peanutbutter&janie

During the late 19th century, a separation began to form between teachers and administrations. Teachers were had no power, no say, and on top of that, low pay. It was frustrating to see how teachers were being treated and were at the very bottom of the chain of command. It was interesting to see how unions developed. Once again, they mentioned in this chapter about how they used merit to justify the reduction of salary. I remember we briefly had a discussion in class about whether teachers should be paid more. I think the creation of unions and strikes are incredibly important. I do feel that even til today, teachers are not getting paid enough. The school administrations tried to cut public school cost and therefore teachers were affected.

Do you think if teachers were paid more, it would be beneficial to our society? Do you feel that an increase in salary would make an impact on the teacher’s motivation and push them to try harder in school? Or do you feel that an increase in salary won’t make any difference to the output of teachers ?

The section on the American Legion was quite interesting. With the fear of the spreading of communist ideas, they campaigned, advertised, and used the schools to get rid of any signs of anti-American tendencies. In the book, it mentioned how the intentions of some governments for nationalism, was for it to make citizens to be willing to die for the country in a war. I thought it got a little bit out of hand because any ideas that were not the “American” way, was scrutinized.

Harold Rugg was criticized and were attacked for his textbooks that did not support the American Way. This section of the chapter reminded me of what I wrote in previous blogs. Textbooks even now at public schools, are somewhat censored. I felt that the textbooks were biased in the favor of America. Textbooks were made so that it may subtly hide the ugly truth.

Do you feel that textbooks and schools should teach children the whole truth? Or do you agree that it was more reasonable to censor any material that made America look bad so that they may be able to create a love for the country?

I was pretty shocked to see how standardized tests became so popular. The book mentioned how one of the reason for its popularity was to prove that Anglo-Americans were more intelligent and used it to confirm that they are the superior race. They used these intelligence tests as a way to make someone accept their job/status in society. Also, they used the results to justify social class differences and discrimination. It was quite disappointing to read about their real intentions behind these test.

“Measurement of intelligence was one method of convincing a person of his or her particular social worth.”

It was amazing to me how they came to all these conclusions from how a person performs on a test. If they did well, they had worth in society, they had good character, and they were compassionate.

But while I was reading this section of this chapter, this question came to mind:

What about the people who are incredibly intelligent but are not great test-takers? How can they simply rely on tests to determine one’s character, intelligence, and compassion?

Also, it was pretty sad to see that the U.S Supreme Court actually supported Congress’s right to restrict and control immigration all because of Brigham’s ideas.

I feel like schools were slowly losing their core purpose. It was becoming more of business instead of a place to learn. This chapter reminded me of our previous class discussion about whether school administrators should be someone with a business background or someone who was knowledgeable in reading/math/social sciences…etc.

In my opinion, schools were drastically changing into an organization. It was no longer a couple of small classrooms. Schools were expanding and the numbers of students were increasing. Therefore , it is crucial to find someone who can lead and make important decisions.

Have schools turned into a business? People’s lives are decided depending on how well you do on standardized tests. There are numerous private Korean SAT schools that train/drill kids at a young age til their junior year of high school. Some kids study 8+ years for these standardize tests that they often don’t do anything else.

With all this emphasis on standardized tests, wouldn’t kids miss out on the real learning and the enjoyment of it?

For the same reason kindergarten was created,  high school was first opened for the goals of teaching moral values and basic skills. However, the goals of high school quickly started to shift. High school was a place to develop your human capital and train for a job in the future.

Also, they started to wonder about the purpose of high school and faced issues of the focus of education to the rich and the poor. They believed that the poor should utilize high school education to prepare them for life. However, they believed that education to the rich should be focused on preparing them for college.

I feel like high school now is a place where you strictly prepare for college. I feel that the pressure to get into a good college after high school motivates students to study hard. I feel like students are more focused on preparing and applying for colleges, that they rarely prepare for life.

While reading this section of the book, a question that came to mind was:

Who would really benefit more? Someone who received education to prepare them for life or someone who received education to prepare them for college? I feel like sometimes students lose the real point of learning. They are more focused on getting that “A” instead of really learning so that they may be able to apply it to life. It’s not unusual for a student who got straight A’s in school but is not able to apply the things he has learned in the real world.

