuring and redesigning schools to promote better learning. Sizer and his school-based colleagues have rejected top-down models of educational reform for reform that is shaped by the local school community and conforms to a set of ten common principles that emphasizes equity, personalization, and intellectual vibrancy for all children.

      After receiving his BA from Yale in 1953, Sizer spent two years in active military duty and taught at the high school level before completing his Ph.D. in education and American history at Harvard University in 1963. He became Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1964 and, subsequently, Headmaster of Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, in 1972. In 1981, he became a director of the project, “A Study of High Schools,” a five-year investigation of teaching, learning, and school history and design. This work led to his publishing of Horace's Compromise (1984), the story of Horace, a fictitious high school English teacher who is deeply committed to teaching well, but is overwhelmed by the demands of a job that has curtailed his time with students.

      In 1984, a group of twelve schools in seven states agreed to redesign themselves on the basis of Sizer's ideas and formed the Coalition of Essential Schools. Sizer, who had relocated to Brown University the year before, formed a team of colleagues to support these schools in their efforts. Within a decade, more than 100 public and private schools had affiliated with CES, and the movement began to influence basic-level educational reform strongly, and to a lesser degree, university partnerships and state educational policies. In 1992, Sizer published Horace's School, which described the vision and general plan for the redesign of American high schools to become smaller, safer, more personalized learning environments.

      In the third book of the series, Horace's Hope (1997), Sizer reflects on his visits to several CES schools and on their progress in the adoption of common principles over a decade of reform. A national CES office, funded by the Annenberg Foundation, was established in the mid-1990s to develop regional CES centers throughout the country. By 2003, nineteen regional centers were offering direct support to schools in the areas of school design, classroom practice, leadership, and community connections.

      Sizer, a founding director of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, has continued his reform efforts by partnering with his wife, Nancy Faust Sizer, in coleading a CES charter school and publishing The Students Are Watching: Schools and the Moral Contract (1999). In his memoir, The Red Pencil (2004), Sizer draws upon his fifty years in schooling to alert policy makers to heed the differences between learning and teaching, question who has authentic authority over the child, and challenge the prevailing fetish for order in schooling.

      Cheryl TaylorDesmond
      Further Readings
      Sizer, T. (2004). The red pencil. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
      Skinner, Burrhus Frederic (1904–1990)

      Burrhus Frederic (B. F.) Skinner is known as the leading proponent of behaviorism. First introduced in 1913 by John B. Watson, the theory of behaviorism focuses on observable events as the basis for understanding human thought and learning. Behaviorism rejects the ideas of internal mental states or the subconscious as legitimate means of psychological knowledge. Skinner expanded on these ideas, inventing the “Skinner Box” to test his theories on animals. The Skinner Box allowed animals to choose between a series of levers, with the correct choice leading to a reward, usually food. Skinner also created and tested the educational theory of programmed learning. Programmed learning is designed to let students proceed at their own pace and rewards them for correct answers. Skinner wrote about this application of his theories in The Analysis of Behavior: A Program for Self-Instruction (1961) and The Technology of Teaching (1968).

      Skinner was born in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania. He earned his Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard in 1931 and taught and did research at that institution for most of his career, retiring as Professor Emeritus at Harvard in 1974.

      Although he wrote extensively in his field, Skinner was made famous outside the world of academic psychology by the 1948 publication of his controversial book Walden Two. Here, Skinner posited a Utopian world based on his behaviorist theories. His other widely read and equally controversial work, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, was published in 1971.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Nye, R. D. (1992). The legacy of B. F. Skinner: Concepts and perspectives, controversies and misunderstandings. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
      O'Donohue, W. T., & Ferguson, K. E. (2001). The psychology of B. F Skinner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
      Socrates (469–399 BCE)

      Socrates, one of the most significant thinkers and teachers of the ancient Western world, lived in Athens during the time of its greatness under Pericles, as well as the greatly troubled years of conflict and decline that followed Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Most of what is known about Socrates comes to us through the memory and pen of Plato, his most notable student, since Socrates apparently wrote no works himself. His name, however, has been attached to the style of teaching he apparently developed: the Socratic method.

      Living a simple life, Socrates embodied the spirit of the inquiring mind and the natural teacher. He sought to engage his hearers in dialogues about topics that would take them beyond the mundane issues of life and lead them to true self-knowledge, fearlessly probing the nature of truth, beauty, virtue, and even the gods themselves. His practice of using searching questions, often laced with irony, to provoke listeners to first state the obvious, and then lead them via further questioning and conversation to a more profound understanding of the matter under consideration, is still known as the Socratic method.

      It stood in stark contrast to the more formal instruction of the sophists (“wise ones”) of Athens, who apparently claimed to offer—at a price—an education that would provide the young men of Athens with final answers to all the questions of life. Socrates rejected the label of sophist, preferring the more humble title of philosopher (“the brotherly love of a friend for wisdom”). He also rejected the sophists' formal-ization and commodification of learning, believing that their instruction brought any possibility of true learning to an end. Learning and discourse ought to be never-ending, he said, telling the Athenians that “the life which is unexamined is not worth living.”

      In time, Socrates' teaching and method brought him into conflict not only with the sophists, but also with the rulers of Athens. His willingness to question all things, including the nature of civic virtue and even the religion of Athens, was viewed by his opponents and enemies with consternation and alarm; his undeniable influence over many of the young men of Athens, whom he instructed at little or no charge, led to envy and wrath. He was formally charged with corrupting the youth of Athens by making them question the traditional knowledge of the Athenians, and with impiety for daring to ask questions about the gods.

      Socrates defended himself calmly and with fearless wisdom, yet was found guilty. Already 70 years of age, he resolutely refused lesser penalties and chose death by drinking hemlock. True to his calling to the very end, he engaged his friends, students, and even his jailer in his final discourses, ceasing only when his life did.

      David W.Robinson
      Further Readings
      Plato. (2001). The apology of Socrates. In C. W.Eliot (Ed.), Plato, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius (
      Millennium ed.
      , Vol. 2, pp. 5–30). Norwalk, CT: Easton Press.
      Spencer, Herbert (1820–1903)

      Herbert Spencer was an English philosopher, political theorist, and contributor to the disciplines of ethics, metaphysics, religion, politics, rhetoric, biology, and psychology. He was known as the Father of Social Darwinism because he coined the phrase survival of the fittest. Spencer argued that the impact of social policy on man must be studied; he promoted the rights of both women and children and believed that science and philosophy contributed to the development of individualism and progress.

      Spencer's Principles of Psychology (1855) established a theory of the mind that stressed that human intelligence developed as a response to the individual's physical environment. With the support of Thomas Huxley, Spencer was able to publish his theories of evolution and the laws of progress, which in turn influenced Charles Darwin. According to Spencer, evolution is lifelong as matter is refined into increasingly complex and coherent forms. His views on social justice advocated individual responsibility for actions and behavior and the right of each person to do as he or she wished as long as it did not harm the rights of others.

      Some of Spencer's beliefs were manipulated by conservative politicians, libertarians, and social theorists. For example, he meant the phrase survival of the fittest to reflect man against a changing environment, not against his own kind. The frequency and variety of his writings would later influence a number of prominent authors, including George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Leo Tolstoy, D. H. Lawrence, Jack London, and H. G. Wells. Herbert Spencer's System of Synthetic Philosophy includes First Principles and volumes on the principles of biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics. Published posthumously was his Autobiography (1904).

      William A.Paquette
      Further Readings
      Carneiro, R. L. (1967). The evolution of society: Selections from Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Kennedy, J. G. (1978). Herbert Spencer. Boston: G. K. Hall.
      Wiltshire, D. (1978). The social and political thought of Herbert Spencer. New York: Oxford University Press.
      Steiner, Rudolf (1861–1925)

      Austrian Rudolf Steiner was a poet, philosopher, educator, literary scholar, activist, and social innovator. He founded the Anthroposophical movement, meaning wisdom (sophia) of humankind (anthro), which was based on the idea that the spiritual world is accessible through a path of spiritual self-development. Practical applications of this movement included biodynamic farming, anthroposophical medicine, eurythmy (an artistic movement form), Bothmer gymnastics, and Waldorf education.

      In 1907, Steiner wrote an essay, “Education in the Light of Spiritual Science,” in which he described phases of child development from an anthroposophical perspective and outlined how these could be the basis for a holistic approach to schooling. In 1919, the first Steiner school was founded to serve the workers' children in the Waldorf Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany. Over the past century, the Waldorf School Movement has established itself as the largest independent school movement with more than 1,000 Waldorf schools worldwide, including schools in the townships of South Africa; the slums of Sáo Paulo, Brazil; and a shared school between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East.

      Although Steiner's views on multiculturalism are controversial, he was early in raising issues of the challenges of a multicultural society and asserted the need for a spirituality that could unite all people regardless of their culture or religious background. A progressive social theorist, Steiner's threefold social order has served as the basis for a number of economic and philanthropic institutions, including the Rudolf Steiner Foundation for innovations in finance that is aimed at supporting the environment, financing social growth, and enriching human life.

      BethPowers-Costello
      Further Readings
      Childs, G. (1995). Steiner education in theory and practice. Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press.
      Steiner, R. (1928). The story of my life. London: Anthroposophical Publishing.
      Terman, Lewis Madison (1877–1957)

      Lewis Madison Terman, Stanford University professor of Cognitive Psychology, is best known for publication of the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale (1916), known commonly as the Stanford-Binet Test, which established the intelligence quotient (IQ) as a measure of one's intellectual aptitude.

      Hailing from a large farming family—the twelfth of fourteen children—Terman's early life was characterized by his intellectual desire despite his rural setting and family background. Terman strongly believed that one's IQ was inherited and was the strongest predictor of success in life.

      Until Terman's work, intelligence testing concentrated on identifying those in lower strata. In the 1920s, Terman began a longitudinal study—the first of its kind—on gifted children (referred to as “Terman's termites”); this study continues today as the longest-running study in American education. Its early results established that gifted children were not weak and sickly social misfits, as previously believed, but were generally taller, in better health, better developed physically, and better adapted socially than other children.

      Terman later joined in the eugenics movement, and his published writings argued for measures to reverse society's perceived deterioration, primarily through controlling reproduction. Terman stated it was more important for man to “control his biological evolution” than to capture the energy of the atom. This agenda promoted the enforcement of compulsory sterilization for those with low IQ scores in many U.S. states, and the absence of a public recanting of his position continues to taint Terman's legacy and work.

      Roxanne GreitzMiller, and TracySchandler
      Further Readings
      Leslie, M. (2000, July/August). The vexing legacy of Lewis Terman. Stanford Magazine [Online]. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2000/julaug/articles/terman.html
      Murchison, C. (Ed.). (1930). History of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 2, pp. 297–331). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
      Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources [Online]. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell
      Thoreau, Henry David (1817–1862)

      Henry David Thoreau is best known for his writing as an American transcendentalist. However, Thoreau's contribution to society reaches beyond this label. In addition to his life as an author, Henry David Thoreau was a naturalist, abolitionist, pacifist, poet, philosopher, individualist, educator, and scholar. Thoreau is also considered by many as an influential force behind movements such as environmentalism, ecology, and anarchism.

      Born David Henry Thoreau in 1817, Thoreau rearranged his name upon graduation in 1837 from Harvard College, where he studied science, philosophy, and mathematics. While on a break from his undergraduate work in 1835, Thoreau took his first job as a teacher in Canton, Massachusetts. After graduating, Thoreau accepted his first faculty position at the Concord Academy in his hometown of Concord, Massachusetts. Upon his dismissal for failure to comply with the school's corporal punishment policy, Thoreau opened and operated a grammar school in Concord with his brother John from 1838–1841. When his school closed because of his brother's death, Thoreau continued to work as a tutor for the extended family of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

      Thoreau met Emerson and joined his circle of friends in the late 1830s. With Emerson's motivation, Thoreau's first essay was published in 1842. Emerson's tutelage and Thoreau's writing continued throughout the years between Thoreau's graduation from Harvard until 1845, when Thoreau moved into the forest at Walden Pond to write what would later become his most notable work—Walden, or A Life in the Woods—written from 1845–1847 and published in 1854. Throughout his remaining years, Thoreau would continue to read and write on topics ranging from nature to politics. His most famous essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849), was written in response to the night he spent in jail for refusal to pay delinquent taxes as a way to show his opposition to slavery and the Mexican-American War.

      Overall, Thoreau made significant contributions to many fields, including education. His life and work have influenced many future generations of writers, scholars, philosophers, educators, and leaders. His most well-known quote and critique of traditional education comes from his own journal: “What does education often do?—It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free meandering brook.” Until his death in 1862, Thoreau continued to philosophize and write about alternatives to what he saw as flawed and unjust systems.

      Carri AnneSchneider
      Further Readings
      Bickman, M. (Ed.). (1999). Uncommon learning: Henry David Thoreau on education. Boston: Mariner.
      Bode, C. (Ed.). (1977). The portable Thoreau. New York: Penguin.
      Thorndike, Edward Lee (1874–1949)

      Edward Lee Thorndike was an American author, educational psychologist, and researcher of animal and human intelligence. While a student at Wesleyan and Harvard Universities, he developed theories about the relationship of responses to intelligence in fish, young chickens, and primates. Thorndike's study on how cats escape from puzzle boxes led him to conclude that animal responses are more likely to recur based on satisfaction than on innate animal insight. His conclusions led Thorndike to the study of human intelligence in children.

      Believing that progress in education could be measured and that repetition and reward contribute to learning, Thorndike developed intelligence testing in reading, English composition, writing, and drawing, and also at grade levels. During World War I, he developed measurements to test both abilities and achievements for U.S. Army personnel, which led to the creation of intelligence tests based on completions, arithmetic, vocabulary, and directions (the CAVD). Professor Thorndike's Law of Effect stated that responses receiving satisfaction are increased and responses associated with discomfort are weakened. The result was psychological connectionism, which concluded that the increased frequency of stimulus/response systems were indicative of higher intellect. Thorndike rejected the notion that intelligence could be independent of cultural background.

      Thorndike's Educational Psychology (1913) was instrumental in creating a discipline that had not previously existed. Other important works by Thorndike include Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements (1904); The Elements of Psychology (1905); Animal Intelligence (1911); The Measurement of Intelligence (1927); The Fundamentals of Learning (1932); The Psychology of Wants, Interests, and Attitudes (1935); and Human Nature and the Social Order (1940).

      William A.Paquette
      Further Readings
      Hurgenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (2005). An introduction to theories of learning (
      7th ed.
      ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
      Kimble, G., Wertheimer, M., & White, C. (Eds.). (1991). Portraits of pioneers in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
      Torrance, Ellis Paul (1915–2003)

      Ellis Paul Torrance, known as the “Father of Creativity,” was an American psychologist whose primary contribution to the field of education was establishing a quantitative measure of creativity that could be used to identify students for special educational programs, such as those for the gifted and talented. The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) firmly established the attitude that intelligence quotient (IQ) score is not the sole means by which to measure intelligence.

      Upon completion of his doctoral degree from the University of Michigan, Torrance began a teaching career that spanned from 1957 to 1984; the majority of his career was spent at the University of Georgia, where the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development is now located.

      The TTCT involves a set of simple measures of divergent thinking and other problem-solving skills scored on (1) fluency, or the total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus; (2) flexibility, or the number of different categories of relevant responses; (3) originality, or the statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects; and (4) elaboration, or the amount of detail in the responses.

      The use of the TTCT in identifying students for gifted and talented programs has become widespread because of the response of many district and state programs toward using a variety of methods to identify students, particularly those from underrepre-sented populations whose true aptitude may not be accurately represented by IQ score alone.

      Roxanne GreitzMiller, and TracySchandler
      Further Readings
      Millar, G. W. (1995). E. Paul Torrance, “The creativity man”: An authorized biography. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
      Raina, M. K. (2000). The creativity passion: E. Paul Torrance's voyages of discovering creativity. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
      Tyler, Ralph Winifred (1902–1994)

      Ralph Winifred Tyler developed a theory about curricular reform, called the Tyler Rationale, that is credited with creating the field of educational evaluation and still stands as a model for planning a curriculum.

      Born in Chicago, Tyler grew up in Nebraska and was a high school science teacher in Pierre, South Dakota, before earning his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1927. While working at the Bureau of Educational Research and Service at Ohio State University (1929–1938), Tyler became director of the legendary Eight-Year Study (1934–1942). Tyler then returned to the University of Chicago's Department of Education (1938–1948) and also served as Dean of the Division of Social Sciences (1948–1953). In 1953, he became the first Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, a position he held until 1966.

      In 1949, Tyler published his Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, which went through thirty-eight printings. His theories about curriculum reform outlined in the work became known as the “Tyler Rationale,” which consisted of four basic parts:

      • Defining appropriate learning objectives
      • Introducing useful learning experiences
      • Organizing learning experiences to maximize their effect
      • Evaluating the process and revising the aspects that did not prove effective

      Tyler chaired the committee that eventually developed the National Assessment of Educational Progress. He also influenced the underlying structure and guidelines for expenditures for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Tyler was the first president of the National Academy of Education, an organization he helped found.

      Eugene F.Provenzo
      Further Readings
      Finder, M. (2004). Educating America: How Ralph W. Tyler taught America to teach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
      Vygotsky, Lev (1896–1934)

      Lev Vygotsky was a groundbreaking Russian psychologist who studied child development, language acquisition, learning, and conceptual thought while working at the Institute of Psychology in Moscow from 1924–1934. His best-known work, Thought and Language (1934), was published shortly after he died of tuberculosis, but it was quickly suppressed by Stalin's regime in 1936.

      Vygotsky analyzed language by using what he called a developmental approach, arguing that thought and language became fused in human child development at a relatively early age, resulting in the development of more complex thought processes. Vygotsky's analysis was built around a critique of Jean Piaget's analysis of child development, and Vygotsky specifically argued that children internalized social speech to form the scaffolding for conceptual thought. This led Vygotsky to emphasize the importance of social interaction for learning and development, creating his theory of the “zone of proximal development.” This theory argued that mental development should be measured by accounting for what problems children could solve with the assistance of adults, in addition to what children could do by themselves.

      Although Vygotsky's students continued to build on his work after his death, he remained relatively unknown outside of the Soviet Union until 1962, when Thought and Language was translated into English. Interest in Vygotsky's studies expanded further with the compilation and publication of a series of his essays on mental development and education, titled Mind in Society (1978).

      Steven E.Rowe
      Washington, Booker Taliaferro (1856–1915)

      Booker Taliaferro Washington was the founder and head of the then-Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute in Tuskegee, Alabama, and he was a proponent of the trades-oriented education that that school provided for African Americans. Indeed, although Washington acknowledged the benefits of a more classical liberal education, he found liberal education to be of limited usefulness and denounced it as learning without the dignity of labor. He faced criticism for this educational approach and for being an accommodationist on race relations, but his achievements are nevertheless extraordinary.

      Washington was born a slave on a farm in Franklin County, Virginia, in 1856. His birth parents were an enslaved Black mother and a White father about whom Washington knew almost nothing. He spent the first several years of his life in slavery on the Virginia farm until the Emancipation Proclamation declared his and his family's freedom in 1865.

      A large part of Washington's colorful life is recounted by him in his 1901 autobiography, Up From Slavery. Although Washington published other autobiographical works, this one is his best known. In it, he details the most notable events of his life, from the relatively brief time he spent in slavery as a youth, to his educational exploits during his adolescence, and well into his career. Washington gives an account of his experiences at Hampton Institute (now Hampton University) and the extraordinary influence that the lessons he learned and the people he met there had on his philosophy of life. Moreover, he describes the numerous occasions when he undertook the tasks of spreading the seeds of success for his institution and offering his advice on improving race relations in America.

