As someone who is for the first time formally being introduced to the study of education, it’s interesting to learn about the history of education, the conflicting ideologies behind it, and education reforms and policies though the different works of Labaree, Oakes et al. and Tyak and Cuban. Labaree provides a clear introduction to the conflicting ideologies of the administrative and pedagogical progressivism that existed throughout the history of education and their current coexistence in today’s educational schools; one in practice and the other in rhetoric. Tyak and Cuban main purpose were to discuss the conflicting objectives of education that emerge when shaping education policy, and the interaction between education reforms and practice
…show more content…
Labaree portray this clearly when she explains that the reason administrative progressivism won over pedagogical progressivism was because it was more appealing to business and political leaders who were interested in a type of education that “organized and manage school more efficiently, tailor instructions to the needs of employers…[and] provide students with the skills and attitudes they would need to perform and accept their future roles in society” (285). As the above quote indicates, people whom posses’ economic or political power support education policies that serve their private interest. Ultimately, power causes the distortion of the true social value of education, hence, the current perception of education as a commodity or producer of skill labor. Since a few individuals with power are able to shape education reforms, then the concept of education becomes the elite’s perception of the role of education in society. Moreover, students and teachers who have little influence in shaping education policies are the ones enduring any unforeseen detrimental consequences of such education reforms. Through Teaching to Change the Work and Tinkering Toward Utopia: a Century of Public School Reform, I have been able to recognize that private interest are embedded in education reform. However, as a
Labaree portray this clearly when she explains that the reason administrative progressivism won over pedagogical progressivism was because it was more appealing to business and political leaders who were interested in a type of education that “organized and manage school more efficiently, tailor instructions to the needs of employers…[and] provide students with the skills and attitudes they would need to perform and accept their future roles in society” (285). As the above quote indicates, people whom posses’ economic or political power support education policies that serve their private interest. Ultimately, power causes the distortion of the true social value of education, hence, the current perception of education as a commodity or producer of skill labor. Since a few individuals with power are able to shape education reforms, then the concept of education becomes the elite’s perception of the role of education in society. Moreover, students and teachers who have little influence in shaping education policies are the ones enduring any unforeseen detrimental consequences of such education reforms. Through Teaching to Change the Work and Tinkering Toward Utopia: a Century of Public School Reform, I have been able to recognize that private interest are embedded in education reform. However, as a