I thought vocational guidance was a pretty good idea. For the students that knew their abilities and interests, it could be quite beneficial for them to get a head start. However, I feel like high school is still pretty early to train them as a worker through vocational schools.

Some questions came to mind while reading this:

How about the high school students that didn’t figure out their passion yet? Wouldn’t having a general education be more beneficial in the long run so that they may be able to explore different studies instead of pushing a student to a vocation school?

The book mentioned whether the development of high schools, the shifting of focus of education, and vocational schools were for the public benefit or corporate greed. In my opinion, I think the focus of education shifted because of the corporate greed. However, I feel like even though the intentions were selfish, I feel like it really did benefit everyone.

There were some interesting things that came up in this reading. I always thought kindergarten was available to everyone (whether rich or poor) and not only to upper-class families in the 1880s. And it was interesting how the main reason why it became available to everyone was because they thought that kindergartens was supposed to improve the quality of urban living. We are again going back to the idea of using schools to improve society and morality. In the book it mentioned how “kindergarten was to substitute for the habits of living and moral training formerly taught by the family organization that supposedly had been lost in the slums of the new urban areas” (p.204). Their primary motive for the kindergarten movement was to keep  kids off the street, teach them new habits, and reform the urban areas.

I thought the play movement was a very smart move. I believe that having after-school play and creating playgrounds were effective in keeping kids off the streets and causing trouble. I remember when I used to teach 3rd and 4th graders at an after school, there was always at least one hour of playtime out of the 4 hours. I can tell that after the play time, they were more obedient, less jittery, and less rebellious. Play time was their incentive and motivation to finish their homework. So I think creating playgrounds and play hours was  a great idea.

Another part of the chapter that I found interesting was the reading about home economics. The book talked about the idea of women becoming a consumer so that she will be able to have more time to pursue an education.  “If they bought factory-made products rather than producing them in the home (p.207).” While reading this, I thought that it was reasonable to buy things such as soap. However, when it comes to food, I think producing it at home is much healthier and fresher.

When I think of pre-packaged food, the first words that comes to mind is: tasteless, not fresh, not healthy .

But back then, pre-packaged food meant : freedom from cooking, supplying the family with a sanitary , nutritious , and balanced diet.

I think pre-packaged food was a great idea that time. It saved a lot of time for mothers so they can have more time for other things. Also, pre-packaged food seem to be the better option opposed to what they were eating at homes.

-What about you guys? Do you guys think that pre-packaged food is viewed the same way as today as opposed to back in the 1970’s?

-Do you agree that kindergarten still teaches children habits that would reform the home? Was the kindergarten movement really effective in shaping society and morality?

The thing that is refreshing about this chapter (and this book) is that it isn’t sugar-coated. I remember in one of the student’s blogs, she mentioned the same thing. About how American history textbooks always made America look less worse than they really were . In this chapter, it talked about the mistreatment, segregation, and exclusion of Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans and Africans. It was a bit shocking to read some of the Anglos’ perspective during that time, and their rationale on why they thought it was right for them to exclude / reject other nationalities. I felt that Anglos were very ignorant during that time and the use of deculturalization was a dangerous thing. If they were successful in destroying people’s cultures during that time, America wouldn’t be this unique country that it is now.

Some questions/points that came to mind :

— The book mentioned this statement, “U.S republic could survive only with a white population”. It made me wonder if it weren’t for Mexicans, Asians, and Africans, would America have been able to develop into this industrialized country that it is today?

–I mean “white” Americans were reluctant to take on menial jobs, work long hours, and accept a low paying job. So if it weren’t for these Asians, Africans, and Mexicans (who built bridges, grew crops, ..etc), how would America look today?  How would have made an impact to the development?The immigrants at that time contributed greatly to “building up” America, yet they were mistreated and segregated.

— Do we still see racism, segregation, or favoritism (to a particular race) today  ? In a subtle and in an indirect way? For example, getting hired, acceptance to a college, or just daily interactions in society.