      Washington's value system and outlook were shaped in his youth, especially during his years at Hampton. One person during this time who had a significant effect on Washington's life was Viola Ruffner, a White woman for whom he worked as a live-in servant. He claims to have learned valuable lessons from her that helped him to succeed at Hampton and in life. The person who left the greatest impression on Washington, though, was General Samuel Armstrong. As principal of Hampton, Armstrong's educational and moral leadership seem to have affected Washington's personal philosophy the most. Washington believed that Armstrong was noble and unselfish; showed eternal devotion to his students and all of his undertakings; and, even though he was White, never displayed any indecorous feelings toward people of any race.

      So profound were Armstrong's and Hampton's overall influence on Washington that the ideals of Hampton under Armstrong later formed the foundation of Washington's Tuskegee Institute and his precepts of self-help and racial uplift. At Tuskegee, Washington developed a normal school that espoused a program of industrial education patterned primarily after the “Hampton idea” or “model.” He believed that Blacks should obtain needed industrial skills to ensure their economic prosperity and, ultimately, the future of the race by rendering themselves indispensable to the development of the country.

      Washington's Tuskegee was particularly tailored toward the needs (as he perceived them) of southern Blacks both because this population would primarily supply the institute's student body and because he thought the rural South was where Blacks would be most successful. What he prescribed was that the education of the “hand, head, and heart” must go together.

      Although Armstrong's Hampton model provided the most immediate source of inspiration for Tuskegee, the vision for Washington's institute was shaped by other sources as well. For example, Washington's demand that industrial learning be correlated with academic instruction was a manifestation of his adaptation of Johann Pestalozzi's philosophy and of Friedrich Froebel's “object studies.” He seemed to believe that their ideas could be applied to the context in which southern Blacks lived. It is also noteworthy that there are some philosophical parallels between Washington's doctrine and some major components of John Dewey's body of work, although the Tuskegee model reached its apex long before Dewey's impact was widely felt.

      Washington's prescriptions were not restricted to the realm of education. He believed that political involvement on the part of masses of Blacks distracted them from the more crucial task of improving their industrial skills. He spoke derisively of the political agitation by Blacks during Reconstruction, and he lamented what he saw as Black people's childlike dependence on the federal government even though he felt that the government had failed to adequately provide for Blacks in the educational arena. Furthermore, Washington urged Blacks to cooperate with Whites instead of fighting them. At the same time, he told Whites that it was important for them to avoid passing quick or harsh judgments upon African Americans because of the unparalleled obstacles faced by members of the race.

      He also used his unusually powerful position to exert a great deal of political influence. Most of it was directed toward negotiating for institutional support, political placements, and favorable press coverage, exercised both publicly and especially behind the scenes. Washington advised Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft, expended an enormous amount of effort securing federal positions for his favored sons and daughters, blessed the ascendancy of his like-minded peers and tried to block the progress of those who threatened his power and belief system, and exerted pressure on many of the organs of the Black community in an attempt to gain their favor. More constructively, he was also involved overtly and covertly in efforts to overcome racial injustice.

      Washington's ultimate goal was to assist the citizens of the United States in attaining human equality. In an attempt to reach this goal, every aspect of his life was guided by one basic tenet: work to be the best at what you do, and human nature will recognize and reward your meritorious efforts regardless of your race. Despite his espousal of such a noble ideal, his life's work is not without significant criticism. Washington has been widely dismissed as being too obliging to his White contemporaries, accused of failing to examine the plight of Black people from a broad intellectual perspective, and criticized for discouraging Blacks from exercising their political rights.

      These characterizations of Washington's ideas and practices have led many observers to describe him as an accommodationist. Washington's leadership of Tuskegee helped to earn him the accommodationist label, in that the educational program served as a compromise between the desires of White philanthropists and industrialists, many northern White citizens, and most southern Whites. Industrial education was also appealing—at least initially—to a great many Blacks as an indirect means of attaining prosperity and racial progress.

      Washington's contributions to the uplift of African Americans and to the betterment of American society are extraordinary; he worked consistently and tirelessly to pursue his agenda until just before his death in 1915. Nevertheless, his great influence on society seems to have had conflicting outcomes: His strategies brought substantial success to Blacks and to poor Whites, but his insistence on the primacy of his method and on the unconditional approval of it apparently stifled the emergence of new ideas.

      Furthermore, his undying faith in human kindness and, more importantly, his uncritical acceptance of the notion of achieving enfranchisement through the channel of American capitalism were limiting assumptions. Although his plan for racial uplift had a narrow base of application, he was motivated by a vision of hope and liberation that made it possible for him to struggle against the force of racism in the first place.

      Ronald E.Chennault
      Further Readings
      Curti, M. (1935). The social ideas of American educators. New York: Scribner's.
      Harlan, L. R. (1972). Booker T. Washington: The making of a Black leader, 1856–1901. New York: Oxford University Press.
      Harlan, L. R. (1983). Booker T Washington: The wizard of Tuskegee, 1901–1915. New York: Oxford University Press.
      Meier, A. (1963). Negro thought in America, 1880–1915: Racial ideologies in the age of Booker T Washington. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
      Washington, B. T. (1901). Up from slavery. New York: Doubleday.
      Webster, Noah (1758–1843)

      Noah Webster, the American lexicographer, was the first to write a dictionary of American English. He was also famous among his contemporaries for his schoolbooks, particularly his spelling books.

      At a time when children learned to read, write, and spell through the oral spelling of the “alphabet method,” Webster's American Spelling Book of 1787 (a revision of his first effort of 1783) became for forty years the text most used for teaching children to read. Webster sold its copyright in 1818 to devote himself to his two-volume An American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1828.

      Aware that his old speller was losing ground to its competitors, Webster collaborated with a teacher named Aaron Ely to compose a radically new speller in 1829. Titled The Elementary Spelling Book and known as the “blue-back speller” from its colored covers, it became the country's most popular book for teaching spelling in schools and at spelling bees until about 1900. Webster's other schoolbooks, which included history, geography, and biology, were too innovative to be successful.

      Webster also attempted to improve English spelling. His re-spellings of classes of words—exemplified by center (for the British centre), honor (honour), and music (musick)—were widely accepted because they appeared in his spellers and the popular McGuffey Readers. They distinguish American from British spelling to this day.

      E. JenniferMonaghan
      Further Readings
      Monaghan, E. J. (1983). A common heritage: Noah Webster's blue-back speller. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
      Rollins, R. M. (Ed.). (1989). The autobiographies of Noah Webster. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
      Weil, Simone (1909–1943)

      Simone Weil is best known as a preeminent French philosopher and author who was also a factory and field laborer; a political activist and theorist; a revolutionary; and, in the last years of her life, a mystic. Weil's compendium of work has significance for several fields; for education, her premises on the connection of thought and action and on the value of work for the development of the mind and spirit are particularly relevant.

      Born in Paris to a well-to-do, professional family, Weil was a brilliant student who received her baccalaureate in philosophy in 1925. She advanced successfully through the Ecole Normale Superieure and began her teaching career as a professor of philosophy in 1931.

      From the time of her first published writing in 1929 until her death, Weil examined the relationship of thought and action and sought the direct experiences of the material world through manual labor and political activism to understand better the world of ideas and value. From 1933–1935, Weil left teaching to work in factories and became an outspoken advocate for workers and trade unions. During this period, she also immersed herself in the political and economic structures of Europe, and in particular, the increasing militarism of Germany. In 1936, she joined a militia in Spain's civil war; however, burns incurred in a camp accident forced Weil to return to Paris in late 1936. Unable to return to teaching because of her deteriorating health, Weil concentrated her writing during this period on war and oppression.

      By the close of the 1930s, however, Weil had turned her focus to spiritual values, and she began to include in her writing specific Christian assumptions gleaned from her discussions with a priest and a farmer in 1941. Forced to flee France in 1942, Weil ultimately resettled in London, where she wrote for the Free French Committee. She developed her mystical theology, as revealed in two of her best known texts, Waiting for God and The Need for Roots. In August 1943, Weil was hospitalized and died of tuberculosis and malnutrition in London.

      Cheryl TaylorDesmond
      Further Readings
      Bell, R. H. (1998). Simone Weil. New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
      Du Plessix Gray, F. (2001). Simone Weil. New York: Viking.
      Weil, S. (1951). Waiting for God. New York: Harper Perennial.
      Weil, S. (1952). L'Enracinement: The need for roots: Prelude to a declaration of duties toward mankind. London: Routledge.
      Wheelock, Lucy (1857–1946)

      Lucy Wheelock was an early-childhood educator, member of the late-nineteenth-century Kindergarten Movement, and founder of Wheelock College. Wheelock developed an innovative model kindergarten, wrote stories for children and articles on classroom pedagogy, and was appointed to the Education Committee of the League of Nations. During turn-of-the-century debates on the future of early childhood education, Wheelock played the role of mediator between the old guard Froebelians and the progressives.

      Wheelock was born in Cambridge, Vermont. Her mother was a teacher and her father was a Congregationalist minister and superintendent of schools. She attended Underhill Academy in Vermont, Reading High School in Massachusetts, and Chauncey-Hall School in Boston. She completed her kindergarten training with Ella S. Hatch, a protégé of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. In 1879, Wheelock became the kindergarten teacher at Chauncey-Hall and developed an innovative approach to the curriculum that attracted national attention. In 1888, she was asked to establish a training school, later Wheelock College, designed to prepare young women for kindergarten teaching.

      As president of the International Kindergarten Union (IKU) from 1895–1899, Wheelock attempted to unite emerging factions within the Kindergarten Movement. Wheelock believed that a true Frobelianism was open to experimentation and methodological evolution and could accommodate modern advances in child study and psychology. Although she was able to hold the IKU together for a time, orthodox Froebelians were ultimately unwilling to accept Wheelock's revisionism and left the organization. In her later years, Wheelock wrote articles on parent education and home-school relations and became active in the National Congress of Mothers, later the Parent Teacher Association. After her retirement in 1939, Wheelock's school was incorporated as Wheelock College.

      Susan DouglasFranzosa
      Further Readings
      Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool in America: The culture of young children from the colonial era to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
      Wheelock, L., & Colsom, E. (1920). Talks to mothers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Whitehead, Alfred North (1861–1947)

      Alfred North Whitehead, an educator throughout his life, is best known for the three-volume work Principia Mathematica (1910–13), which he wrote with his one-time student, Bertrand Russell.

      Born in East Kent, England, Whitehead earned his BA from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1884 and his doctorate from the same institution in 1905. While his interest in mathematics dominated his early career, Whitehead became interested in education and the philosophy of education. In 1916, he delivered a lecture titled “The Aims of Education: A Plea for Reform” that was sharply critical of the educational practices of the time. He asserted that understanding must be the goal of education, and how this is achieved will necessarily be affected by the individual. A book by the same title, which is a collection of essays written between 1912 and 1922, was published in 1929.

      Because of his technical use of language, dense writing style, and absence of a single treatise that encapsulates his entire philosophy of education, many find it difficult to access Whitehead's ideas. In addition to his written work and lectures, Whitehead advised the British government on several educational initiatives and, from 1919 to 1924, served as chair of the Governing Board of the University of London's teachers' college.

      In 1924, Whitehead went to teach at Harvard University, where his work focused on metaphysics and the nature of knowledge. His cosmological philosophy was developed during this time. He retired from Harvard as Professor Emeritus in 1937.

      John P.Renaud
      Further Readings
      Dunkel, H. B. (1965). Whitehead on education. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
      Lowe, V. (1985). Alfred North Whitehead: The man and his work. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
      Wiggin, Kate Douglas (1855–1923)

      Kate Douglas Wiggin was an activist in the nineteenth-century Kindergarten Movement and the author of the children's classic Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. Wiggin became the head teacher of the first free kindergarten in San Francisco and founded the California Teacher Training School. She wrote songs and stories for children, lectured on children's rights and welfare, and published articles on curriculum and pedagogy. Wiggin spoke before the National Education Association on the rights of children in 1892 and participated in the kindergarten demonstrations at the World Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. Her essays and novels depicting the natural goodness and intelligence of children influenced generations of early childhood teachers and educational reformers.

      Kate Douglas Wiggin was born in Philadelphia as Katharine D. Smith. She spent most of her childhood in Maine and drew on her experience in small-town New England to create the characters and nurturing communities presented in her novels. Wiggin and her family moved to California in 1873, where she completed kindergarten training with Emma Marwedel, a leading disciple of Friedrich Froebel and a protégé of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. In 1878, Wiggin became head teacher of the Silver Street Kindergarten in the impoverished Tar Flats district of San Francisco. Under her direction, Silver Street expanded to provide evening classes, social services, and teacher training. In 1881, she married Samuel Bradley Wiggin and gave up classroom teaching but continued to lecture and direct the school until 1893.

      In the 1880s, Wiggin began to write stories about children to support her work at Silver Street. The Birds' Christmas Carol, her first novel, was published in 1888. After the sudden death of Samuel Wiggin in 1889, she supported herself through her writing, lectures, and public readings. On the lecture circuit, she was often paired with notable authors like Mark Twain and William Dean Howells, who became mentors and lifelong friends.

      Wiggin married for a second time in 1895, retired from active involvement in the Kindergarten Movement, and devoted herself to her writing. The publication of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm in 1903 made Wiggin an international celebrity. However, long before Rebecca, she was well-known to early-childhood educators and reformers as a “kindergarten pioneer” and the author of Timothy's Quest (1890), depicting the experiences of homeless children; The Story of Patsy (1891), about a child with special needs; and The Rights of Children: A Book of Nursery Logic (1892).

      Susan DouglasFranzosa
      Further Readings
      Snyder, A. (1972). Dauntless women in childhood education, 1856–1931. Washington, DC: Association for Childhood Education International.
      Wiggin, K. D. (1892). Children's rights: A book of nursery logic. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Wiggin, K. D. (1924). My garden of memory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
      Willis, Paul (1945-)

      Paul Willis is a British cultural theorist and critical ethnographer whose landmark book, Learning to Labour (1977), is credited with transforming critical studies of education through its use of ethnography to theorize how social class is reproduced through the “lived culture” of youth.

      Through an exploration of counter school culture among working class “lads” in an industrialized English town in the 1970s, Willis demonstrated that, in contrast to deterministic Marxist analyses prominent at the time, social class status was not reproduced passively through schooling; rather, structural forces were mediated through the cultural milieu of social agents who could see through the conditions of their existence. In the lads' case, their critique of meritocracy, individualism, and credentialism manifested in an opposition to school authority that was expressed through stylized resistant practices aimed at both teachers and conformist students. The limitations of their critique, along with their virulent racism and sexism and an embrace of the masculinity they attributed to manual labor, ultimately consigned the youth, ironically through their own complicity, to working-class futures.

      Learning to Labour was critiqued for its lack of the-orization of the lads' brutal sexism and for being too beholden to neo-Marxism despite protests otherwise. Willis responded to these criticisms in his extensive body of ethnographic and theoretical work focused on the creativity and radical potential of cultural production within powerful structural constraints. His books include Profane Culture (1978), Common Culture (1990), and The Ethnographic Imagination (2001). Willis, of working-class origins himself, was among the first generation of scholars at the legendary Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (as a student and later a research fellow). He has subsequently worked in public policy and in academia in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

      TriciaNiesz
      Further Readings
      Dolby, N., & Dimitriadis, G. (2004). Learning to labor in new times. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
      Wollstonecraft, Mary (1759–1797)

      Author of the first known argument in English for universal, secular, government-financed coeducation of rich and poor together, Mary Wollstonecraft is more famous as a philosophical “mother” of feminism who castigates both conservative Edmund Burke's and liberal Jean-Jacques Rousseau's misogyny as illogical and immoral. A prolific early modern cultural critic and theorist of education, she critiques both sexes' monarchist miseducation in A Vindication of the Rights of Men and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman; narrates moral teaching in response to the property system's hidden curriculum in Original Stories From Real Life, illustrated by William Blake; and charts autobiographically a single mother's outward and inward journey of self-education in Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

      Indebted to Catherine Macaulay's less-developed proposal of coeducation and to her own teaching experiences as eldest daughter, schoolmistress, governess, and public educator-in-print, Wollstonecraft's coeducational thought experiment in the second Vindication formulates critical approaches and concerns that remain in broad outlines those of an English-speaking feminist tradition of coeducational thought.

      Many biographers have retold Wollstonecraft's unusually well-documented, self-educative life, including her early passionate partnership with Fanny Blood; her learning from several mentors; and her late, joyfully egalitarian, mutually educative marriage to political philosopher William Godwin, who admired her educational wisdom and shared her principled resistance against marriage as well as childhood memories of domestic violence. Wollstonecraft died upon birth of their daughter, Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley, whose work reflects study of her mother's educational writings.

      SusanLaird
      Further Readings
      Durant, W. C. (Ed.). (1972). Memoirs of Mary Wollstonecraft, written by William Godwin. New York: Gordon Press.
      Laird, S. (in press). Mary Wollstonecraft. In R.Bailey (Ed.), Biographical encyclopedia of educational thought (Vol. 20). London: Continuum.
      Martin, J. R. (1985). Wollstonecraft's daughters. In Reclaiming a conversation: The ideal of the educated woman (pp. 70–102). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
      Woodson, Carter Godwin (1875–1950)

      Carter Godwin Woodson is a pioneer of African and African American history and research. A lifelong bachelor, he openly declared “marriage” to his life's work of dispelling racist myths perpetuated by White scholars about African Americans and their history.

      The oldest of nine children of former slaves, Woodson received sparse formal education prior to entering high school at the age of 20 because he had to work on the family farm and later in the West Virginia coal mines. Bright and focused, he completed the four-year high school curriculum in two years and went on to take a bachelor's degree from Berea College in Kentucky and both bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Chicago. He then became the second African American to earn a Ph.D. in history from Harvard University in 1912.

      Woodson was a high school teacher and principal, college professor and dean, and multilingual world traveler who prolifically wrote and published historical research. Of the sixteen books he authored, The Miseducation of the Negro (1933) became a classic and is a perennial best seller with several hundred thousand copies in print seventy-five years later. It is a testament to the enduring message that an oppressed people cannot depend upon their oppressors for liberatory education. Woodson's research found that many Negroes who were “educated” to professional status in Eurocentric American institutions were denied full access to American society, exhibited self-defeatist behavior, and returned to their communities less empathetic and committed to the plight of the oppressed.

      Woodson established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (1915), founded the Journal of Negro History (1916), the Associated Publishers (1921), and the Negro History Bulletin (1937). In February 1926, he initiated Negro History Week, which later became Black History Month in the 1960s. He believed that correcting American miseducation could not be left to ivory tower scholarship; myths about African inferiority and their lack of contribution to world history must be debunked before the popular masses.

      JonathanLightfoot
      Further Readings
      Durden, R. F. (1998). Carter G Woodson: Father of African-American history. Springfield, NJ: Enslow.
      Goggin, J. (1993). Carter G. Woodson: A life in Black history. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
      Logan, R. M., & Winston, M. R. (Eds.). (1982). Dictionary of American Negro biography. New York: Norton.
      Woodson, C. G. (1933). The miseducation of the Negro. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
      Young, Ella Flagg (1845–1918)

      Ella Flagg Young, who served as superintendent of the Chicago Schools from 1909–1915, may have been the most famous and well-respected public educator of her era. Her assumption of the Chicago super-intendency marked the first time any woman had risen to such a powerful position of school leadership. In 1910, a year after becoming superintendent, rapidly growing ranks of female teachers in the National Education Association elected her as the association's first female president.

      Previously, Young had been a remarkably popular professor at the University of Chicago, teaching alongside John Dewey. In this position, she authored several influential books of educational theory. Through these and numerous other forms of public service, Young deeply influenced generations of students, educators, social progressives, and woman's suffragists who found inspiration in her life, work, and thought.

