Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals view’s on
education would be greatly debated today. As with most thinking in the
early 20th century; a class system and hierarchy ruled by racism existed
in their beliefs. On the flip side of the argument,
during his time, Eliot was regarded as an education genius with ideas
that only enhanced the common good of American citizens. His major
focus was that of employable skills. Everyone should learn, but schools
should prepare students with skills for the workplace.
These skills (because of the time period) were gender bias as well as
race bias, but were driven to provide everyone with a path to further
their learning. The educational opportunities provided to students in
theory was not the true design. Equal opportunity
was not truly equal. Preparing students for different occupational
outcomes could be seen as undemocratic. The progressive interpretation
of equal educational opportunity, however, made the differentiated
curriculum appear democratic (Tozer et al, 2009,
p. 159).
Eliot also argued that students could contribute to a more democratic society if they were taught "to respect and confide in the expert in every field of human activity" (Tozer et al, 2009, p. 159). Every member of society could serve a purpose to its overall 'goodness'. Unfortunately, the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich. Opportunity during this time was ultimately provided based on class and wealth. If your father was a lawyer then you too could possibly become a lawyer. If you were raised on a farm, then you could forget about being a lawyer. But hey! You still serve a purpose, right?
Today, Eliot's ideas served a huge purpose in shaping the way schools are run. The ideals behind some of these purposes has of course changed. Democracy allows people of all races, religions, or class to advance and better themselves. This is the ideals we really should keep in mind when educating children. Once again, just my two cents!
References:
Tozer, S.E., Senese, G., and Violas, P.C. School and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eliot also argued that students could contribute to a more democratic society if they were taught "to respect and confide in the expert in every field of human activity" (Tozer et al, 2009, p. 159). Every member of society could serve a purpose to its overall 'goodness'. Unfortunately, the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich. Opportunity during this time was ultimately provided based on class and wealth. If your father was a lawyer then you too could possibly become a lawyer. If you were raised on a farm, then you could forget about being a lawyer. But hey! You still serve a purpose, right?
Today, Eliot's ideas served a huge purpose in shaping the way schools are run. The ideals behind some of these purposes has of course changed. Democracy allows people of all races, religions, or class to advance and better themselves. This is the ideals we really should keep in mind when educating children. Once again, just my two cents!
References:
Tozer, S.E., Senese, G., and Violas, P.C. School and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
No comments:
Post a Comment