— Reading this chapter made me think about how radically America has changed from that time to now. It is amazing how a homogenous country who rejected and excluded other nationalities/cultures at one point became a complete melting pot. America is known as the country that is made up of numerous cultures/colors. It makes me wonder how they went from one extreme to another extreme.

” Teaching was the first profession opened to women on a regular basis”  –Norton

It was interesting to see that the teaching profession was the doorway for other opportunities for women. Before the Revolution, the education of women were limited to only the basics.  However, schools began to offer teacher positions to woman. There were several reasons why they started to seek out female teachers. During this time, they felt that the development of moral character was significant. Since women possessed that motherly character, people believed that they would be better at teaching and nurturing children. Also, there was a high turn-over rate for male teachers. However, since teaching was the only opportunity for most women, females were more committed and held onto their job for a long time.

It was interesting to see the logic behind why they started to seek women for teaching positions. I feel like teaching really made a pavement for women for other career opportunities . Also, it opened the door to allowing women to receive higher education.  Colleges started to open admissions for females and it allowed females to be more than just a housewife.

I believe that this time was extremely crucial for women and shaped the society today. I think it definitely benefited not only women but the education system and the society as a whole.  Since women were able to be educated because of teaching opportunities, it allowed females to have a voice in society.

It was also interesting how a classroom was organized before the changes. ” Before this development, students had been taught in ungraded classrooms in which teacher were responsible for simultaneously teaching a variety of subjects to students at different levels of knowledge” ( p. 152) The idea of division of students by age came from Prussia and they utilized this borrowed method in the Quincy School.

Some questions that came up was :

— By utilizing females to be teachers as opposed to males, did it really make a huge impact on society’s moral character?

— They believed that females possess this inherent moral character. Do you agree that women have inherent moral character (more than men) and agree with their logic behind why woman would make better teachers?

I was pretty surprised on how much hostility there was between the Protestants and the Catholics in the 1830’s. I always wondered how private schools came about and what the origins of the Catholic school system was. It was interesting how this “anti-Catholic atmosphere” of these public schools were the reason why Catholic schools were opened. I thought that opening up private schools was a smart move, because tensions were rising between Protestants and Catholics. Even several riots broke out between these two groups because of school issues. It was inevitable that another group would come into the picture and threaten the Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture.

In a prior discussion in class, we talked about how we would define American culture. I feel like there is no specific way to define what the American culture is. I feel like America is a big melting pot and what makes America what it is, is that it has all different cultures to make one big culture. However for that reason, I do applaud the creation of common schools and what their goals were. In this chapter, it said, ” It is possible, but not necessarily provable, that public schools expanded in order to create a common culture and language” (p.107). They felt like they needed public schools to expand more than ever because there were going to be a flood of various cultures and languages coming into the U.S.

I feel like since there are numerous languages, religions, and cultures in the U.S, it is impossible to feel really united.The common reformers said that their public philosophy “called for government action to provide schooling that would be more common, more equal, more dedicated to public policy, and therefore more effective in creating cultural and political values centering on Protestantism, republicanism, and capitalism” (p.107). I felt like the intentions were good in forming these common schools (and trying to preserve their culture), however, things got ugly when the Anglo American schools and culture were being threatened.

This chapter also touched on the history of Native Americans and African Americans.

It seems like the U.S felt like they were being threatened by the Irish Catholics, and made it seem like it was wrong for these Irish Catholics to rebel against them. However, it seem like they didn’t feel like it was wrong for them to take away the territory of Native Americans and removing them from their land.

Some questions to think about is:

Were common schools really effective in creating an unified country or did it just spark up tensions and segregate different cultural groups even more?

If there was never any formation of common schools or the push for Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture or even a common language, would the U.S be less unified today and be more chaotic?

Mann’s views on how proper education is the key to social order, really stuck out to me. He discussed his fear of growing social disorder. After an incident where someone tried to start a fire next to his hotel room, he wondered about how a person could do something like that and what goes on in his/her mind to do such an act like this. He decided that to eliminate a crime similar to this one, schools needed to train children at a young age.