      Born in 1845 in Albany, New York, N. Ella Flagg, as she was first known, joined her parents, an older sister, and an older brother in moving to Chicago so that her father, Theodore, a skilled metalworker, might find steady work in this explosively expanding mid-western city. Although Young reputedly did not attend elementary school because of chronic illness, she studied at home with her mother, Jane Flagg, reading voraciously and discussing social issues of the day. During her early teens, her lack of formal schooling notwithstanding, she enrolled in a newly created normal program at Chicago High School, quickly demonstrating exceptional pedagogical gifts. She independently established her own teaching internship so that she could further refine her skills.

      In 1862, at the age of 16, she began teaching in her own classroom in a school with more than 1,300 students and located in a squalid, congested part of town. Within two weeks, Young's mother died prematurely of an unexplained cause. Young responded to this great personal loss by investing herself even more fully in her work, a pattern that would recur throughout the rest of her life. Over the next few years, Young's annual salary leaped upward in comparison with those of her peers.

      Her reputation for outstanding teaching led the superintendent to appoint her in 1865 to serve as principal of a newly created school of practice. In this capacity, she worked with normal school students as they practiced their pedagogical skills in a fully functioning elementary school. Despite a bitter disagreement with the school board after which she resigned from the principalship of the school of practice, a brief failed marriage, the great Chicago fire (which destroyed her home), and the deaths of her brother and father, Young nevertheless continued devoting herself fully to her work during these years, eventually returning to the principalship in 1876.

      In 1886, her exceptional administrative work was profiled in a nationally circulated magazine, which raised her visibility substantially. Shortly thereafter, the school board appointed her to an assistant superintendence a position she held for twelve years. She resigned from this work in 1899 when she sharply disagreed with the superintendent on a growing number of matters. Having already taken doctoral coursework with John Dewey at the University of Chicago, Young then finished her dissertation and joined the ranks of the University of Chicago faculty.

      She and Dewey jointly published a series of books on educational theory. She also worked closely with him in establishing and running the university laboratory school. Then, after sustained disagreements with university administrators, both Dewey and Young resigned in 1904. Young and her life partner, Laura Brayton, traveled abroad to study the schools of Europe. Upon their return in 1905, the Chicago school board invited Young to serve as principal of the Chicago Normal School, to which she readily agreed. Then, in 1909, after a contentious and nearly failed search, the school board unanimously selected her for the Chicago superintendency.

      The announcement that Young would take the helm of Chicago's schools prompted newspapers across the country to feature stories on this unprecedented achievement for a woman. Suffrage activists in the United States and abroad celebrated the news in newsletters and stump speeches. For the next several years, Young enjoyed broad public support and political peace on the school board as she raced to implement a host of progressive reforms, such as the creation of councils through which teachers governed their schools, significant teacher pay increases, the development of penny lunch programs, the first establishment of sex education courses anywhere in the country, the desegregation of schools, and the creation of groundbreaking programs addressing the unique vocational and social needs of girls.

      She resigned briefly in 1913 when the board took a decidedly conservative turn. Massive rallies of teachers, students, suffragists, and other progressive allies prompted sufficient political pressure for the board to relent temporarily. After renewed board resistance, however, she resigned for good in 1915, this time making front-page headlines around the world. She spent the remainder of her years promoting war bonds, chiding President Wilson for his lukewarm support for suffrage, writing a book on the role of schools in a democracy, and traveling extensively with her partner. She died in 1918 during the flu pandemic.

      Looking back, John Dewey regarded Young as the “wisest educator” he had ever encountered. He noted in his writings that his ideas about democracy and education were heavily influenced by her. Margaret Haley, who for decades led the Chicago Teachers Federation, reflected that Young, more than anyone she had known, possessed astonishing executive ability in which she instantly combined theory and practice. Teachers celebrated Young's groundbreaking pedagogical, theoretical, and administrative contributions. And suffragists everywhere found inspiration in her service and political skill. However, this very public figure saved none of her personal effects and requested that her closest friends guard the privacy of her legacy. Consequently, memory of her achievements faded over the twentieth century until a recent resurgence of interest among scholars.

      Jackie M.Blount
      Further Readings
      Donatelli, R. (1971). The contributions of Ella Flagg Young to the educational enterprise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
      Goddard, C. (2005). Ella Flagg Young's intellectual legacy theory and practice in Chicago's schools, 1862–1917. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Chicago.
      McManis, J. T. (1916). Ella Flagg Young and a half-century of the Chicago public schools. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
      Smith, J. K. (1979). Ella Flagg Young: Portrait of a leader. Ames, IA: Educational Studies Press.

      Appendix B: Toward a Renewed Definition of the Social Foundations of Education

      The social foundations of education is among the most interdisciplinary fields in education and the social sciences. This fact is reflected in the unusual range of articles found in this encyclopedia. It also explains why there is so much discussion as to what constitutes the field.

      What is the Social Foundations of Education?

      Use of the phrase “social foundations of education” dates back to the mid-1920s. It was probably first used by George S. Counts and J. Crosby Chapman in their 1924 book The Principles of Education. They organized “25 problems” under the following four major headings:

      What Is the Place of Education in Individual and Social Life?

      What Are the Psychological Foundations of Education?

      What Are the Sociological Foundations of Education?

      What Principles Govern the Conduct of the School?1

      More recently, the Council of Learned Societies in Education defines the foundations of education as follows:

      Foundations of Education refers to a broadly-conceived field of educational study that derives its character and methods from a number of academic disciplines, combinations of disciplines, and area studies, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, religion, political science, economics, psychology, cultural studies, gender studies, comparative and international education, educational studies, and educational policy studies…. The purpose of foundations study is to bring these disciplinary resources to bear in developing interpretive, normative, and critical perspectives on education, both inside and outside of schools.2

      The idea of distinguishing in the social foundations of education “interpretive,” “normative,” and “critical” perspectives in education is important. According to the Standards, the interpretive perspective assists “students in examining, understanding, and explaining education within different contexts.”3 Thus, although schools are critical to understanding and studying the process of education in the culture, they are only one of many social and cultural forces at work in defining the educational process.

      The idea of a normative perspective suggests that education needs to be understood in the context of values. As argued in the Standards:

      Foundational Studies probe the nature of assumptions about education and schooling. They examine the relation of policy analysis to values and the extent to which educational policymaking reflects values. Finally, they encourage students to develop their own value positions regarding education on the basis of critical study and their own reflections.4

      Editor's Note: The field of the social foundations of education is at a critical point in its development. This encyclopedia, in some regards, reflects the maturity of the field. Its diverse content and methodological arguments also reflect the divisions or “fault lines” within the field. The following essay attempts to provide an overview of the field, as well as suggest a new direction for it, based upon the emergence of cultural studies as an area.

      In this context, the social foundations of education encourage students to define their own philosophical approach to schooling, as well as develop a personal set of ethics and norms.

      Finally, the critical perspectives “employ narrative interpretations to assist students to develop inquiry skills, to question educational assumptions and arrangements, and to identify contradictions and inconsistencies among social and educational values, policies and practices.”5

      Although the Standards are intended as a curricular device for defining the educational requirements of students studying education as an academic and professional field, underlying them are a number of assumptions that go against traditional norms in university culture, as well as the society at large.

      To begin with, the social foundations of education is essentially an interdisciplinary field. American university and collegiate structures historically have given lip service to interdisciplinary work in the social sciences and the humanities, but, in fact, tend to operate through tight departmental and disciplinary models as separate and isolated entities. Sociologists, for example, are rarely engaged in educational or research exchanges with colleagues in related fields such as history, political science, or anthropology, let alone schools of education. The same situation is often found in other disciplines as well. Exceptions to this tendency can be found in some of the country's smaller liberal arts colleges, where cross-disciplinary programs are a necessity, because of limited resources.

      A single disciplinary model such as history or English literature often dominates interdisciplinary programs such as American studies or African American studies. In selected institutions, some fields, such as communications, seem to employ an interdisciplinary approach, but even in these programs, the concept of interdisciplinary work is often suspect. Professional status comes from affiliation with a discipline more than from a commitment to a line of interdisciplinary inquiry focused around a subject such as education.

      Thus, even within schools of education, which are among the most interdisciplinary units within universities and colleges, interdisciplinary modes of inquiry and instruction are often rejected. Counseling psychologists revert to their home discipline of psychology as a means of achieving authority and status, both within their department and school settings as well as within the larger colleges or universities. Similar behavior is often found among scholars in areas such as special education, or those individuals who perceive themselves as pure historians, philosophers, or sociologists, strictly pursuing their disciplinary inquiry in a department or school of education.

      In the latter case, people associated with the social foundations in universities and colleges may, in fact, reject the institutions in which they work and even fellow social foundations scholars—that is, foundation specialists in disciplines other than their own, as well as their more methods- and classroom-based colleagues in teacher education—in favor of a disciplinary affiliation.

      The Council of Learned Societies, in their Standards report, recognizes that there is considerable diversity in the foundations field and significant debate over what issues and methodological approaches should shape the field. As they explain:

      From its origin in the 1930s, Foundations of Education has been subjected to a variety of interpretations and approaches. There are those who have promoted the idea that Foundations of Education should be assembled around educational issues, using the issues as curriculum-selecting and curriculum-organizing principles. Some have insisted that interdisciplinary and generalist concerns should supersede the commitments of Foundations of Education scholars to specific disciplines. Others have held to the priority of close disciplinary ties for Foundations of Education scholars. Some have promoted the desirability of curriculum liaisons between Foundations of Education scholars and teacher educators in other fields, for example, administration, counseling and guidance, urban education, and curriculum and instruction. Still others have argued for the establishment of working ties between Foundations of Education scholars and community groups and for involvement in areas of concern that go beyond the school enterprise.6

      The Council of Learned Societies in Education points to the fact that there “are distinguished advocates for all of these approaches.”7 Which approach is most appropriate is clearly a subjective judgment.8

      The Origins of the Social Foundations of Education

      Steve Tozer has chronicled the origins of the social foundations as thoroughly as any scholar in the field. He explains that prior to the 1930s, there were basically two kinds of foundations courses in the United States. One involved single-discipline coursework in a subject

      such as philosophy of education, history of education, or sociology of education. Scholars such as R. M. Maclver in sociology, Ellwood Cubberly in history, and W. H. Kilpatrick in philosophy used the lenses of the social sciences and humanities to study and teach about education in cultural context.9

      The second type of foundations course was a fundamentals or basics of teaching practice. This tradition was reflected in books such as Levi Seely's The Foundations of Education (1901), which was “an introduction to teaching practice, rather than an effort to use foundational disciplines to study school and society.”10

      Interest in social foundations issues began to coalesce among the faculty at Teachers College, Columbia University, during the late 1920s. In 1928, a group began to meet, chaired by William Heard Kilpatrick, that came to be known as the Teachers College Discussion Group. Many of the most well-known and respected scholars interested in education from the period were part of the group, including Harold Rugg, John L. Childs, R. Bruce Raup, George Counts, Jesse H. Newlon, and Goodwin Watson. Later, they were joined by Kenneth D. Benne and R. Freeman Butts.

      As mentioned previously, George Counts and J. Crosby Chapman talked about the psychological and sociological foundations of education as early as 1924, and George Counts published The Social Foundations of Education in 1934, but the social foundations of education as we know it today can be traced back to the mid-1930s and specific curricular reforms at Teachers College. Prior to this time, the foundations requirement for the master's degree at Teachers College required the completion of eight credits in several different departments, including: history of education, philosophy of education, psychology, educational sociology, educational economics, and comparative education.

      Although this approach provided grounding in individual disciplinary fields, it had the disadvantage of overspecialization and not providing students with the opportunity to adequately explore and understand “the foundational conditions and problems of contemporary society.”11 Under the direction of William H. Kilpatrick, the faculty at Teachers College created a new eight-credit course (Education 200F) that all students were required to take. The course was first offered during the winter term of 1934–1935. The creators of the course described their approach as involving a

      shift from a mechanistic and atomistic outlook upon life to an organic one. This shift is the result of documentary and experimental research reaching back a century. Although much of the technical study of this shift in psychological and philosophical outlook is carried on in the second semester of the course, every possible opportunity is taken during the first semester to employ it in the building of our understanding of the contemporary world.12

      The purpose of Education 200F, and foundational study in general, was to give students a “proficiency in the design, construction and operation of schools.”13 The course was based on the assumption that the educational system and its schools reflected the social, cultural, and political forces at work in the society. As R. Freeman Butts explained in the introduction to the book of readings developed for the first semester of the course: “Schools and other educational institutions inevitably reflect the culture in which they operate. The culture invariably impinges upon the schools whether in times of slow or rapid social change, whether in times of greater or lesser social tension.”14

      The creators of the Education 200F course assumed that in order to understand the work of the schools, it was critical to realize that they were essentially social institutions. Education always needed to be understood as “a function of time, place and circumstance.”15 In this context, education and schooling were understood as being deeply cultural. Butts, in a piece written very late in his career, recalled a typical syllabus for the course as follows:

      • Ed. 200FA—Education and Society
        • Education and Culture
        • American Democracy Faces the Future
        • Economics and Democracy
        • Democracy and Political Power
        • Democracy and a Stable World Order
        • Intergroup Relations
        • The Social Role of Education in the World Today
      • Ed. 200FB—Education and the Individual
        • Education and Human Nature
        • Communication
        • Adjustive Behavior
        • Intelligence and Learning
        • Art and Aesthetics
        • Moral and Religious Experience
        • The Role of the Profession as a Vocation16

      The course met for three hours each week. As Butts recalled, during the first hour, the faculty members teaching the course assembled as a panel for a deliberation and made presentations to the class. The second hour was taken up with discussion in small groups; and in the third hour, efforts were made to arrive at a decision with the large group. The main class typically had from 300 to 400 students. Discussion groups (the second hour) were made up of ten students each, with a student-appointed discussion leader for each group.17 The course description in the Teachers College Announcement for 1938–1939 explained that in regard to the course: “The effort is made so to deal with the area common to the various fields of educational endeavor as to provide for them all a basic understanding and a common outlook and language of discourse.”18

      Kilpatrick's study group met biweekly from the late 1920s to the beginning of World War II. The Education 200F course at Teachers College, as well as the creation of the modern social foundations of education as a field, evolved from this group. Kenneth Benne, who joined the group in 1937, recalled that its members

      came to believe that all teachers should become students of the issues of contemporary society and culture and of the relations of these issues to questions of educational aims, methods, and programs. They also believed that a cross-disciplinary approach was conducive to adequate treatment of these issues. In keeping with this thinking, they brought the psychological, sociological, economic, historical and philosophical perspectives together into a division of educational foundations and brought in a recommendation that the requirement for those pursuing a graduate degree of work in scattered courses in psychology or philosophy or history be replaced by the cross-disciplinary courses in educational foundations.19

      The model of social foundations of education established by Kilpatrick's discussion group at Teachers College rapidly made its way into other institutions during the period following World War II. By the early 1950s, for example, the University of Illinois had an extremely active program in place that was interdisciplinary in nature. Under the leadership of figures such as Archibald W. Anderson, Kenneth D. Benne, Othanel Smith, Foster McMurray, and Bill Stanley, they articulated a clear vision of the social foundations of education and its relationship to other fields. As they explained in their 1951 book, The Theoretical Foundations of Education:

      Social foundations, as a field, is concerned with those aspects and problems of society which need to be taken into account in determining educational policy, especially as this policy concerns the social role of the school, and in determining broader social policies which affect educational policy…. This definition of the field distinguishes it from educational history and philosophy on the one hand, and from educational sociology on the other.20

      Although the faculty at Illinois felt that there should be a “close relationship and some overlapping” between the problems studied in subjects such as the history and philosophy of education, they argued that “the problems of social foundations are the problems of policy-formation and policy-evaluation set by contemporary social conditions.”21 Essentially, educational philosophers, historians, sociologists, and anthropologists who are foundations scholars are potentially concerned with very different issues from people in those same disciplines who study educational issues.

      The Social Foundations in its Early Years at Teachers College

      Historically, the social foundations of education model has been under attack almost from its inception. Part of this may be because of the field's progressive and liberal roots. Whatever the case, the experiment with Education 200F had barely gotten underway before it started garnering severe criticism. R. Freeman Butts, who arrived at Teachers College in 1935 as a postdoctoral student and a member of the Education 200F team, recalled how the social foundations faculty at Teachers College were swept up in political activities not only outside of the college, but inside it as well. The social foundations faculty found itself frequently challenging what it felt were “arbitrary” administrative decisions at the college. Butts recalls the following:

      Jack Childs leading the fight for the right of cafeteria workers to unionize; or George Counts counterattacking the relentless pressure and tactics of the Communist popular front; or Harold Rugg fighting the American Legion onslaught upon his books; or Edward Reisner struggling with the identity problem raised by interventionism, isolationism, war with Germany, and America Firstism; or George Hartmann's convictions leading him to Peace Now in the face of overwhelming antagonism; or Ernest Johnson flailing at reactionary religionist attacks upon the public schools; or Harold Clark's extravagant predictions about the uses of the ocean thirty years before the population explosion was headline news; and so on and on.22

      Clearly, the social foundations faculty at Teachers College during the 1930s was an activist group, engaged in contemporary political and social issues in the culture.

      Butts recalls how, when he took over as the chairman of the social foundations department in 1948, there was a crisis developing over personnel. Eight of the fourteen full-time faculty members of the program would retire by 1955. Those retiring were the “key framers and molders” of the original social foundations model, including luminaries such as John Childs and George Counts.23 In addition, curricular reforms in the college led to a reduction from eight to six in the number of course credits in the social foundations of education required for master's students in the college's programs.24

      During the 1949–1950 academic year, the foundations department at Teachers College hammered out a set of guidelines for its programs that was eventually approved by the Committee on Policy, Program and Budget and by the trustees of the college. According to the guidelines,

      The task of educational foundations centers upon a basic and comprehensive study of the culture and of human behavior as these are related to the total educational enterprise. It assumes that every member of the educational profession should have a fundamental understanding of the relations of education to the deepest values, traditions, and conflicts in society and to the basic characteristics of human behavior. This understanding is foundational for the superior professional worker in all of his activities as educator and citizen in a democracy, no matter what his specific professional job may be. The foundations task is as profoundly important as any other aspect of the professional preparation of educators. It is a central task of the professional preparation of educators and not merely a peripheral or a “service” function.

      Educational foundations undertakes to bring together three types of resources to help educators study the central question, “What is the educational task in our culture?” To approach this question with scholarship, thoroughness, and creativeness, on one hand, and with awareness of practical realities in school and society on the other, the educational foundations draws upon three resources: the university disciplines, community and citizen activities, and the institutions of education. It is the special task of Foundations to keep these routes open and to cultivate the resources to the highest possible levels in the attainment of educational direction and power.

      To reduce all of these matters to one shorter statement, the foundations process which absorbs from all these resources and tries to give unity to the educational effort is one which (1) deals with questions of educational direction, policy, and action in areas of unresolved problems in the culture, in such a way (2) that every available, pertinent, and scholarly resource is brought authentically into the effort, (3) with a definite view to attaining the greatest possible personal commitment to democratic beliefs, purposes, and goals, and (4) to extending the effort to gain the maximum possible community of understanding, purpose, and commitment. It need hardly be said that this is an effort to make a discipline of the democratic process, particularly as this becomes the concern of educators in a democracy.

      This is our view of the nature of the foundations task and its role in the professional preparation of educators. We believe that Teachers College is committed to this view. We believe it has been of prime significance in enabling Teachers College to achieve and maintain its leadership in the educational profession of the nation and the world. We believe it is one of the important characteristics that distinguishes the university study of education from a normal school approach. We believe that this view, largely originated and nourished at Teachers College, has spread wherever institutions are trying to develop the university study of education as a means of re-directing the social and cultural role of education.25

      The above “guidelines” are probably the best evidence we have of the social foundations of education program at Teachers College in its nadir. In reference to Education 200F, Butts described it as entering a “decline and fall in the 1950s.”26 It seems fair to conclude that the success and influence of the course corresponded to the influence of the social foundations faculty.

