As American as Public School (Education 1900-1950)

I have recently finished reading Part 2 in School: The Story of American Public Education.  I have a few thoughts about this section. First of all I find it interesting that not only was Education a tool for increasing knowledge in children but it was also a tool to “Americanize” the future generations of Americans. Secondly, not only was it a place to learn reading and math but also learn social and hygiene skills.

I also found it interesting that there was “track” schooling where the students were divided into classes that would relate to their future careers. The book made a point of stating that by pushing students into certain paths it only increased stereotypes and social prejudices instead of treating all students as equal. On one hand I can see the benefits of using tracking because some people do know what they want to do but I don’t think that it is for everybody.

When Sputnik was launched I found that the impact on education was quite interesting. Suddenly schools had all this funding and schooling was quickly focused on Math and Science. I think it’s interesting that a lot of what happened when Sputnik was launched parallels a lot of education today. America never seems happy that they are the richest country in the world because our students aren’t as “smart” as other countries. **shrug** It seems kind of silly to me that we are so focused on knowledge acquisition when our biggest asset is CREATIVITY and INGENUITY.

The "Common School"

Today I would like to talk about education in America from 1770-1900. This time was referred to as “The Common School”. However I would have to say that it was quite selective rather than educating most of the “common” people. Common schools really only benefited poor white children. Up till the 1900s education was largely dependent on the family situation. Wealth, race and gender usually determined the amount of education an individual received. If you were from a wealthy white family and were a boy you probably would have received a decent education. However, if you were a girl, poor, or a person of color your chances for education were very few and limited. 

Interestingly enough, the closest thing to a public school nowadays in the 18^th century was short-term schools in the British colonies. Town meetings voted to open a school for elementary age children for ten to twelve weeks for boys. Parents were charged a fee to cover the expense of teaching their children.

Also, during this period of history education was given little value by the “common” person. Society was largely agrarian and family farms were passed from generation to generation. This situation generally troubled some of America’s founding fathers. How, they asked, could the young republic continue to survive if its population wasn’t educated in the fundamentals of its principles? So common schools were the answer to the problem. Educate the poor masses and America would become a strong country was the founding fathers’ thought process. I guess the simple question we have now is: did it work? Join me next week when we discuss education from 1900 to 1950!

My Approach

I foresee my approach to teaching to being a liberationist approach. I don't really see my approach being blended because I see so many advantages to the liberationist appraoch. I really like the liberationist approach because I feel that it best fits with my teaching philosophy. This approach fits me because I believe that education should be about the whole human experience. I believe that what a child learns reflects their past experiences, is integrated into what they know, and will prepare them for the future.

I feel like the liberationist approach is the best way to be taught. I feel as though a person’s educational experiences should always be changing and growing that person. I also feel like all students should have experience with the classics such as Dickens, Shakespeare, and other such materials.

I also like that this approach focuses not on parts and pieces of learning but on the entire extent of human knowledge. I feel like this is the best way to integrate knowledge. A student can see all the connections between what they have already learned and what they are currently learning. I also like this approach because it challenges students to critically think and evaluate what they are learning. I also like the fact that this type of teaching focuses on giving everybody the same type of education while expanding their horizons. It challenges students to ask why the information is being presented and who is giving the information and why the information is important or what they have to gain from acquiring the knowledge. 

My favorite part of this approach is that it focuses not just on the breadth of knowledge but on the depth of knowledge as well and it invites the students to dig deeper into what they are learning.