I agree with Mann’s point of view. The government should play an active role in the education system, to a certain extent. I think if children are taught at an early age to be a moral person, I think it will be benefical for themselves and the society. Referring back to chapter 3, Thomas Jefferson talks about how schools should just provide the tools and not mold the virtuous person. In the previous blog, I had leaned more towards Thomas Jefferson’s view, however, Mann’s points on why molding a child through the education system, really stuck out.

I think that both the parents and the education system should play an active role in a child’s life. Many argued that the education system should just do their job and teach the basics (like english/math). And that teaching kids on how to be a moral person is the parent’s job. However, children spend most of their day at school and they are at the age where they are forming their morals, character, and beliefs. As Mann said, ” Schools are like the central instiution for the control and maintenance of s0cial order”. If they don’t fix bad habits, bad thoughs, and bad characteristics at an early age, it is very difficult to change them when they are older.

” Men are cast iron; but children are wax” (p.84)

Wouldn’t it be harder for a middle-aged man to change his bad habits and bad characteristics opposed to a child?

Wouldn’t teaching children at a young age on what is right and wrong, prevent disorder before it happens as opposed  to allowing children to form their own characters and allowing disorder to happen and then fixing them (through the law/the police)?

–Janie Lee

There were two different perspectives presented in this chapter regarding how education should play a role in a person’s life. Noah Webster strongly believed that “moral and political values had to be imposed on the child”. He utilized catechism which was when children were required to memorize questions and answers. However on the flip side, Thomas Jefferson had a different opinion about the school system. He believed that they should just provide “the tools of reading and writing and that political beliefs would be formed through the exercise of reason”.

I think both perspectives have a reasonable point, however, I would lean more towards Thomas Jefferson’s point of view. I think being taught on what is right or wrong at such an early age before we have a sense of  what really is right or wrong, is unfair to the child. Noah Webster probably had good intentions for Americans and to a certain extent, I do agree that students should be trained to be a virtuous person at an early age. It will certainly will provide children a clear sense of direction and grow up to have good habits, judgment, values, and patriotism. However, I believe that Jefferson is right when he said that “knowledge, reason and a developed moral sense would result in a natural order in a free society”.

When children are required to memorize questions and answers on what is right and what is wrong, and don’t really understand why they believe in what they believe in. They were molded and taught to believe in a certain way. I think rather than molding a child into a virtuous person,  I think giving the tools to develop their own beliefs will be a lot more effective and long lasting. They should be able to have a choice to be able to form their own beliefs through their own reasoning.

A child would probably understand why they believe in their beliefs if those beliefs are formed by themselves.

Also, I think Jefferson made a great point about how the study of history will guide our reasoning. Instead of being told what to do and memorizing facts, studying history will teach about how and why certain actions led to specific events and consequences.

If we impose political values and nationalism onto children at a young age, how would they respond when they are questioned on why they believe it? Also, wouldn’t it be dangerous when children are molded by schools on what the school/government think is right? I mean at one point, slavery and discrimination was accepted and was never questioned. If everyone was taught on what to believe in, people will lose that freedom to form their own morals, beliefs, and values.

–Janie Lee

The focus of today’s discussion revolved around public schools and religion. It is clear that teachers are not allowed to pray with their students in a public school. We also established in class, that students were allowed to pray on school grounds as long as a teacher was not involved. However, I came across an interesting article that said otherwise.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/

Briefly said, this article reports that a dozen students from Heritage High School was suspended for praying in school

“The individuals, who met for about two weeks before 7 a.m., decided to pray in the school cafeteria, instead, where an alleged Satanist student complained to the school office.”

“The prayer group was instructed by the vice principal to go and pray outside rather than in the cafeteria. The students persisted in praying in the lunch room, however, because of the inclement weather outside. As a result, they were suspended for ten days.”

Students being suspended for praying in school? Really? Students are doing it on their time with their fellow friends. I doubt that it is something disruptive or harmful to other students. Is it really fair to penalize these students for praying at school? I mean they have a right to exercise their belief and it is without the expense of other students. If the court allows this to happen, won’t students in schools in the U.S question their religious freedom and be hesitant to practice any kind of religious act?

–Janie Lee