      Criticisms of the Social Foundations Model

      The early 1950s were a difficult period for progressively minded educators such as the social foundations faculty at Teachers College. Several factors were at play. Following World War II, the country became increasingly conservative. McCarthyism was challenging the foundations of liberal and progressive thought. More specifically, a series of critiques of the public educational system and particularly Deweyan progressive models was becoming widespread. Critics such as Arthur Bester, Jr., Mortimer Smith, Harry J. Fuller, and Albert Lynd27 criticized public schools for being too lax in their curricula and too much under the influence of progressive educational models.

      Of the critiques that came out during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the most substantive was that of Arthur Bester, Jr., a history professor at the University of Illinois. Bester had attended the New Lincoln School at Teachers College and had taught at Teachers College. In his 1952 article, “Life Adjustment in Education,” published in the American Association of University Professors Bulletin, he wrote a scathing critique of contemporary education and the lack of serious academic content in many of its courses.28 Bestor's critique was expanded into a book the following year titled Educational Wastelands: The Retreat From Learning in Our Public Schools.

      Bestor's work attacked schools of education at both the college and university levels as well as criticized the influence of progressive education on the schools at the K-12 level. His criticism focused in particular on the Life Adjustment curriculum, which had been widely adapted in secondary school programs across the country. It emphasized social development and skills over academic content in the curriculum.

      Bestor's work was strongly grounded in a disciplinary model. Although he saw a place in academic study for understanding the processes of teaching and learning, he believed that departments and schools of education had no business getting involved in questions related to the aims and purposes of education.

      Pedagogy itself—that is to say, the careful investigation of the processes of teaching and learning—is a legitimate field of study. But its exact nature and its limitations need to be fully understood. Like the various branches of engineering, pedagogy is an applied science. It answers practical questions, not ultimate and philosophical ones. It tells how something can be taught most effectively, but it provides no basis whatever for deciding what should be taught. In this it is like civil engineering, which tells how a dam can be constructed across a given river, but not whether it ought to be built. A specialist in pedagogy is entitled to respect when he talks about the most effective methods of teaching a given subject in the elementary or secondary school. The question of what subjects should be taught is a totally different one. It cannot be answered on the basis of pedagogical considerations alone, for it involves the ultimate purposes of education.29

      According to Bestor, American colleges and universities were, by definition, devoted to education, and every department in the university, in a certain sense, was “a department of education.” Referring to his affiliation as a history professor at the University of Illinois, he explained that

      My own department is actually a department of education in historical thinking. The term Department of History is merely a convenient abbreviation. The division that calls itself a Department of Education is in reality a department of education in pedagogical methods, that is a Department of Pedagogy. It has no right to imply, by its name, that it has a greater concern with education than any other department.30

      Programs and departments in the social foundations of education represented a direct contradiction of Bestor's model that emphasized the disciplines.

      Bestor's criticism of progressive educational models was, at least in part, a result of his own immediate experience. He attended the Lincoln School at Teachers College during the 1920s and felt that although he had received excellent instruction in history, his course in “social studies” was an inferior “hodegepodge.” While claiming to throw insight on contemporary problems, the course encouraged superficial opinions lacking “balanced and critical judgment.”31 As he explained: “Freedom to think was elbowed aside by freedom not to think.”32 “Indoctrination,” rather than education, dominated the course, which Bestor and his classmates referred to as a “social stew.”

      Bestor believed that progressive educators such as the social foundations specialists at Teachers College were creating a “regressive” model of education:

      Experts in pedagogy were feeling their oats, were abandoning their proper task of improving instruction, and were brazenly undertaking to redefine the aims of education itself. By disregarding or flatly rejecting the considered educational views of the scholarly, scientific, and professional world, these new educationists succeeded in converting the division between secondary and higher education from a mere organizational fact into a momentous intellectual schism. Progressive education became regressive education, because, instead of advancing, it began to undermine the great traditions of liberal education and to substitute for them lesser aims, confused aims, or no aims at all.33

      Bestor did believe that there was a legitimate place for “interdisciplinary investigation and teaching” in departments and schools of education, but that these needed to be based in a disciplinary foundation. In regards to the great philosopher and educationist John Dewey, he explained that Dewey was

      himself a philosopher, and he brought philosophy to bear upon educational problems. Today, however, the so-called “philosophy of education” offered in most departments of pedagogy has lost touch with living philosophical thought, for it is taught mainly by men trained not in philosophy itself but merely in their predecessors' courses in the philosophy of education. What began as the free and creative speculation of philosophic minds upon educational questions has congealed into educational dogma passed on from generation to generation by men who no longer speculate but merely expound.34

      Bestor proposed a new curriculum for teacher education based upon liberal arts and science rather than pedagogy. Although he did not specifically talk about social foundations as a field, his critique dismissed the field and eliminated its role in the university curriculum. Essentially, cultural and social knowledge about education, its aims and purposes, were to be the subject of disciplinary scholars, not professors of education.

      Other critics followed Bester. The launch of the Soviet Union satellite Sputnik in October 1957 led to a réévaluation of American public education in which the need to develop disciplinary scientists in fields such as science and mathematics was seen as being a matter of national security. Education became so closely linked to the concept of military defense that figures such as Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover began to act as educational advocates. The rhetoric of war was widely used, as is clear in the following comments made by Rickover during this period:

      We are engaged in a grim duel. We are beginning to recognize the threat to American technical supremacy which could materialize if Russia succeeds in her ambitious program of achieving world scientific and engineering supremacy by turning out vast numbers of well-trained scientists and engineers. … We have let our educational problem grow much too big for comfort and safety. We are beginning to see now that we must solve it without delay.35

      As pointed out by the educational historian Diane Ravitch, the “furor” over Sputnik and the “crisis in education” led to the National Science Foundation's involvement in secondary school curriculum development in fields such as mathematics, biology, chemistry, and the social sciences. Eventually, a wide range of innovative curricula were developed including “the new math,” “the new social studies,” and innovative natural and physical science programs such as Biological Science Study Committee (BSSC) and the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC).36 These models led to a greater disciplinary influence on the public schools and their curriculum.

      At the same time, within departments and schools of education, there was a move toward greater disciplinary orientation. At Teachers College, Lawrence Cremin took over as chair of the department of social and philosophical foundations in 1958. According to R. Freeman Butts, Cremin, like the educational philosopher Harry Broudy, considered “the term ‘foundations’ as being too ambiguous and fuzzy.”37 Under Cremin's leadership, the separate foundational disciplines went their own way, except for a general departmental seminar for all doctoral candidates. Psychology split off and became a separate division in the college.

      Cremin was the preeminent educational historian of his generation. Although he took the Education 200F course as a graduate student, and even served as an assistant in the Raupe-Benne-Butts section of the course, he did not seem to have embraced the more general social foundations model of Kilpatrick and his discussion group. Instead, he chose the path of gaining status for the field through disciplinary affiliation (history).

      In doing so, Cremin was more in sync with contemporary educational critics than those who were still holding on to the older tradition of the social foundations of education. Some critics continued to call for greater academic rigor in foundational studies. In the early 1960s, for example, James D. Koerner argued that philosophical approaches to education tended to be vague and could not be substantiated. As a result, he believed that the subject did not deserve the attention of those interested in becoming teachers.38 Critics like Koerner, however, received relatively little attention.

      More important criticisms came from other sources. James Bryant Conant, the president of Harvard and a chemist by academic training, argued in 1963 in The Education of American Teachers that courses in the social foundations of education did not constitute an area of serious study. They represented, instead, an “attempt to patch together scraps of history, philosophy, political theory, sociology and pedagogical ideology.”39 For Conant, the field was “worthless” and “superficial,” and he believed that courses in the field needed to be eliminated from the curriculum of schools of education because they gave the programs in which they were housed a bad reputation. Conant explained that

      If I were participating in faculty appointments in an institution that certifies future teachers, I should do all in my power to see to it that all who gave courses in the philosophy of education were approved by the philosophy department as well as the department or faculty of education. Graduate schools of education should cease trying to train profes sor s of the philosophy of education without the active and responsible participation of the departments of philosophy.40

      Like Bestor, Conant felt that disciplinary knowledge provided the necessary standards for addressing questions about the nature and purpose of education. Any other approach was simply a form of dilettantism. The disciplinary specialist would be the necessary midwife to give birth to meaningful social thought in education. As Conant explained, an important opportunity was at hand:

      Well-trained philosophers who turn their attention to problems of American education have an opportunity to make a real contribution to overhauling the philosophic foundations of education, which today consist of crumbling pillars of the past placed on a sand of ignorance and pretension.41

      According to him, the future teacher

      would do well to study philosophy under a real philosopher. An additional course in the philosophy of education would be desirable but not essential. The same is true of a course in the history of education. Again, the professor should be an intermediary or middleman; he should be approved by a department of education and a department of history or an outside committee containing eminent historians. The explanation of the history of the schools of the United States under the guidance of a first-rate American historian would be a valuable experience for any teacher. It would strengthen his understanding of the political basis of our educational system and relate what he should have learned in his American history courses to his own professional work. Some of the material presented might be considered sociological rather than historical. If a competent sociologist is investigating social problems closely related to the schools and is ready to give a course in educational sociology, the desirability of such a course is evident. As to whether the present group of professors who consider themselves educational sociologists should perpetuate themselves, I have the gravest doubts. I would wish that all who claim to be working in sociology would get together in the graduate training and appointment of professors who claim to use sociological methods in discussing school and youth problems.42

      Disciplinary models for the social foundations of education increasingly dominated the field in the 1960s and 1970s. Although I believe some of this had to do with attempts to develop methodological rigor for the field, the disciplinary orientation taken by many foundations professors represented an attempt on their part to achieve greater status and personal acceptance across their institutions. Lawrence Cremin had accomplished this through an appointment early in his career as a professor of history at Columbia University. Bias against the study of education and the devaluation of the education of teachers meant that there was little likelihood of these individuals gaining much recognition or status outside of their programs.

      In 1968, several graduates from Teachers College established the American Educational Studies Association as part of an attempt to renew the more traditional approach to the social foundations of education. One of the founders, John Laska, considered the controversy over whether or not the social foundations of education was a discipline to be a pointless discussion. As he explained in an article published in Teachers College Record in the late 1960s:

      Much futile discussion has taken place over whether education does or does not constitute a discipline. Rather than enter into this essentially sterile controversy, the founding members of the American Educational Studies Association have chosen to use the general term “field” to designate their area of study. Thus, if it can be agreed that, for example, demography, genetics, and ecology constitute fields of study (though perhaps not disciplines), there should be no difficulty in regarding the academic study of education as a field of study, reserving for later years the question of whether it has attained disciplinary status or not.43

      This was in a period that also saw the establishment and growth of groups such as the History of Education Society and the Philosophy of Education Society.

      History versus Social Foundations

      The educational historian Sol Cohen has provided a useful discussion of the history of American education. At the beginning of his essay, “The History of the History of American Education: The Uses of the Past,” he clearly states that the main problem confronting educational historians who work in schools and departments of education is

      the degree to which historians of education should be detached from or engaged in the educational and social problems of the day; that is, questions about what used to be called the “function” of history in a school or department of education.44

      Cohen considers this a perennial controversy. Is the work of a historian in a faculty of education “liberal,” “technical,” “professional,” or “social reconstructionist”?45 This is a question that faces all professors in the social foundations, whether they are historians, sociologists, or philosophers. In the case of historians of education, I believe that, to a large degree, they decided to go the “professional” route as part of a process of disciplinary affiliation and the quest for personal professional status. There are many explanations for this, some of which have to do with efforts made in the general discipline of history during the 1950s.

      In 1954, the Ford Foundation called a conference of historians to look at the possibility of promoting historical research about the role of education in the development of American culture. Only historians in departments of history were invited to the meeting. They included Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., Merle Curti, Samuel Eliot Morison, Richard Hofstadter, Ralph Gabriel, Walter Metzger, Paul H. Buck, and Richard J. Storr.46 No “specialists” in the field were invited to the conference. In other words, no one working in an education department or school was included.

      The group assumed that no really serious work had been conducted in the history of American education—that the work done largely by educational historians working in education programs had been uncritical, largely celebratory, and not of much value. In October 1959, a conference on early American education was sponsored by the Fund for Advancement of Education. The colonial historian Bernard Bailyn presented a paper, “Education in the Forming of American Society.” This essay was subsequently published as a monograph of the same title.47

      In a foreword to Bailyn's work, Lester J. Cappon argued that the history of American education needed to be restudied because it had

      suffered at the hands of specialists who, with the development of public education at heart, sought historical arguments to strengthen their “cause.” If there was a story of the past worth writing, it was viewed from the narrow concept of formal instruction. If schooling was institutionalized in the schoolhouse of the nineteenth century, its antecedent must be lurking in a comparable building and curriculum of the colonial period.48

      In the words of Bailyn, “the past was simply the present writ small.”49

      Bailyn argued that the histories of education written by “educational missionaries” at the turn of the century reflected their professional interests and did not represent critical histories. He argued further that their histories were focused almost exclusively on the role of formal institutions in the educational process. As pointed out by Sol Cohen, Bailyn's interpretation almost completely disregarded the pioneering work of scholars such as Paul Monroe, who taught at Teachers College at the beginning of the century, and his students, including Edgar Knight, Stuart Noble, Frederick Eby, Edward Reisner, Thomas Woody, Willystine Goodsell, and Harlan Updegraff, as well as a subsequent generation (many trained as academic historians) such as Edgar B. Wesley, Adolph Meyer, Allen O. Hansen, Herman G. Richy, Newton Edwards, Charles F. Arrowood, and Harry Good.50

      In 1961, Lawrence Cremin had been invited to become a member of the Committee on the Role of Education in American History. This was the same year that he published his breakthrough study The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education.51 In 1965, Cremin published The Wonderful World of Ellwood Patterson Cubberley.52 It was subtitled “An Essay on the Historiography of American Education.” Cremin followed Bailyn's lead by arguing that Ellwood Patterson Cubberley's book Public Education in the United States had set an uncritical and jingoistic model for the interpretation of American educational history—one that schools and departments of education had never been able to escape.

      Although Cubberley's work can certainly be criticized, I believe that it was being used, to a certain extent, to provide a justification for a new history of education that was separate from the tradition of a department or school of education. I think that Cremin had decided to throw his lot in with the academic historians. He was rejecting the social foundations tradition in which he had been trained and nurtured at Teachers College for a disciplinary alliance.

      Cohen cites an argument that Wilson Smith, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, made in a 1961 article that the new historians of education would be distinguished by two characteristics. The first would be “their use of broader historical references, and [their] wider, more humanistic, professional commitment.” They would also move beyond a simply “useful” or “functional” approach in their work and become a “servant of disciplined thinking” and a “representative of humane learning.”53

      Cohen maintains that the new educational historians personified by Bailyn and Cremin ignored two generations of educational historians. They did so, according to him, for highly complex reasons. What was really at work was a rejection of the tradition of the social foundations of education—that is, the people who trained Cremin at Teachers College. According to Cohen, historians of education such as Cremin

      during the 1950s and early 1960s, for what seemed like good reason at the time, decided to overlook or repress not only contemporary historians of education, but the long conversation about the function of the history of education—“liberal,” “technical,” or “social constructionist”—which had taken place in the three decades between Cubberley and themselves.54

      It is no accident that as all of this was taking place, Cremin and others were laying down the foundation for the History of Education Society. In 1948, a small group of educational historians, including Archibald Anderson at the University of Illinois, R. Freeman Butts at Teachers College, John Brubacher at Yale University, and Claude Eggersten at the University of Michigan, convinced the National Society of Colleges of Teacher Education (NSCTE) to sponsor a history of education section with its own journal.55 From the beginning, there was strong disagreement among the group's membership as to whether or not the primary purpose underlying the history of education should be to make it functional as a means of addressing contemporary questions and problems, or to follow a more traditional academic model based in “liberal study.” As Stuart Noble maintained in his support of the more traditional liberal study approach, it was not “necessary or desirable to teach the subject with the motive of relevancy to current problems. I am positive in the conviction that the history of education should be taught with the liberal rather than the functional values in mind.”56

      In 1960, more than a decade after the founding of the History of Education Society, Cremin tried to settle the argument by founding a new History of Education Society based around the idea that it was part of liberal studies. Cremin's rejection of the older social foundations of education model fit well into the reform agenda proposed a couple of years later by Conant in The Education of American Teachers. In 1968, Division F (History and the Historiography of Education) was established as part of the American Educational Research Association.

      Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, a disciplinary model for the social foundations of education prevailed. Under this model, the development of groups such as the History of Education Society, the Philosophy of Education Society, and Division F of the American Educational Research Association occurred. Further developments took place in the history of education with the emergence of the revisionist and radical revisionist movements. Many traditional social foundations of education specialists found themselves gravitating to the American Educational Studies Association and Division G (Social and Cultural Context of Education) in the American Educational Research Association. Others moved between various disciplinary groups and the more general organizations.

      It was very clear that by the late 1970s and early 1980s, the social foundations of education was a highly divided field. This situation was further complicated by the emergence of competition from scholars interested in curriculum inquiry, critical theory, and cultural studies—an issue that is discussed later in this essay.

      Disciplinary versus Social Foundation Models

      As was demonstrated with the example of the history of education, the relationship between disciplinary areas of knowledge and the social foundations of education has been an issue throughout its history. Unlike more disciplinary-based fields, “the problems of education and of society are basically indivisible except for individual diagnosis and study.”57 Educational problems are situational. They require seeing the interrelationship of things. Thus, a single disciplinary approach cannot address the needs of education.58 As R. Freeman Butts explained, the solution of educational issues requires “judgment, generalization, and the application of knowledge from a variety of sources. The greater the specialization of knowledge, the greater the need for generality, integration, and interdisciplinary study.”59

      How does one determine the appropriate use of disciplinary knowledge? Erving Johanningmeier argues that social foundation specialists in education have always had to face this problem. This process, according to him, is more difficult than it may seem at first. As he explains,

      If we do not adhere to the standards of the discipline, we are in danger of making misapplications that can result in unsound and useless conclusions and applications as well as criticism from the practitioners of those disciplines. We become amateurs subject to the criticism of experts.60

      At the same time, lohanningmeier points out that “Seeking our status and credibility through knowledge of our neighbors' affairs distracts us from our own field and the problems we should be examining.”61

      What lohanningmeier is referring to is perhaps the inevitable problem facing any interdisciplinary line of research. In a field such as the social foundations, one needs to be grounded in not just a discipline and its related political and methodological issues, but also the larger field of social foundations of education. If one is truly interdisciplinary from a methodological and interpretive point of view, one can find oneself stretched across a wide range of methods and disciplines. A researcher interested in visual sources in the history of American education, for example, can easily find him- or herself bridging research issues ranging from visual anthropology to communication studies to semiotics and qualitative methods.

      Johanningmeier makes the important point that when the social foundations scholar applies a discipline to education as a field, he or she is dealing directly with the question of applying research to practice. Noting the philosopher William James's belief that teaching is an art rather than a science, Johanningmeier quoted James's admonition

      that you make a very great mistake, if you think that psychology being the science of the mind's laws, is something from which you can deduce definite programmes and methods of instruction for immediate school use. Psychology is a science, and teaching is an art; and sciences never generate arts directly out of themselves.62

      As Johanningmeier points out, psychology by itself cannot convert theory into practice. Instead, there is the need for what James referred to as an “inventive mine.”63

      Those who use disciplinary-based models of inquiry tend to assume that they possess a superior rigor and insight compared to those in an interdisciplinary field such as the social foundations of education. What disciplinary specialists do not realize is that they are doing something that is significantly different. Johanningmeier quotes Foster McMurray, who wrote in 1955 that an educational sociologist, in doing his or her work, is making a contribution to sociology rather than to education. This is not to say that his or her contribution is not important beyond the discipline, but that it is not necessarily the same thing that a social foundations of education researcher does when he or she uses sociological methods in his or her work. According to McMurray,

      In the same way that application of pure science to industrial process is not found by simple deduction from basic knowledge, but is rather the product of creative invention, so the “meaning” of the social sciences for education must be discovered by activities of a higher intellectual order than following suggestions, analogous, or supposed “implications” from foundational sciences.64

      According to McMurray, the “true” discipline of education cannot arise only by applying the questions of a discipline such as history or sociology within a school setting.65

      There are several reasons why a singular disciplinary model is inadequate for the field of education and, more specifically, the social foundations of education. Most important is the fact that schools are, by their very nature, multifaceted and complex. No single discipline is capable of capturing all that goes on in schools. An interdisciplinary model is required.

      This does not mean that the social foundations needs to reject disciplinary approaches. They are, in fact, essential to the main task of the social foundations. As Johanningmeier explains, although “the disciplines are ancillary to our task,” they are, from a practical point of view, “indispensable.”66 Yet, at the same time, they can be regarded as “enemies” because their disciplinary focus tends to reject interdisciplinary models, which are fundamental to the very idea of the social foundations.67

      Nash, Shiman, and Conrad maintain that the preoccupation of many social foundations scholars with imitating the disciplines has caused them to lose focus of their primary purpose—at least as defined by the original founders of the field, such as Counts and Kilpatrick. As they explained in the mid-1970s:

      What ails the social and humanistic foundations of education is the slavish tendency to ape the disciplines. It is time to admit the obvious: We in the foun-dational areas have for so long attempted to borrow legitimacy for our own subject matter from the academic disciplines that we have seriously neglected the day-to-day professional concerns of the undergraduate and graduate constituents we serve. Casual attendance at our professional conferences and the most perfunctory perusal of our technical journals embarrassingly reveal the current sad state of foundational studies: preoccupation with the most tendentious and narrow academic issues. Burning topical concerns such as busing, mainstreaming, career education, “back-to-the-basics vs. open education,” and teacher militancy are often collapsed into—or ignored in favor of—the most abstruse, “scholarly” discussions of sociology of knowledge, historical revisionism, language analysis, and existential phenomenology. Also, like our cherished counterparts in the disciplines, we are often more comfortable interminably debating and critiquing each other on trivial technical issues than we are in radically reorganizing and integrating our subject matters and exploring vital and more varied instructional procedures.68

      Many in the social foundations, according to Nash and colleagues, pay lip service to the idea of interdisciplinary work, but in fact “still cling tenaciously to the boundaries of the established disciplines.”69 In doing so, they deny the fundamental interdisciplinary character of the field—the very basis on which it was founded.

      The desire to develop disciplinary affiliations is perhaps understandable. Most social foundations professors find themselves as outsiders in the schools and departments of education where they teach. They are typically in small number and are surrounded by colleagues with many different agendas, orientations, and interests. Their work is often difficult to understand and does not easily fit in with traditions of empirical and scientific research that are more commonly embraced by researchers in fields such as educational psychology, statistics, and quantitative research. Practitioners, with their field-based orientation, often consider their social foundations colleagues to be disconnected from the real world of the schools.

      In addition to the above problems, social foundations professors, because of their disciplinary orientation, are potentially considered to be “fraternizing with the enemy.” Particularly in larger university settings, arts and sciences disciplinary specialists have a history of devaluing and attacking professional schools, and more specifically, departments and schools of education.70 Somehow, the education of teachers is not considered to be a responsibility for the overall institution (including arts and sciences professors and their content courses), but strictly the responsibility of professors in the education school. There is little awareness of the fact that students in most schools of education get the great bulk of their education outside of the school of education. They don't seem to realize that what can be accomplished within a program is often limited by certification requirements and so on. In many schools—particularly state universities—teacher education programs fund more specialized disciplinary programs in the arts and sciences. In fact, there is a failure in many state institutions—particularly smaller, regionally based schools that have been designated recently as universities—to face up to the fact that they began as teacher education colleges or normal schools and, to a very large degree, still have that function today.

      Social foundations of education professors are also faced with the temptation of trying to gain professional status in their disciplines, rather than in the professional schools and departments where most of them work. Even when such status is offered, it is often conditional and subject to unconscious biases.

      Disciplinary Power, Hegemony, and the Social Foundations of Education

      It can be argued that, in the medieval scholastic sense, disciplines such as history, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology are the handmaidens of the social foundations of education. Such an approach would be a challenge to most disciplines. By adopting an interdisciplinary model, the social foundations of education challenges the exclusive authority of an individual discipline. In doing so, there is the potential threat of an outsider asking about the validity of specific disciplinary models, as well as the extent to which they serve selected personal agendas and needs.

      Disciplinary association is not simply an academic issue, but is also deeply rooted in issues of power and authority in both the university and the culture at large. In this regard, the concept of hegemony provides an extremely interesting lens through which to examine the potential of disciplinary systems to limit the freedom and latitude of interdisciplinary approaches such as the social foundations of education.

      Hegemony is a concept that was first developed by the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937). For Gramsci, hegemony represented the diffusion or permeation throughout the culture of a specific system of values, attitudes, and beliefs that had the effect of supporting the existing power structure in the culture. According to Peter McLaren,

      Hegemony refers to the maintenance of domination not by the sheer exercise of force but primarily through consensual social practices, social forms, and social structures produced in specific sites such as the church, the state, the school, the mass media, the political system and the family…. Hegemony refers to the moral and intellectual leadership of a dominant class over a subordinate class achieved not through coercion (i.e., threat of imprisonment or torture) or the willful construction of rules and regulations (as in a dictatorship or fascist regime), but rather through the general winning of consent of the subordinate class to the authority of the dominant class.71

      The concept of hegemony is particularly interesting because the very people whom it oppresses often embrace it. As a result, they unconsciously contribute to their own oppression. One might argue that this is the case with certain disciplinary specialists in the social foundations of education who strongly embrace a disciplinary approach to gain greater academic status, while they are discriminated against for working with the “people in education.”

      Hegemonic systems set the character and content of discourse in a culture and in a disciplinary field. They do this, according to Douglas Kellner, in that they “define the limits of discourse, by setting the political agenda, by defining the issues and terms of debate, and by excluding oppositional ideas.”72

      R. Freeman Butts and tne “ABCs of tne Foundations of Education”

      In an article published in Education Theory in 1973, R. Freeman Butts attempted to set forth a complex, mul-tilayered model for the social foundations of education. The model included multiple disciplines (history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, and comparative international studies) stacked on top of each other. Each discipline was divided along different axes—literally referred to by Butts as the “ABCs of the Foundations of Education.” These included

      Social and Cultural Problems of Modernizing Societies

      Issue-Laden Trends of Modern Education

      Humanistic and Behavioral Disciplines.73

      For a discipline like history, Butts's model not only was based around the X, Y, Z axes of the ABCs of the Foundations of Education, but was further defined by twelve intersecting vectors (my own term) or forces. These were, on the first vector, “Research-Minded,” “Achievement Versus Learner Oriented,” “Differentiated,” “Practical and Professional,” “Secular and Scientific,” and “Large-Scale Organization.” The second intersecting vector consisted of “Ethnic and Racial Integration,” “Religious and Cultural Pluralism,” “Technical and Intellectual Specialization,” “Rural Transformation and Industrial Urbanization,” “Popular Participation in Public Affairs,” and “Nation Building and National Development.”74

      At first, Butts's model, which he tried to present visually, is extremely confusing. What he was trying to get at was a multivariate model of the forces that shape education and culture—each being situated in a foun-dational discipline—history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, and comparative international studies. In turn, he tried to demonstrate, by stacking the disciplines (history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, and comparative international studies), that they are ultimately interconnected.

      Figure 1 The ABCs of the Foundations of Education
      Source: Adapted from R. Freeman Butts, “Reconstruction in Foundations Studies,” Educational Theory, 23, 1 (Winter 1973). Used with permission by Board of Trustees, University of Illinois.

      Although Butts's model never caught on, I believe that he was on to something. He tried to demonstrate the interrelatedness of forces and issues that shape education. He believed that it was possible to decode the meaning of these forces through the disciplines, ultimately integrating the findings in a multidiscipli-nary model based in the social foundations of education. In a certain sense, what he was postulating was a complex social/ecological system.

      Butts recognized the limitations and possibilities inherent in his model. As he explained,

      Approaching the foundational study through the several disciplines has the undoubted merit that it can achieve a depth of understanding in a single field of knowledge and provide the methodological tools for thinking about education and society in a particular way, historical, philosophical, psychological, sociological. But the trouble is that the more successful the disciplinary approach is in the eyes of the scholar the less useful it may be for the non-specialist student. The disciplinary specialist needs a conceptual framework to guide the selection of instructional materials that will be relevant to the interplay between education and society…. Approaching foundational study through the other avenues, social problems or educational issues, has the immediate advantage of greater relevance for the common problems facing educators, but the danger is that the study may be superficial and shallow with too little depth of real knowledge as the basis for making judgments or enlisting commitment for reform. If a problem approach is used, the most valid scholarly knowledge of the several disciplines must be relied upon, but this too requires a well-formulated framework of thought to serve as a principle of selection for instructional materials to be plumbed from the depths of the disciplines.75

      Butts essentially argued that the social foundations of education must provide a conceptual model to function. While it needs the methodological tools provided by the disciplines, disciplinary inquiry cannot answer meaningful educational questions unless it goes beyond the boundaries of a single field. In other words, interdisciplinary approaches are unavoidable if much meaning is to be found in the disciplinary inquiry.

      The image of Chang and Eng, the famous Siamese twins who toured with P. T. Barnum during the second half of the nineteenth century, comes to mind when we consider the ultimate connection between the disciplines and the social foundations of education. Chang and Eng were bound together for life. Essentially, the social foundations cannot afford to sever its connections with the disciplines, no matter how much discomfort those disciplines may cause. The problem is that the disciplines can continue on their own without the necessity of the social foundations of education. In doing so, however, the study of education and its connection to professional training and critical social change and reform becomes extremely limited.

      Toward a Redefinition of tne Social Foundations of Education

      The social foundations of education is at a critical point in its history. There is a very real possibility that the field could fall into oblivion—or, at best, be incorporated into specialized disciplinary fields such as history, philosophy, and sociology. This would be unfortunate because the interdisciplinary nature of the field has the potential to serve the needs of the culture and the educational community more than restricted disciplinary models. Throughout the second half of this essay, I call for a renewed definition of the social foundations of education. In doing so, the integration of insights from the field of cultural studies can provide the basis for a new approach to the field. It can not only respect disciplinary insights and methods, but also be linked in a dynamic and meaningful way to the original founding principles of the social foundations of education.

      Undertaking a discussion of cultural studies and its relationship to the social foundations of education requires an examination of the meaning of the term culture. In its most conservative meaning, culture can be defined as a “standard of aesthetic excellence,”76 what the nineteenth-century English critic Matthew Arnold defined as “the best that has been said and thought in the world.”77 For the poet T. S. Eliot, culture represented “all the characteristic activities and interests of a people.”78 In the United States, this definition could include New Orleans jazz, the poetry of Robert Frost, the music of Elvis Presley, the design of the Empire State Building, a McDonald's hamburger, or the New York Philharmonic. The anthropologist Edward T. Hall describes culture in the following way:

      Culture is man's medium; there is not one aspect of human life that is not touched and altered by culture. This means personality, how people express themselves (including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how problems are served, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems function and are organized, as well as how economic and government systems are put together and function.79

      However, it is frequently the most obvious and taken-for-granted, and therefore the least studied, aspects of culture that influence behavior in the deepest and most subtle ways.

      For John Clarke, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson, and Brian Roberts, culture represents

      the shared principles of life characteristic of particular classes, groups or social milieux. Cultures are produced as groups make sense of their social existence in the course of everyday experience. Culture is intimate, therefore, with the world of practical action. It suffices, for most of the time, for managing everyday life. Since, however, this everyday world is itself problematic, culture must perforce take complex and net-erogenous forms, not at all free from contradictions.80

      The study of culture as a phenomenon is at the root of foundational studies in education. Therefore, it is not surprising that cultural studies as a field should suggest the direction for a redefinition of the social and cultural foundations as a field.

      Defining cultural studies, as a field, is a difficult task. Advocates of the field consciously avoid a disciplinary approach, maintaining that such models are limiting and often represent entrenched power groups. According to Kathy Hytten,

      As a counter logic, cultural studies advocates suggest that the segmentation of knowledge into neat disciplinary packages and categories is what precipitates the need for alternative ways of understanding and exploring the world, as the narrow confines and highly specific methodological approaches of any one particular discipline are not adequate to capture the complexity of something as multi-faceted as culture.81

      Although there is a deliberately open-ended quality to cultural studies, it does not lack a focus. Cultural studies is concerned with understanding what can be termed the “web” of culture—its interrelationships and connectedness. In doing so, cultural studies identifies relationships involving power, domination, control, and authority. It does so, not through the study of just traditional culture, but also through the study of popular culture. It considers what is valued and what is not valued by the culture, as well as at a culture's signs and symbols—where, and how, and who generates them. Cultural studies assumes that culture is dynamic and changing, and that there are many cultures that define a larger culture or society such as is found in the United States or Great Britain.

      Hytten summarizes cultural studies as involving “the study of culture: what it is and how it is constructed, transmitted, contested, negotiated and conceived.”82 In addition, she points to four characteristics that particularly distinguish cultural studies as an approach: (1) Cultural studies assumes that culture is a dynamic process; (2) cultural studies makes little or no distinction between highbrow and popular culture; (3) cultural studies understands that culture and power are linked; and (4) cultural studies demands new ways of studying culture that transcend traditional methods and disciplinary boundaries.83 These four characteristics effectively position cultural studies as a challenge to more traditional disciplinary approaches to knowledge and education.

      For example, arguing that cultural studies is a dynamic process challenges the notion of many traditional humanists and disciplinary specialists who believe that there is an essential body of knowledge that defines the meaning of Western culture. This approach is represented in the work of literary scholars such as E. D. Hirsch, Jr. and Alan Bloom.84 According to Hirsch, cultural literacy is defined within a narrow range of traditions and experiences.

      Significantly, cultural studies does not necessarily reject the traditions of knowledge such as the “Western canon.” The field even recognizes that some cultural traditions may be of more value than others. As Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux explain,

      To acknowledge different forms of literacy is not to suggest that they should all be given equal weight. On the contrary, it is to argue that their differences are to be weighed against the capacity they have for enabling people to locate themselves in their own histories while simultaneously establishing the conditions for them to function as part of a wider democratic culture. This represents a form of literacy that is not merely epistemological, but also deeply political and eminently pedagogical.85

      Hirsch and Bloom, as representatives of a much more conservative model, would maintain that culture represents less of a dialogic process, and is more fixed. In this context, Hirsch and Bloom would subscribe to the nineteenth-century English critic Matthew Arnold's model of culture as being “the best that has been said and thought in the world.”86

      Theorists in cultural studies, rather than simply accepting an Arnoldian selection of “the best that has been thought and said,” would ask whose values are being represented in the selection? Why? Is the selection of certain topics a manifestation of selected cultural and political groups replicating or extending their power and privilege? Thus, according to Giroux, culture “is not seen as monolithic and unchanging, but as a site of multiple and heterogenous borders where different histories, languages, experiences and voices intermingle amidst diverse relations of power and privilege.”87

      Cultural studies rejects elitist models of culture that privilege certain groups over others. Thus, it includes not just elite culture, but also popular culture sources. These sources, such as film, television, comics, and advertising, are often highly problematic for traditional scholars. Much of the discomfort on the part of traditional academics over the introduction of cultural studies into the curriculum of colleges and universities has not so much to do with the content of the material, as with what other material is being displaced. The American culture wars that began during the late 1980s were largely over whose values and belief systems would be represented in the culture.88

      This brings us to the notion that power and culture are linked. Cultural studies theorists recognize, like the English philosopher Francis Bacon, that knowledge is power. Defining what culture is is ultimately a political act that reinforces specific lines of power and authority. This explains why the work produced by artists is often a touchstone of controversy in a culture. Artistic representations have the potential to reinforce or challenge existing lines of culture power and authority.

      Hytten argues that the four guiding assumptions outlined above (culture as dynamic, no absolute distinction between high and low culture, culture and power as linked, and the importance of transcending disciplinary boundaries) represent

      an intellectual and political practice that is concerned with understanding culture as something which is multi-faceted and helps to condition the dominant expectations, values, beliefs and norms toward being and acting in the world. As a practice, cultural studies is contextualist, critical and interventionist.89

      Cultural Studies and the Social Foundations of Education

      The field of cultural studies began to achieve prominence in the United States during the mid-1980s. As an academic area, it can trace its origins back to the 1960s and the founding of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. From its beginning, the Centre's approach was interdisciplinary. Led by figures such as Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, and Edward Thompson, the Centre's roots were in adult and working-class education.90

      As Lawrence Grossberg has pointed out, it is ironic that all of the founding figures of cultural studies, including Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, E. P. Thompson, and Stuart Hall, started their work in education, outside of traditional academic university settings.91 Yet despite this fact, education, and more specifically the social foundations of education, was slow to incorporate cultural studies models into its programs.

      I believe that there are several explanations for this phenomenon. To begin with, the social foundations of education was already asking many of the same questions that are being addressed in cultural studies.92 In fact, each of the four characteristics identified by Hytten as being associated with cultural studies (Cultural studies assumes that culture is a dynamic process; cultural studies makes little or no distinction between high-brow and popular culture; cultural studies understands that culture and power are linked; and cultural studies demands new ways of studying culture that transcend traditional methods and disciplinary boundaries) can be accommodated easily within the assumptions of the founders of the social foundations of education.

      For example, cultural studies assumes that culture is a dynamic process. This concept is inherent in the social reconstructionist model that underlies the basic philosophy of the Teachers College social foundations faculty. The need to “reconstruct” the culture, or, as George S. Counts argued, that the “schools build a new social order,” implies, by definition, the idea that schools and the culture are inevitably involved in the process of change. In other words, they are part of a dynamic social process.

      One need only look at the work of Counts to see an example of this assumption. In Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? he argued that

      We live in troublous times; we live in an age of profound change; we live in an age of revolution. Indeed it is highly doubtful whether man ever lived in a more eventful period than the present. In order to match our epoch we would probably have to go back to the fall of the ancient empires or even to that unrecorded age when men first abandoned the natural arts of hunting and fishing and trapping and began to experiment with agriculture and the settled life. Today we are witnessing the rise of a civilization quite without precedent in human history—a civilization founded on science, technology, and machinery, possessing the most extraordinary power, and rapidly making of the entire world a single great society. Because of forces already released, whether in the field of economics, politics, morals, religion, or art, the old molds are being broken. And the peoples of the earth are everywhere seething with strange ideas and passions. If life were peaceful and quiet and undisturbed by great issues, we might with some show of wisdom center our attention on the nature of the child. But with the world as it is, we cannot afford for a single instant to remove our eyes from the social scene or shift our attention from the peculiar needs of the age.93

      Likewise in the introduction to the textbook Readings in the Foundations of Education, which was created by the Kilpatrick discussion group for Education 200F, change and how it affects schools and the culture at large was presented as being an unavoidable and current issue for educators. As the editors of the book explained: “The present age of industrialism and high technology is peculiarly dynamic, that in fact not only in America but practically the entire world it has entered a period of most profound social and cultural transition.”94

      Hytten's second assumption, that cultural studies make little or no distinction between high-brow and popular culture, is reflected in the fact that the content of a course such as Education 200F at Teachers College recognized society's “shift from a mechanistic and atomistic outlook upon life to an organic one.”95

      In this context, although the idea of popular culture was almost certainly unknown to the founders of the social foundations, the concept of moving beyond mechanistic models toward organic ones strongly resonates with the notion that there was a need to understand both high and low culture. In the Education 200F Readings textbook, the inclusion of essays such as “Literature as Art and Propaganda,” “Social Propaganda as Art Education,” and other similar topics suggests that there was at least the beginning of an understanding on the part of the Teachers College faculty that issues involving the relationship between popular culture, the educational system, and the larger culture were important. Mass media—more specifically, electronic media—had just been introduced into American culture by the mid-1930s. Commercial radio was introduced in the late 1920s and commercial television would reach mainstream audiences during the late 1940s or early 1950s—fifteen to twenty years after the core formulation of the social foundations had taken place.

      Hytten's third assumption, that cultural studies understand that culture and power are linked, is an issue that Counts was clearly aware of. Once again we need only turn to Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? where he states that “ruling classes never surrender their power voluntarily.”96 Likewise, when he asks, “In whose interests and for what purposes are the vast material riches, the unrivaled industrial equipment, and the science and technology of the nation to be used?”97 Counts was interrogating the meaning of power and authority in American society in ways that would be readily understood by anyone coming from a cultural studies perspective.

      Finally, Hytten's argument that cultural studies demand new ways of studying culture that transcend traditional methods and disciplinary boundaries is implicit in the very definition of the field of the social foundations of education. To repeat the guidelines statement made by the social and philosophical foundations department at Teachers College more than fifty years ago: “As with the field of cultural studies, the interdisciplinary character of the Social Foundations of Education was defined at its inception.”

      Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Studies of Education

      The tradition of critical pedagogy traces its roots back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. Writers such as Henry Giroux, Stanley Aronowitz, and Peter McLaren started to draw on such theorists as Michael Young, Basil Bernstein, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Richard Johnson, Paul Willis, Antonio Gramsci, and Paulo Freire, as well as members of the Frankfurt school of critical theory (Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Walter Benjamin).98 Giroux, Aronowitz, and McLaren also began to question whether or not schools were neutral, the extent to which they perpetuated privilege, and the extent to which they were part of larger systems of power and authority within the culture.

      Their work was not entirely original. Disciplinary-based social foundations scholars such as the revisionist and radical revisionist historians of education had asked similar questions more than a decade earlier. Their work nonetheless represents an important breakthrough. By the late 1970s, Giroux, in particular, had become increasingly interested in culture as part of a political and social process. He moved beyond a traditional Marxist analysis of culture, rejecting it because of its overemphasis on economics.” In works such as Education Under Siege (coauthored with Stanley Aronowitz), Giroux argued that schools were part of a “democratic public sphere.” According to Aronowitz and Giroux, this meant that several steps needed to be taken. The first was

      to specify what we as a community want education to be. This means acknowledging both the importance as well as the limits of the language of critique. It means moving beyond analyses of the ideological and material conditions of public schooling to the language of possibility. In this case, we move to the terrain of hope and agency, to the sphere of struggle and action, one steeped in a vision which chooses life and offers constructive alternatives.100

      The second step involved “rethinking the purpose of education” and

      reformulating the social and ideological role of educators. We believe that educators at all levels of schooling have to be seen as intellectuals, who as mediators, legitimators, and producers of ideas and social practices, perform a pedagogical function that is eminently political in nature. By viewing educators as intellectuals, we want to expand the theoretical insights provided by Freire and Gramsci on the role of the intellectual in modern society and, specifically, of the role of educators in public schools and in higher education. In effect, we want to offer a set of categories that will allow for a better understanding of intellectual work, the preconditions for its existence, and the political role it does and can serve.101

      Aronowitz and Giroux, and particularly Giroux, had probably discovered the work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. This is important, because Gramsci not only posits the idea of hegemony, but counterhegemony, which implicitly included the concept of resistance. For both Aronowitz and Giroux, the idea of a counterhegemony posits the possibilities of a language of hope and reform.

      Interestingly, Aronowitz and Giroux believe that their work resonates with that of earlier educational progressives such as Dewey and Kilpatrick. As they explain,

      Progressive education—the core American doctrine of liberal educational humanism—contains a language of possibility for fruitful intervention into contemporary educational battles, because it poses the relationship of power and knowledge in a positive as well as critical way. To begin with, we want to make a distinction between the progressive education movement as it evolved in the early decades of the century, reemerged later in the 1960s, and the ideas of its leading theorists John Dewey and the Columbia School (Kirkpatrick, Rugg, Hook and Mikeljohn). The movement never achieved hegemony within school ideology but was appropriated, piecemeal, into a hybrid discourse of liberal reform which dominated our schools since the turn of the century. Moreover, in its latter incarnation, radical school reform of the 1960s adopted an anti-intellectual stance that helped prepare the victory of the right.102

      Aronowitz and Giroux credit progressives such as Dewey with having a vision of what schools ought to be, but take him to task for not “making a social and political analysis of what schools are.”103

      I believe that Aronowitz and Giroux, and particularly Giroux, fail to sufficiently take into account the importance of earlier theoreticians in the social foundations of education—specifically, those in the Kilpatrick discussion group such as George S. Counts.

      In Teachers as Intellectuals, for example, Giroux argues that teachers need to become “transformative intellectuals,” ones who will

      combine reflection and action in the interest of empowering students with the skills and knowledge needed to address injustices and to be critical actors committed to developing a world free of oppression and exploitation. Such intellectuals are not merely concerned with promoting individual achievement or advancing students along career ladders, they are concerned with empowering students so they can read the world critically and change it when necessary.104

      Returning to the idea of schools as “democratic public spheres” that he developed with Aronowitz in Education Under Siege, Giroux argues in Teachers as Intellectuals that “both teachers and students need to work together to forge a new emancipatory vision of community and society.”105 According to Giroux, teachers as intellectuals

      must take active responsibility for raising serious questions about what they teach, how they are to teach, and what the larger goals are for which they are striving. This means that they must take a responsible role in shaping the purposes and conditions of schooling. Such a task is impossible within a division of labor in which teachers have little influence over the ideological and economic conditions of their work.106

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with old wine in new bottles. Giroux's concept of teachers being “transformative intellectuals” sounds a great deal like George S. Count's argument for teachers becoming a social force in his 1932 Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? As Counts argued,

      Teachers, if they could increase sufficiently their stock of courage, intelligence, and vision, might become a social force of some magnitude. About this eventuality I am not over sanguine, but a society lacking leadership as ours does, might even accept the guidance of teachers. Through powerful organizations they might at least reach the public conscience and come to exercise a larger measure of control over the schools than hitherto. They would then have to assume some responsibility for the more fundamental forms of imposition which, according to my argument, cannot be avoided.107

      Counts believed that teachers should not only be politically and socially proactive, but consciously seek power as well. As he explained,

      That the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest is my firm conviction. To the extent that they are permitted to fashion the curriculum and the procedures of the school they will definitely and positively influence the social attitudes, ideals, and behavior of the coming generation. In doing this they should resort to no subterfuge or false modesty. They should say neither that they are merely teaching the truth nor that they are unwilling to wield power in their own right. The first position is false and the second is a confession of incompetence. It is my observation that the men and women who have affected the course of human events are those who have not hesitated to use the power that has come to them. Representing as they do, not the interests of the moment or of any special class, but rather the common and abiding interests of the people, teachers are under heavy social obligation to protect and further those interests. In this they occupy a relatively unique position in society. Also since the profession should embrace scientists and scholars of the highest rank, as well as teachers working at all levels of the educational system, it has at its disposal, as no other group, the knowledge and wisdom of the ages. It is scarcely thinkable that these men and women would ever act as selfishly or bungle as badly as have the so-called “practical” men of our generation—the politicians, the financiers, the industrialists. If all of these facts are taken into account, instead of shunning power, the profession should rather seek power and then strive to use that power fully and wisely and in the interests of the great masses of the people.108

      Counts, along with William Heard Kilpatrick, is widely considered to be the singular force in the development of the Education 200F course at Teachers College and perhaps as much as any single figure, the founder of the field of the social foundations of education. The basic premise and title of his “revolutionary” pamphlet Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? calls for a radical pedagogy that complements theorists such as Giroux and could easily have been written during the 1980s or in our own era. According to Counts, writing during the early years of the Great Depression, teachers

      must be prepared to stand on their own feet and win for their ideas the support of the masses of the people. Education as a force for social regeneration must march hand in hand with the living and creative forces of the social order. In their own lives teachers must bridge the gap between school and society and play some part in the fashioning of those great common purposes which should bind the two together.109

      As a result of science, technology, and culture, human civilization was transforming itself into a “single great society.”110

      Included in Aronowitz and Giroux's idea of the school as a democratic sphere is the need “to specify what we as a community want education to be.” Implicit in this notion is the belief that the schools must be part of an active political process, not simply passive containers of knowledge. This is an idea that clearly resonates with Counts, who argued that

      If the schools are to be really effective, they must become centers for the building, and not merely for the contemplation, of our civilization. This does not mean that we should endeavor to promote particular reforms through the educational system. We should, however, give to our children a vision of the possibilities which lie ahead and endeavor to enlist their loyalties and enthusiasms in the realization of the vision. Also our social institutions and practices, all of them, should be critically examined in the light of such a vision.111

      Education and Cultural Studies

      By the late 1980s and early 1990s, Giroux's work had evolved beyond a focus on critical pedagogy into a broader cultural studies model. By the middle of the 1990s, he had published his essay, “Is There a Place for Cultural Studies in Colleges of Education?”112 This piece was followed in 1997 by a book coedited with Patrick Shannon, Education and Cultural Studies: Toward a Performative Practice.113

      At the beginning of “Is There a Place for Cultural Studies in Colleges of Education?” Giroux asks the question of “why so few academics have incorporated cultural studies into the language of education reform, particularly as it applies to colleges and schools of education.”114 Although I think that there is validity in his argument that there is a long tradition of educational reform emphasizing the practical and the immediate over the reflective and the intellectual, and that “within such a tradition, management issues become more important than understanding and furthering schools as democratic public spheres,”115 also believe that Giroux and many others interested in the cultural studies of education have consistently ignored the intellectual traditions of the social foundations of education. Once again, I do not object to Giroux and others adopting a cultural studies model of education. I obviously think that the model is important and well worth attention. My objection is that by not connecting their model to the intellectual traditions of the social foundations of education begun at Teachers College more than fifty years before, they contribute to the fragmentation among those groups interested in social and cultural issues related to schooling.

      As argued in earlier sections of this essay, the founders of the social foundations of education laid out an intellectual agenda in the 1930s and 1940s that, if not precisely the same, included most of the key elements of a cultural studies approach to education. Certainly, popular culture and an understanding of the need to study media—particularly electronic media—as an educational force was not part of their agenda (these forces had not sufficiently emerged in the culture to have attention given to them). The themes of culture as dynamic and changing, of the need for educators and academics to be political and cultural leaders, of the need for them to go beyond disciplinary borders in the study of education, as well as the realization that education involves issues of power and authority, were all concerns of the Kilpatrick discussion groups. They were also themes within the traditions of the social foundations of education that emerged from Teachers College.

      Giroux demonstrates little awareness of this tradition. Perhaps this is because of his academic training and experience. Giroux taught as a high school teacher from 1969–1975. His graduate training culminated with the completion of a doctorate of arts from Carnegie-Mellon University's College of Humanities and Social Sciences in 1977 with a major in curriculum theory, sociology of education, and history. His dissertation was titled “Themes in Modern European History: A Study in the Process of Writing History.” At least at the doctoral level, Giroux's training was not in the social and cultural foundations of education, yet it is this area that, historically, has been most linked to cultural studies issues.

      In his writing, both on critical theory and pedagogy, as well as on cultural studies and education, Giroux makes virtually no reference to the social foundations of education as a field, nor to the key writers in the field. His approach is to draw on literary and cultural theorists—ones whom I suspect he knew and with whom he was comfortable from studies in literature and critical theory as part of his doctoral program. I think Giroux's originality is that of the outsider coming to the field of education and bringing with him a new set of theoretical insights and perspectives. I believe that his main limitation is that he is not sufficiently connected to intellectual traditions such as the social foundations. By coming from the outside, and by not integrating his work with existing traditions, Giroux contributes to the division over the social foundations of education and its role in departments and schools of education.

      Other people have contributed to the problem. William Pinar's important reconceptualist work in curriculum theory led to the creation of the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing and the Bergamo Conference on Curriculum Theory and Classroom Practice (widely known as Bergamo because of its location at a conference center by that name located near Dayton, Ohio). This conference has influenced people to move away from the social foundations of education. People have also been focusing on disciplinary affiliations rather than on the broader social foundations model.

      Foundational Questions for the Field of Educational and Cultural Studies

      Kathy Hytten asks the fundamental question for anyone interested in the social foundations of education or cultural studies in education: “What should be the ultimate purposes of education in a democratic society?”116 She points to the fact that this question and others like it are seldom addressed in schools of education. She notes,

      Asking about ultimate purposes is a metaphysical question, one that requires us to consider the reasons why we do something—the why, or the end goal. Yet too often in education, we neglect metaphysical questions and focus instead on engineering ones.117

      Hytten's “engineering questions” are goal oriented: “Should students be able to choose their schools? How can we efficiently implement an educational strategy such as cooperative learning? What is the best way to teach biology? How can we better assess students?”118 What these questions avoid, according to Hytten, is the question, What is the purpose of schooling?

      The following outline is intended to provide a core set of questions around which a new model of education and cultural studies can be formulated. Many of the questions are obvious to those engaged in the social foundations of education and its related disciplinary fields.

      The idea for such a series of questions is by no means original. In 1960, for example, the educational anthropologist and sociologist Jules Henry developed “A Cross-Cultural Outline of Education,” which included many of the same essential questions and concepts outlined below. In 1969, Philip W. Perdew outlined many of the key questions for the field in an article, “What Are the Foundational Questions?”119 More recently, Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg have used a similar approach in their book Thirteen Questions, in which they provide contrasting interpretations of thirteen key questions in the field of education and cultural studies. Their insight that “teacher education often ignores questions of educational meaning, focusing its attention on techniques of delivering information,”120 is important and addresses one of the most important limitations of how we prepare teachers for the real world.

      The approach taken by Steinberg and Kincheloe is also closely related to what Macmillan and Garrison refer to as ereotetic teaching—that is, teaching that relies on questioning as a central pedagogic technique.121 Although it is hoped that the questions and concepts outlined below are useful to those engaged in teaching in educational foundations, they are also intended to provide a guide for critical inquiry and the means by which to establish a preliminary map of the field of educational and cultural studies.

      Like any map, this set of questions provides an overview or metaphor for the field. Earlier theorists provide useful guidelines. For example, Philip W. Perdew maintained that the criteria for the selection of such questions should include the following:

      They are abstract or theoretical.

      They have broad application to many specific or practical situations.

      For their solution, they draw upon data in more than one field.

      They have the potential for generating new data.

      They are problems in education, not in philosophy, sociology, psychology, or any other discipline, although they may generate data which will be useful to other disciplines.122

      Perdew's criteria are worth careful consideration. They also suggest that the development of such a list is subject to constant revision, as new territories are explored and older, more defined geographies and landscapes are reexaniined. It is hoped that these questions will provide a starting point for further discussion and debate.

      The questions that are included are divided into two groups. The first group is an example of questions about the nature and purpose of schooling and education that critical educational social theorists have asked in recent years. I include them as examples of the types of questions that have been proposed by many of those working in critical and cultural studies of education. The list is not definitive and is intended simply to provide a “scrapbook” of some of the questions that are being asked by researchers and theoreticians in the field. They are not organized in any particular order. Often, the questions were grouped in clusters. As a result, in most instances, I have kept them grouped together.

      The second list draws on many of the questions in the first list. I have reworked some questions and added new questions as I tried to construct a rough taxonomy of inquiry for the field. It is not in any way meant to be definitive, but simply a starting point, a framework, for building an ereotetic system—a foundational set of questions for educational and cultural studies.

      Questions from Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Studies

      In developing the second set of questions, I have been guided by Peter McLaren's notion that in the case of questions involving critical pedagogy, they need to be ones that must

      take as their point of departure the real, concrete problems facing students and teachers today. … Questions which are relevant and pertinent to the human condition, questions which are formulated as part of a larger struggle for human liberation—are those which must be asked of history itself.123

      The first set of questions that have been asked in recent years is as follows:

      Upon what criteria do we base our decisions about what type of society our schools should work to create? How do we decide what we need to know or not to know? What is the nature of the process that certifies certain information as valuable school knowledge? How do we apply the knowledge gained in schools to our own lives and the larger society?124

      How do students and teachers come to construct their views of reality?125

      Why are some constructions of educational reality embraced and officially legitimated by the dominant culture, while others are repressed?126

      What should be taught in the schools?127

      What do schools teach, what should they teach, and who should decide?128

      Is the primary purpose of schooling to instill basic skills or to foster critical thinking?129

      Should education aim to mold future citizens, engender personal development, or inspire academic achievement?130

      Must education have an aim?131

      What beliefs, values, or attitudes are learned from the way classrooms are? That is, what lessons are acquired but taken for granted, taught but not planned?132

      What is a good teacher? good teaching? What does it mean to be a good teacher? Are teachers as good as they used to be? Do we have reason to think teachers are not as good? What made them good? How do we define good? Is there a model for good teaching? a system of meaning that we can attach to good teaching? Are there different types of good teachers? What stories do we hear from teachers about good teaching? what stories from students? Is good teaching intuitive? Is it learned? How symbiotic should schooling and teaching be? What does learning have to do with teaching? Can one really teach anything? What is the responsibility of the learner? What is the text of teaching? of good teaching? Can we define good teaching?133

      What is good teaching in the context of gender, class, ethnicity, and generation?134

      What kinds of teaching contribute to the building of democracy in the present as well as the future? What might encourage students and teachers to imagine in deep and compassionate terms, the possibilities offered by their own identities and the identities of others? How might teaching engage everyone involved in social justice and in the attainment of civil rights? What kind of values allows students and teachers to work together in dignified ways? What conditions allow teaching and learning to be meaningful, creative, and pleasurable? If we can imagine schooling as a wonderful place, what kinds of identities would be available to teachers, students, and the larger communities? If education could (be) lived as a utopia, what kinds of practices, values and beliefs, and relationships would sustain it? What if teachers and students could shed the stereotypes that trap them? How would their work and their lives be different?135

      What are the moral variants against which we shall construct ourselves as social agents of change? How can problems related to class, race, gender, and power be translated into questions of educational quality and excellence? In what way can we reposition ourselves as educators against the dominant culture in order to reconstitute our own identities and experiences and those of our students? How can educators construct a pedagogical project that legitimates a critical form of intellectual practice? How is it possible to acknowledge difference and multiple forms of identity and still address the issues of will and political struggle? What diversity do we silence in the name of a liberatory pedagogy? How can educators come to recognize injustices which have been perpetrated in the name of education? How can they come to face their own participation in the employ of an often oppressive system that appears to rob students of their basic rights? In what ways can teachers work to support a pedagogy responsible for collectively forging a democratic public culture? How can educators link a theory of schooling to a pedagogy of the body and desire? What are the limits of the knowledge/power/subjectivity relation? How do we develop a public discourse that integrates the language of power and purpose with the language of intimacy, friendship, and caring? How do we speak in the name of emancipation without showing scorn for those who are caught in the grip of domination or ignorance, regardless of their class position? Since we don't know what is historically possible until it has been tried, how can educators begin to empower students to imagine a future in which hope becomes practical and where freedom can be dreamed, struggled for, and eventually won?136

      Who controls different modes of communication, and in whose interest do they operate? More succinctly put, do the modes of communication operate in the interest of oppression or liberation?137

      Should the schools develop young people to fit into present society as it is, or does the school have a revolutionary mission to develop young people who will seek to improve the society?138

      What is learned in schools?139

      What counts as curriculum knowledge? How is such knowledge produced? How is such knowledge transmitted in the classroom?140

      Who has access to legitimate forms of knowledge? Whose interest does this knowledge serve?141

      How are social and political contradictions and tensions mediated through acceptable forms of classroom knowledge and social relationships?142

      How do prevailing methods of evaluation serve to legitimize existing forms of knowledge?143

      How can we make schooling meaningful so as to make it critical and how can we make it critical so as to make it emancipatory?144

      What should be the ultimate purpose of education in a democratic society?145

      Basic Questions

      What follows is a series of basic questions for the social and cultural foundations of education. As mentioned earlier, some of these questions draw on those listed above. Others have been reworded and some are completely new.146

      What is taught in the schools? Who determines the curriculum? Does the content reflect a specific social or political set of values? Is the censorship of certain ideas necessary to protect students from “dangerous” or inappropriate ideas? What should be included in textbooks?

      What are the fundamental images or metaphors used to define the culture? Are there certain core or “root” metaphors that are used in the culture and the educational system? What do these images and metaphors reflect?

      What is the focus or primary purpose of education in a specific culture or society? Is it to produce loyal subjects or citizens? Is it to pass on traditions? Is it to produce workers? Is it to control the individual or groups? Is it to maximize the potential of individuals or groups?

      Who is it that teaches? Men? Women? High-status individuals? Low-status individuals? Do the people who teach create or control the curriculum they teach?

      Should the schools act as agents for social change or as a means of maintaining the status quo? To what extent should teachers act as agents for promoting change or for maintaining the dominant values and beliefs of the culture? Should teachers be restricted in what they are allowed to teach their students?

      Who is to be educated? In a democratic society such as the United States, is equal education for all possible or even desirable? Does the gifted child need the same support and resources as the average child or the handicapped child? What is equitable? Should ethnic groups and language minorities receive different training from other groups?

      What makes a good school? Does the definition of a good school differ depending on the social and economic background of its students? Can we compare schools with different types of clients who have different types of needs?

      What narratives should be emphasized in the curriculum of the schools? Whose stories are to be told? What cultures are to be represented? What should be the end and purpose of instruction?

      What types of obligations do the schools have beyond simply educating students? Should schools address the moral development of students, for example, or provide health services? What should be the focus of the school?

      Should schooling be compulsory? If so, for how long? What is considered a sufficient education? Should students be compelled to learn things they or their parents oppose on moral and personal grounds?

      Should private schools be encouraged or discouraged? Should they receive direct or indirect support from the government? Do private schools benefit certain groups in the culture? If yes, how?

      What role should religion play in schooling? Should selected religious practices or sects be allowed in the schools? Should certain religious groups be excluded? What is equitable?

      Who should control the schools? Should the schools be controlled by parents, administrators, or state and federal governments? Should education and the schools be under the control of an elite? Who is capable of making the most informed decisions concerning what is needed by the educational system?

      What constitutes the necessary and proper means of training teachers? Who should be allowed to teach? To what extent should teachers have the right to act according to the dictates of their own values?

      To what extent should the schools be used as a means of correcting or compensating for past social injustices? Should the schools be used to desegregate the society and bring about greater equality?

      To what extent should the schools provide instruction that has been provided in the past by the family and other social groups? Should subjects such as sex education or personal ethics and values be taught in the schools?

      To what extent are the media, in the form of television, movies, popular music, video games, and computers, taking the place of more traditional family and school-based instruction? Is most of the education children receive coming from media sources? How is this type of education different from other types of learning? How is it related to commercial interests in our society?

      Who benefits most from new educational technologies such as computers? Do the privileged have the most to gain from new computer technologies like the Internet? Are there differences in the services provided to students based on their social or economic class? Is the use of technology encouraged more for boys than girls?

      What is considered useful knowledge? Whose knowledge is taught in the classroom? Is there a “canon” that is taught? Where does it come from? Does its adoption benefit certain groups over others?

      How does race affect what goes on in the schools? Does the racial background of the student affect how and what he or she is taught? Are there hidden curricula at work in schools and the culture reflecting racial bias and privilege?

      How does ethnicity affect what goes on in the schools? Are certain ethnic groups treated differently based on their background and experience? Or are all ethnic groups treated the same?

      How does gender affect what goes on in the schools? Are men educated differently from women? Are women subjected to treatment and experiences that are different from those of men? Are alternative sexual orientations discriminated against?

      How does social class affect the experience of students in the schools? Are students from lower socioeconomic groups treated differently from children whose parents are part of the culture's power bloc?

      What types of citizens do our schools and the culture want to create? What knowledge is necessary to make people active and productive citizens?

      What constitutes good teaching? How are teachers trained? What is considered good teaching? Why is it considered good teaching?

      Should schools provide social services? Is it the obligation of schools to provide free lunch and health care programs for students in need?

      What are the rights of teachers? What can teachers do or not do? How much control should the society have over teachers in the classroom? in their private lives?

      What is the role of business in shaping and influencing the content of education? What type of influence should business have in shaping the curriculum of the schools? Should students be trained for specific jobs demanded by the business system?

      What is the significance of the fact that women have dominated the teaching profession since the middle of the nineteenth century? Has the fact that teaching has been a feminized profession affected the status of teachers—both historically and in contemporary culture? Why are the majority of teachers women? Why are there fewer men and minorities in the teaching profession than in the general population?

      Should there be national standards and guidelines for the curriculum of the schools? Should the content of curriculum be controlled at the local and state level or by the federal government? Who should determine what gets taught in the schools?

      What role does popular culture play in the shaping of attitudes about schools, teachers, and students? Is the representation of schools, teachers, and students accurate, or does it distort the reality of their experience?

      Should teachers be nationally licensed and certified? Should teachers be “board certified” the way a specialist is in the field of medicine? What should constitute certification?

      How is technology used as part of the educational system? What discourses does it encourage or discourage? Is educational technology neutral? Does it benefit some more than others?

      I would argue that we need to reconceptualize the field of the social foundations of education around questions such as these. I believe that the formulation of key questions about the nature and purpose of education and schooling, about how people are acculturated, and about how these processes relate to larger issues of race, gender, and social and economic class are essential to a reconceptualized model of social foundations of education. Cultural studies provide an understanding of the structures of power in a culture, as well as the mechanisms by which cultural meaning is created and controlled. In doing so, a theoretical model and set of methods are provided for formulating key questions in the field. To quote Hytten,

      In developing new ways of thinking about pedagogy and curriculum, cultural studies of education attends to basic questions about the knowledge most worth learning, while at the same time opening up spaces for students to study larger social questions that transcend typical disciplinary boundaries.147

      I agree with Perdew's nearly thirty-year-old criticism that the true foundations “must be more relevant, more analytical, and more integrative.” Those of us interested in the social foundations of education, cultural studies of education, educational studies, or whatever term we want to use to describe our field, must draw on the disciplines for methods and insights, but, at the same time, not be blinded by their inherent limitations. We need to develop truly meaningful transdis-ciplinary models that confront the balkanization of the academic disciplines and their avoidance of critical questions about the foundations of American culture and society.

      Conclusion

      The title of this essay, “Education and Cultural Studies: Toward a Renewed Definition of the Social Foundations of Education,” might have also been called “Back to the Future.” I believe that many of the elements underlying the original founding of the field of the social foundations of education are inherent in a “renewed” model of the social foundations—one that emphasizes a cultural studies approach.

      Of course, this is not to argue that the social foundations of education and education and cultural studies are necessarily the same thing. There is a separation of nearly half a century between the fruition of each field. Methodological advances, new texts and sources, innovative interpretive paradigms and schémas, and accumulated knowledge in the field of educational research make them different. Yet in many regards, what cultural studies in education attempts to do fulfills many of the main ideals pursued by the founders of the field of social foundations.

      If cultural studies is to provide a basis for the renewal of the social foundations of education, then its practitioners will have to involve themselves not only with the faculty who teach throughout departments and schools of education, but also with their colleagues in the liberal arts. In addition, they will have to address how their work is meaningful for those actually working in schools—school administrators, teachers, and parents. I think this is a very difficult task that requires both enormous energy and insight.

      A renewed social foundations of education that draws upon a cultural studies model cannot be simply the study of popular culture and media, corporate pedagogy, radical pedagogy, and revolutionary multicul-turalism. Although these are fascinating and important topics, they represent only a very small part of the issues that need to be addressed as part of a renewed definition of the social foundations of education.

      Educational and cultural studies needs to expand the issues it addresses. It needs to include, as Kathy Hytten suggests, more issues that “dominate the broader educational discourse” such as school choice, alternative assessment, national standards, grouping practices, testing, school business partnerships, and technology.148

      I admire much of the work done in critical pedagogy and cultural studies in education. Yet critical pedagogy and, more recently, cultural studies of education, despite their promise, are situated largely on the fringes of educational practice. Thus, concepts developed by these approaches are rarely integrated into courses in methods, or specialized areas such as special education or educational technology. Teachers, and the educational system in general, fail to ask questions about how they perceive the classrooms in which they work, how students interpret the information that is presented to them, and how knowledge is mediated between teachers and students.149 This is perhaps the great failure of teacher education in the United States. Through its failure to address cultural questions, it has been unable to train the teachers it educates to be reflective thinkers about what they do, about the character and concerns of the students they teach, and about the communities in which they work.

      It is interesting that we insist on teaching elementary school teachers the fundamentals of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, and how to introduce young children to basic mathematics, but we do not systematically introduce them to concepts that will help them be reflective social practitioners.

      Like Hytten, I believe that the cultural studies of education provides a “compelling vision” of education that contributes to educational practices and that has the potential to both empower and liberate individuals. A cultural studies approach to education has a number of implications for educators. First, it forces them to “acknowledge the value-ladenness of their positions and of knowledge itself.” Second, it assumes that “educators need to relate curricula more directly to students' lives, aspirations, and cultures.” Third, in a cultural studies model, “issues of diversity need to be more paramount in schools. Specifically, students need to know how power and privilege get constructed in society—often in problematic ways.” Fourth, in a cultural studies model, “educators should teach students how to express themselves and gain more control over their daily lives so that they are not passive consumers of disabling social messages.” Fifth, and finally, a cultural studies model compels educators to “experiment with new models for teaching and learning that better connect what occurs in the classroom to efforts at social transformation.”150

      If we are to adopt a cultural studies of education model for renewing the social foundations of education, we must also recognize the limitations of both cultural studies and the social foundations. In a very powerful, and I believe essentially fair critique, the educational and social/ecological theorist C. A. Bowers challenges the work of educational and cultural theorists such as Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren. Although arguing that he is in full agreement with them on many social justice issues—specifically, issues involving gender, minority cultures, and the economic underclass—he questions why they ignore issues involving

      the right of future generations to experience life in an uncontaminated environment, the need for cultures to sustain patterns of moral reciprocity along with knowledge and activities that result in a more ecologically sustainable footprint, and the need for more ecologically centered cultural groups to assess which technological and linguistic innovations can be assimilated and rejected.151

      Bowers argues that emancipatory theorists such as McLaren and Giroux, along with their predecessors Freire and Dewey, reject tradition by associating it with “the legacy of a feudal social order that limited human choice and development.”152 Bowers questions their epistemological assumption based on the Western philosophical tradition “that the individual is the basic social unit that engages in rational thought and has direct, culturally unmediated experiences.”153 For Bowers, tradition is not an impediment, nor is change necessarily desirable or good. These are assumptions that he believes are built into the work of theorists such as McLaren and Giroux, as well as a critical peda-gogist such as Paulo Freire.

      Bowers, for example, takes to task Giroux's notion of teachers being “transformative intellectuals” and change agents for the culture. As he explains,

      According to Giroux's way of thinking, all members of society, regardless of cultural background and degree of participation in their primary and secondary cultures, must be willing to yield to the moral judgments of students and their teachers. In the 1930s, George Counts urged teachers to become a selfless vanguard dedicated to the task of creating a new social order. More recently, the world has witnessed several examples of student-led revolutionary movements that set out to overturn all traditions. Few people today would agree that the Red Guard and the youthful followers of Pol Pot created democratic public spheres that provided for greater social equality and the discovery of new personal identities.154

      Bowers goes on to criticize McLaren, Giroux, and their followers' assumptions about the nature of progress and their rejection of traditional and “conservative” (i.e., conserving) models of culture.

      Bowers presents a note of caution for any renewed definition of the social foundations of education. If we are to use a question-based model to reformulate the social foundations of education—one that emphasizes a cultural studies approach—then we must “interrogate” (to use a favorite phrase of Giroux's) what assumptions underlie our questions, as well as our interpretations of them. No construction of knowledge is neutral. Bowers's recent work on social ecology and education emphasizes Western education, and more specifically, the failure of American colleges and universities to recognize their bias against traditional forms of knowledge. It represents a powerful critique that should help us realize the potential limitations of new formulations concerning culture and education and provide us with insight that allows us to go beyond our perspectives and points of view in renewing our definition of the social foundations of education.155

      During the mid-1970s, Nash, Shiman, and Conrad proposed a set of recommendations for reforming the social foundations of education. In doing so, they did not reject the disciplines, but emphasized the concept of moving toward constructs for the field that went beyond disciplinary models.156 More recently, Lee Shulman has analyzed the foundations in the education of professionals. Beginning with a discussion of the work of Abraham Flexner and the development of a foundational/disciplinary model for medical teaching at the beginning of the twentieth century (i.e., two years of basic science before practical courses begin), Shulman criticizes the foundational courses in medical education as eventually becoming “disconnected, disintegrated and unrelated to practice.”157

      After reviewing John Dewey's approach to the foundations at the University of Chicago in the late 1890s, Shulman makes a case for a reconceptualization of the foundations of education (both psychological and philosophical). He argues specifically for “a withering away of the field of educational foundations as we know it as separate, disconnected studies in psychology, history, sociology, and philosophy of education.”158 For Shulman,

      the foundation must be seen as an integral part of the connective tissue that gives shape and meaning to the education of teachers—as the framework for connecting and integrating the knowledge acquired in the liberal arts and sciences with the practice of pedagogy.159

      Shulman argues that the “true foundation disciplines are not what we call foundations.” Instead, they are the “arts and sciences themselves.”160 Rejecting the architectural metaphor for the foundations in which disciplinary coursework provides the base upon which professional training is laid, Shulman proposes an alternative metaphor of the steel skeleton for a skyscraper, one that is “much more powerful than a solid foundation because it is integral to the structure. It weaves itself through it; it becomes part of the very structure it is trying to support.”161

      Shulman's model suggests that foundational scholars in psychology, history, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology of education should not think of themselves as providing a base, but a scaffolding or framework for the understanding of pedagogy and education. This metaphor is even more useful because it also suggests the notion of a connectedness, or an understanding of the pattern or patterns that connect the phenomenon of education.

      Shulman goes on to propose five principles for rethinking the general foundations of education:

      • We must teach foundations in a way that is bound up with the content of instruction. It does not make sense to separate the content from the pedagogy now any more than it did for Dewey in 1896.
      • The best way to think about the foundations is as that set of ideas and experiences through which we forge connections between what students learned in the arts and sciences and the pedagogy that they are going to be learning with us.
      • Cases should become an important tool for teaching foundations. Cases can be selected, crafted, sequenced. If we can learn to make them more vivid and interactive, we can derive all of the virtues of their situated-ness and their connectedness, and have the opportunity to add the moral to the intellectual in the teaching of pedagogy.
      • We must use what we call the foundations to create vivid, compelling images of the possible in education, images of the long-term moral as well as intellectual possibilities of being an educated person in a good society.
      • Our foundations work should continually present students with the opportunity to test the correspondence between their own thinking and doing and these images of the possible they generate.162

      Shulman's proposed principles seem reasonable. I would suggest including them in any reconsideration of the social foundations of education and the cultural studies of education.

      I believe, however, that a larger reform needs to be considered, one that goes beyond the integration of the social foundations of education and the cultural studies of education. I suggest going beyond departments and schools of education, going beyond departments and disciplines, to ask the question: How do we teach undergraduates and graduate students in professional schools?

      Shulman's argument that the true foundations disciplines are arts and sciences is ultimately a sound one. The majority of undergraduate instruction for students in education comes from outside the field of education. What meaning do these courses have for students? If they are simply a selection of general education requirements, they may or may not serve the purpose of broadly educating them and preparing them for work as professionals. I do not believe, for example, that it is sufficient to have students take an introductory American history course, and then assume that they are going to connect it to their studies in education. Nor do I believe that we can expect undergraduates to connect their studies in biology, mathematics, or philosophy in a similar way. A course here and there across the liberal arts does not sufficiently connect what students need to know and understand.

      I believe we need to connect our courses together using a truly interdisciplinary approach. Imagine a course that fulfilled a general education requirement that required students to consider the relationship between schooling and culture. Imagine a course that posed fundamental questions of the type discussed earlier in this work.

      Imagine students going back to their courses in American history, sociology, philosophy, or biology and asking these various questions within the context of these disciplines. Why not introduce in a general course in the social foundations and cultural studies of education the concept of “privilege”? The issue of privilege and its role in education could be posed as follows: How does privilege advantage certain individuals over others in our educational system? Are men privileged over women? If so, how? Does privilege enter into the equation of race or ethnicity? If so, how do racial or ethnic privileges manifest themselves in school settings? What are the implications for our culture and democracy? What are the implications for working in educational settings? for the development of curriculum? And so on.

      These questions, which could be outlined and discussed on a preliminary basis in a general social foundations course, then could be linked to a scaffolding or network of additional coursework and inquiry. An African American or American literature course could examine discrimination (the denial or opposite of privilege) in a work such as Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin or Richard Wright's Native Son. Reference back to the key concept or question from the general foundations course would be part of the discussion.

      Likewise, a sociology course could include a strand on privilege, perhaps considering the work of theorists such as Émile Durkheim or Antonio Gramsci. A biology course could look at issues of racial representation and scientific bias beginning with phrenology. In psychology, one could look at not only pseudoscientific systems like phrenology, but also at how psychological testing has been used and abused by different groups to promote privilege among select populations in the culture.

      Integrative discussion groups and courses could provide the opportunity to pull seemingly disparate sources together. Combined with intensive writing and research projects, such courses could stress an understanding of the connectedness of things in the web of culture.

      Methods courses in education could be linked much more closely to disciplinary knowledge from the liberal arts. Classroom management, for example, could be understood in the context of issues of privilege that operate on a racial, ethnic, or gender level.

      Initially, such coordination and integration would be difficult. I think it is liable to fail because of the natural tendency of individuals not to revamp their thinking and teaching. Disciplinary specialists, by definition, are fascinated by their subject. They take its importance for granted. They see its connections within itself as a field. They are not necessarily, nor even likely to be, interested in broader questions that may be crucial to an undergraduate.

      Similarly, methods instructors, teaching in an education program, may consider stressing the connection of what they are doing with knowledge in the disciplines as a distraction. They may also see it as threatening because it challenges myths and assumptions that they hold dear. Age and the problems of breaking set traditions and habits may be contributing factors. I cannot imagine a colleague near the end of his or her career, whether in a discipline or in a practice-oriented course in education, easily adopting a radical model such as the one proposed. Certainly, some people will be able to change, but many will not be able to alter ingrained habits and ways of looking at the world.

      Yet such a model has the promise of providing a much more powerful and meaningful education for our students. It overcomes Whitehead's objection to schooling that emphasizes the acquisition of “inert knowledge”:

      Culture is activity of thought, and receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth. What we should aim at producing is men who possess both culture and expert knowledge in some special direction. Their expert knowledge will give them the ground to start from, and their culture will lead them as deep as philosophy and as high as art. We have to remember that the valuable intellectual development is self development, and that it mostly takes place between the ages of sixteen and thirty.163

      “Inert ideas”—ideas that are simply digested by students without “being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations”164—are useless in the meaningful education of the individual.

      Technologies are available that could help us in the process of realizing an interdisciplinary and “connected” model of the type outlined above. Robert M. Hutchins developed his famous Synopticon to accompany the Great Books of the Western World.165 The Synopticon, according to Hutchins, was

      begun as an index and then turned into a means of helping the reader find paths through the books, has ended, in addition to making these contributions as a tool for reference, research, and study, as a preliminary summation of the issues around which the Great Conversation has revolved, together with indications of the course of the debate at this moment. Once again, the Synopticon argues no case and presents no point of view. It will not interpret any book to the reader; it will not tell him which author is right and which wrong on any question. It simply supplies him with suggestions as to how he may conveniently peruse the study of any important topic through the range of Western intellectual history.166

      The philosopher Mortimer Adler was primarily responsible for the development of the Synopticon. Including 102 categories or “chapters,” topics dealt with in the index were as diverse as “Temperance,” “Sign and Symbol,” and “Slavery.” Under the category of “Poetry,” for example, there are nine major topics, including “The nature of poetry: its distinction from other arts,” “The origin and development of poetry: the materials of myth and legend,” and so on.167 Under the category of “The nature of poetry: its distinction from other arts,” are references to authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Epictetus, Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Hobbes, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Bacon, Descartes, Milton, Pascal, Swift, Fielding, Kant, Boswell, Hegel, Goethe, Darwin, Dostoevsky, and Freud.168

      Implicit in Adler's Synopticon is a desire to create links between different authors writing on the same or related topics. Such a model could be adopted for the type of curriculum I am proposing by focusing on the creation of an index that dealt with key topics and questions. Such a “Synopticon” could be developed for students in education, but also in other professional fields as well. It could be used in professional schools such as business, communications, social work, or public health. By emphasizing the connectedness of ideas and knowledge, as well as critical thinking, such a system could move beyond the concept of a core or foundational knowledge to one that resonates much more closely with Shulman's metaphor of scaffolding. Such an approach could represent a model for radically reconceptualizing how we teach undergraduates in professional schools and programs. If actually implemented, it could not only encourage a much more integrated model of instruction, but also draw on the strengths of the liberal arts while addressing the fundamental needs of the professional program.

      Computers, with their capability of networking and linking information and ideas, as well as making possible the frequent update of materials, are ideally suited to support such a curriculum. The potential to redefine professional education and change the nature of college instruction is enormous. How applicable such a general model would be to graduate education is open to debate.

      In conclusion, I would like to argue that the social foundations of education, integrated with a cultural studies model of education, has the potential to not only extend our understanding of the meaning of schooling and its role in American society, but also act as the structure for creating a renewed model of education and instruction for professional fields such as education.

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr., University of Miami
      Notes

      1. Quoted by E. V. Johanningmeier, “Through the Disarray: Some Notes Towards a New Social Foundations,” Educational Foundations, Vol. 5, No. 4, Fall 1991, p. 7.

      2. Council of Learned Societies in Education, Standards for Academic and Professional Instruction in Foundations of Education, Educational Studies, and Educational Policy Studies, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Caddo Gap Publishers, 1996). Available online at: http://members.aol.com/caddogap/standard.htm

      3. Ibid.

      4. Ibid.

      5. Ibid.

      6. Ibid.

      7. Ibid.

      8. R. Freeman Butts quotes Martin Levit in a paper prepared in 1971 for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education titled “An Inquiry Approach for Foundational Studies”:

      Foundational studies should be focused on the critical, comparative and comprehensive evaluation of socio-educational policies…. No discipline is able to validate its truth-claims by its own resources…. No discipline contains or is connected with enough warranted premises to make, by itself, justified recommendations for educational policies and programs…. Because this is so, we stand in great need of more comprehensive and interconnected perspectives as a foundation for more rational educational policies.

      See R. Freeman Butts, “Reconstruction in Foundations Studies,” Educational Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1, Winter 1973, p. 28. For Thomas Howell and Nobuo Shimahara: “The social foundations of education are understood to be interdisciplinary attempts to study education in multi-sided perspectives. They are built upon the contributions of various disciplines in the social sciences and humanities.” See Thomas Howell and Nobuo Shimahara, “Educational Foundations: Contributions at the Undergraduate Level,” Teachers College Record, Vol. 71, No. 2, December 1969, p. 207.

      9. Steven E. Tozer and Debra Miretzky, “Professional Teaching Standards and Social Foundations of Education,” Educational Studies, Vol. 31, Issue 2, Summer 2000, pp. 106–120.

      10. Ibid. See Levi Seely, The Foundations of Education (New York: Hinds and Noble, 1901).

      11. Harold Rugg, general editor, Readings in the Foundations of Education, Vol. 1 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, 1941), p. v.

      12. Ibid., p. vi.

      13. Ibid.

      14. R. Freeman Butts, “Schools in the Context of a Tangled Culture,” in ibid., p. 5. The description for Education 200F included in the 1936–1937 catalogue described the course in the following way: “The course is designed to give in more inclusive and integrated form the necessary orientation to education formerly offered through the History of Education, Philosophy of Education, Educational Sociology, Educational Psychology, Comparative Education, and Educational Economics. The effort will be so to deal with the areas common to the various fields of educational endeavor as to provide for them all a basic understanding and a common outlook and language of discourse.” Quoted in R. Freeman Butts, In the First Person Singular: The Foundations of Education (San Francisco: Cado Gapp Press, 1993), p. 15.

      15. Ibid, p. ix.

      16. R. Freeman Butts, “Kenneth Benne: The Compleat Teacher, or The Philosopher's Practice of Civic Virtue,” Educational Theory, Volume 43, Number 2, Spring 1993. Accessed at Educational Theory on the Web: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/Educational-Theory/Contents/43_2_Butts.asp

      17. Ibid.

      18. Ibid., quoted by Butts.

      19. Quoted by Tozer and McAninch, op. cit., p. 9.

      20. Quoted by Johanningmeier, “Through the Disarray,” p. 7.

      21. Ibid.

      22. R. Freeman Butts, In the First Person Singular: The Foundations of Education (San Francisco: Cado Gapp Press, 1993), p. 17.

      23. Ibid., p. 22.

      24. Ibid., p. 23.

      25. Ibid., pp. 23–25.

      26. Ibid., p. vi.

      27. Arthur E. Bester, Jr., Educational Wastelands: The Retreat From Learning in Our Public Schools (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1953); Mortimer B. Smith, And Madly Teach (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1949); Harry J. Fuller, “The Emperor's New Clothes, or prius dementat,” The Scientific Monthly, 72(1951), 32–41; Albert Lynd, Quackery in the Public Schools (Boston: Little Brown, 1953).

      28. Arthur E. Bester, Jr., “Life Adjustment in Education: A Critique,” American Association of University Professors Bulletin, 38(1952), 413–441.

      29. Arthur E. Bester, Jr., Educational Wastelands: The Retreat from Learning in Our Public Schools. Second Edition with Retrospectives by Clarence J. Karier and Foster McMurray (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), p. 41.

      30. Ibid., p. 42.

      31. Ibid., p. 46.

      32. Ibid.

      33. Ibid., p. 47.

      34. Ibid., p. 108.

      35. Quoted by Peter Dow, “Sputnik Revisited: Historical Perspectives on Science Reform,” 1997 National Science Foundation “Reflecting on Sputnik,” available online at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/sputnik/dow.htm

      36. Diane Ravitch, The Troubled Crusade: American Education, 1845–1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 231–233.

      37. Butts, In the First Person Singular, p. 5.

      38. Arnstine, Donald, “The Knowledge Nobody Wants: The Humanistic Foundations in Teacher Education,” Educational Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1, Winter 1973, p. 9.

      39. James Bryant Conant, The Education of American Teachers (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 127.

      40. Ibid., p. 131, emphasis in original.

      41. Ibid.

      42. Ibid.

      43. John A. Laska, “Current Progress in the Foundations of Education,” Teachers College Record, Vol. 71, No. 2, 1969, 181–182.

      44. Sol Cohen, “The History of the History of American Education: The Uses of the Past,” in Sol, Cohen, Challenging Orthodoxies: Toward a New Cultural History of Education (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 3.

      45. Ibid.

      46. Ibid., p. 5.

      47. Bernard Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960); published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA.

      48. Ibid., pp. vi-vii.

      49. Ibid., p. 9.

      50. Cohen, op. cit., p. 13.

      51. Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957 (New York: Knopf, 1961).

      52. Lawrence A. Cremin, The Wonderful World of Ellwood Patterson Cubberly: An Essay on the Historiography of American Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1965).

      53. Cohen, op. cit., pp. 6–7.

      54. Ibid., p. 9.

      55. Ibid., p. 16.

      56. Quoted by Cohen, p. 18.

      57. Butts, “Reconstruction in Foundations Studies,” p. 28.

      58. According to Henry Giroux, David Shumway, Paul Smith, and James Sosnoski:

      What is studied under the aegis of an academic discipline at any given time is not a natural subject matter, but a field which is itself constituted in the practice of the discipline. Such a field is not arbitrary in the sense that it develops randomly or on whim; rather, a field can be called arbitrary because it is contingent on historical circumstance. Hence it reflects cultural, social, and institutional demands. This is true of all academic fields, but especially so in fields outside the natural sciences. To understand why this is the case, it is necessary to look more closely at the formation of academic disciplines.

      See Henry Giroux, David Shumway, Paul Smith, and James Sosnoski, “The Need for Cultural Studies: Resisting Intellectuals and Oppositional Public Spheres,” Dalhousie Review, Vol. 64 (1984), pp. 472–486.

      59. Ibid.

      60. Johanningmeier, “Through the Disarray,” p. 8.

      61. Ibid.

      62. Ibid.

      63. Ibid.

      64. Ibid., p. 9.

      65. Ibid.

      66. Ibid.

      67. In this context, Johanningmeier, pp. 9–10, cites Arthur Powell citing Harvard University's Philip Rulon to the effect that the differences between arts and science and education faculty was probably impossible to bridge: “One wanted to advance knowledge, the other to find out how to inculcate in youth the needed adult skills.”

      68. Robert J. Nash, David A. Shiman, and David R. Conrad, “The Foundations of Education: A Suicidal Syndrome,” Teachers College Record, February 1977, Vol. 78, No. 3, p. 299.

      69. Ibid, p. 301.

      70. See, for example, Bester, Educational Wastelands.

      71. Peter McLaren, Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education, 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 1998), pp. 177–178. Todd Gitlin defines hegemony as a ruling class's (or alliance's) domination of subordinate classes and groups through the elaboration and penetration of ideology (ideas and assumptions) into their common sense and everyday practice; it is the systematic (but not necessarily or even usually deliberate) engineering of mass consent to the established order. No hard and fast lines can be drawn between the mechanisms of hegemony and the mechanisms of coercion. … In any given society, hegemony and coercion are interwoven.

      See Todd Gitlin, The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), p. 253.

      72. Quoted by Henry Giroux, Ideology, Culture & the Process of Schooling (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981), p. 23.

      73. Butts, “Reconstruction in Foundations Studies,” p. 33.

      74. Ibid., p. 34.

      75. Ibid., p. 30.

      76. Ibid.

      77. See Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma: An Essay Towards a Better Apprehension of the Bible (Boston: J. R. Osgood, 1874); and Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism (New York: Macmillan, 1882).

      78. Quoted by Dick Hebdige, “From Culture to Hegemony,” in Simon During, The Cultural Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 358.

      79. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture (Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 1981), pp. 16–17.

      80. John Clarke, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson, and Brian Roberts, “Subculture, Culture and Class” in Resistance Through Rituals, edited by Stuart Hall and Tony Jefferson (London: Hutchinson, 1976), quoted by Giroux, Shumway, Smith, and Sosnoski, “The Need for Cultural Studies,” p. 486.

      81. Kathy Hytten, “Cultural Studies of Education: Mapping the Terrain,” Educational Foundations, Fall 1997, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 40.

      82. Ibid.

      83. Ibid., p. 41.

      84. See E. D. Hirsch, “Finding the Answers in Drills and Rigor,” New York Times, September 11, 1999: A15, A17; Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know (New York: Vintage, 1988); The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them (New York: Doubleday, 1996); and E. D. Hirsch, Joseph F. Kett, and James S. Trefil, The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988).

      85. Stanley Aronowitz and Henry A. Giroux, Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), p. 51.

      86. See Arnold, Literature and Dogma and Culture and Anarchy, op. cit.

      87. Quoted by Hytten, “Cultural Studies of Education,” p. 42.

      88. See James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991) for background on the culture wars in the United States.

      89. Hytten, “Cultural Studies of Education,” p. 43.

      90. For background on the history of the Birmingham program, see Thomas Steele, The Emergence of Cultural Studies (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1997) and Lawrence Grossberg, “Bring It All Back Home: Pedagogy and Cultural Studies,” in Bringing It All Back Home: Essays on Cultural Studies (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), in particular the essay “The Formation(s) of Cultural Studies: An American in Birmingham,” pp. 195–244.

      91. Grossberg, “Bring It All Back Home,” p. 375.

      92. There are many elements in the original conception of the social foundations of education that clearly resonate with a cultural studies model. In the following summary by Tozer and McAninch of the new model of the social foundations of education that the Kilpatrick discussion group incorporated into Education 200F at Teachers College during the mid-1930s, one can clearly see approaches that are fundamental to a cultural studies approach, including the ideas of cross-disciplinary and critical studies:

      Social foundations of education is grounded in a rigorous study of society; it is cross-disciplinary, an integrated—rather than a simply eclectic—course of study; it is critical—that is, it exposes students to coherently argued critiques of social and educational processes, institutions and ideas; it reflects an explicitly articulated point of view which gives organization and integration to the materials studied and which seeks to help “each student … build his own point of view” as a result of interacting with the arguments and issues in the text. (Tozer and McAninch, op. cit., p. 10)

      93. George S. Counts, Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? (New York: The John Day Company, 1932), pp. 31–32.

      94. Rugg, Readings in the Foundations of Education, p. x.

      95. Ibid., p. vi.

      96. Ibid., p. 51.

      97. Ibid., p. 43.

      98. Peter McLaren, “Foreword: Critical Theory and the Meaning of Hope,” in Henry A. Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning (Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1988), p. x.

      99. Ibid., p. xiv.

      100. Stanley Aronowitz and Henry A. Giroux, Education Under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Debate Over Schooling (South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985), p. 19.

      101. Ibid., pp. 19–20.

      102. Ibid., p. xvii.

      103. Ibid., p. 9.

      104. Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals, p. xxxv.

      105. Ibid., p. xxxvi.

      106. Ibid., p. 126.

      107. Counts, Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? pp. 28–29.

      108. Ibid., pp. 28–30.

      109. Ibid., pp. 30–31.

      110. Ibid., p. 32.

      111. Ibid., p. 37.

      112. Henry Giroux, “Is There a Place for Cultural Studies in Colleges of Education?” in Counternarratives: Cultural Studies and Critical Pedagogies in Postmodern Spaces, by Henry Giroux, Colin Lankshear, Peter McLaren, and Michael Peters (New York: Routledge, 1996).

      113. Henry A. Giroux and Patrick Shannon, Education and Cultural Studies: Toward a Performative Practice (New York: Routledge, 1997).

      114. Ibid., p. 232.

      115. Ibid.

      116. Kathy Hytten, “The Promise of Cultural Studies of Education,” Educational Theory, Fall 1999, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 527–543. Accessed online.

      117. Ibid., p. 527.

      118. Ibid.

      119. Philip W. Perdew, “What Are the Foundational Questions?” Teachers College Record, December 1969, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 217–224.

      120. Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirely R. Steinberg, editors, Thirteen Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation, 2nd ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), p. 3.

      121. C. J. B. Macmillan and James W. Garrison, “An Erotetic Concept of Teaching,” Educational Theory, Summer/Fall 1983, Vol. 33, Nos. 3/4, pp. 157–166; and C. J. B. Macmillan and James W. Garrison, “Erotetics Revisited,” Educational Theory, Fall 1986, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 355–361.

      122. Perdew, “What Are the Foundational Questions?” p. 219.

      123. McLaren, “Foreword,” pp. xii-xiii.

      124. Kincheloe and Steinberg, Thirteen Questions, p. 2.

      125. Ibid., p. 4.

      126. Ibid., p. 2.

      127. Elliot W. Eisner, “Who Decides What Schools Teach?” Phi Delta Kappan, March 1990, Vol. 71, pp. 523–526, reprinted in David J. Hinders and Stephen J. Thornton, editors, The Curriculum Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 337.

      128. Hinders and Thornton, “Introduction,” p. vii.

      129. Ibid.

      130. Ibid.

      131. Ibid.

      132. Ibid.

      133. Kincheloe and Steinberg, Thirteen Questions, p. 62.

      134. Ibid., p. 73.

      135. Ibid., pp. 73–74.

      136. McLaren, “Foreword,” pp. xii-xiii.

      137. Henry Giroux, “Mass Culture and the Rise of the New Illiteracy: Implications for Reading,” in Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals, p. 75.

      138. Ibid., p. 28.

      139. Henry Giroux, “Social Education in the Classroom: The Dynamics of the Hidden Curriculum,” in Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals, p. 27.

      140. Henry Giroux, “Toward a New Sociology of Curriculum,” in Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals, p. 17.

      141. Ibid., p. 18.

      142. Ibid.

      143. Ibid.

      144. Henry Giroux, “Rethinking the Language of Schooling,” in Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals, p. 2.

      145. Hytten, “The Promise of Cultural Studies of Education,” p. 527.

      146. Many of the questions are drawn from a list I developed for my introductory social foundations textbook Teaching, Learning, and Schooling: A 21st Century Perspective (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2002), pp. 43–46.

      147. Hytten, “Cultural Studies of Education,” p. 54.

      148. Hytten, “The Promise of Cultural Studies of Education.”

      149. Ibid.

      150. Ibid.

      151. C. A. Bowers, Educating for Eco-Justice & Community (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001), p. 33.

      152. Ibid., p. 36.

      153. Ibid., p. 37.

      154. Ibid., p. 54.

      155. See C. A. Bowers, The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997).

      156. Among the alternatives to disciplinarity that they proposed were the following:

      • Foundational experiences should be taught by genuine interdisciplinarians, or at least by faculty who have an interest in more than one narrow knowledge area.
      • Foundational studies should demonstrate how concepts and procedures link, and how all practice is ultimately and unmistakably based on theory.
      • Foundational studies should be down-to-earth rather than esoteric.
      • Foundational studies should be problem-based.

      Foundational studies should help students to appreciate the value of original and bold policy formulation in education.

      • Foundational studies should enable students to do considerable values and beliefs clarifying.
      • Foundational studies will have to be taught with a sense of social purpose and conviction.
      • Foundational studies must be delivered within an instructional context that is more varied than lecture discussion.

      See Nash, Shiman, and Conrad, “The Foundations of Education,” pp. 305–309.

      157. Lee S. Shulman, “Reconnecting Foundations to the Substance of Teacher Education,” Teachers College Record, Vol. 91, No. 3, Spring 1990, p. 302.

      158. Ibid., p. 304.

      159. Ibid.

      160. Ibid.

      161. Ibid., p. 309.

      162. Ibid.

      163. Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education (New York: Macmillan, 1929), p. 3.

      164. Ibid.

      165. See Robert M. Hutchins, The Great Conversation: The Substance of a Liberal Education (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. xx.

      166. Ibid., p. xxv.

      167. Mortimer J. Adler, The Great Ideas: A Synopticon of Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 2 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 409.

      168. Ibid., p. 410.

      Appendix C: A Visual History of American Education (22 MB)

      Eugene F.ProvenzoJr.
      Introduction

      There is no comprehensive visual history of American education. This lack is a remarkable oversight considering the extraordinary materials that are available. These materials include not only photographs but also line drawings, architectural blueprints, report cards, certificates of merit, paintings, book illustr