PART 1
If you respond to this long post (21kB) please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the original message normally contained in
your reply down to a few lines, otherwise you will inflict this
entire pedantic post yet again on all suffering list subscribers.
In his post "Re: The Inertia of the Educational System," Seth
Rosenberg (2004a) wrote [bracketed by lines "RRRRRRR. . . ."; I have
supplied the academic references - seldom used on discussion lists
:-( ]:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I have to disagree strongly with the assertion that our education
system has 'inertia'. If that were the case, then the sweeping
changes in testing that came through NCLB would be resisted as
strongly as our attempts in initiate inquiry.
As I discussed in my brief discussant's talk in Sacramento. . .[is
this in print or on the web?]. . . , there are 3 types of resistance
I highly recommend that people who are interested in changing the
educational system study the history of education reform in this
country.
Here are two references [Nasaw (1979), Bowles & Gintis (1976)].
What becomes very clear is that the American educational system has
no 'inertia', but does have a bias. Education plays a highly social
and political role in or society - and changes that oppose that bias
are resisted or modified, while changes that encourage that role are
incorporated.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I should have been explicit in defining the "inertia" in my title
"The Inertia of the Educational System," [Hake (2004a)] as an inertia
that resists SUCCESSFUL change in America's schools, where the
measure of success is increased understanding by - and wisdom of
(Sternberg (2001; 2003a,b) - students. That measure of success is
unrelated to "socializing students to function well, and without
complaint, in the hierarchical structure of the modern corporation"
[Bowles & Gintis (2001) - see below].
My usage of "inertia" is consistent with:
(a) My quote of from Wilson & Daviss (1994): "If other major American
'systems' have so effectively demonstrated the ability to change, why
has the education 'system' been so singularly resistant to change?
What might the lessons learned from other systems' efforts to adapt
and evolve have to teach us about bringing about change - SUCCESSFUL
change - in America's schools?"
(b) Dewey Dykstra's (2004) interpretation of inertia: ". . . if we
think of 'inertia' in the present case as limited, as it is in
physics, to being associated with "forces" associated with changes in
'bias' [in Seth's terms or changes in paradigm in my terms], then it
seems like we could use the term and all be meaning something that
appears to be shared between us."
(c) Bowles & Gintis (2001)] position: They write [my CAPS]:
"Concerning human development, we showed [. . . in [Bowles & Gintis
(1976)]. . . that while cognitive skills are important in the economy
and in predicting individual economic success, the contribution of
schooling to individual economic success could only partly be
explained by the cognitive development fostered in schools. WE
ADVANCED THE POSITION THAT SCHOOLS PREPARE PEOPLE FOR ADULT WORK
RULES, BY SOCIALIZING PEOPLE TO FUNCTION WELL, AND WITHOUT COMPLAINT,
IN THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE MODERN CORPORATION. Schools
accomplish this by what we called the CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE . . .
[shades of Niels Bohr!]. . . ., namely, by structuring social
interactions and individual rewards to replicate the environment of
the workplace. We thus focused attention not on the explicit
curriculum but on the socialization implied by the structure of
schooling. Our econometric investigations demonstrated that the
contribution of schooling to later economic success is explained only
in part by the cognitive skills learned in school. . . . . . . . . .
. . our historical studies of the origins of primary schooling and
the development of the high school suggested that the evolution of
the modern school system is not accounted for by the gradual
perfection of a democratic or pedagogical ideal. Rather, it was the
product of a series of conflicts arising through the transformation
of the social organization of work and the distribution of its
rewards. In this process, THE INTERESTS OF THE OWNERS OF THE LEADING
BUSINESSES TENDED TO PREDOMINATE but were rarely uncontested. THE
SAME CONFLICT-RIDDEN EVOLUTION OF THE STRUCTURE AND PURPOSES OF
EDUCATION WAS STRIKINGLY EVIDENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION at the time we
wrote "Schooling in Capitalist America," . . . [Bowles & Gintis
(1976)] . . . . and we devoted a chapter to what we termed the
contradictions of higher education."
(d) Rosenberg's (2004a) statement that: "education plays a highly
social and political role in or society - and changes that oppose
that bias. . . [such as changes that promote student learning]. . .
are resisted or modified, while changes that encourage that . .
.[bias]. . . are incorporated.
(e) Rosenberg's (2004b) statement that: "all these resistive factors
listed above are simply aspects of a highly complex, stable system
that moves back to equilibrium when perturbed (it may find new
stability points - equally non-progressive). What is the equilibrium
point? Our educational system is directly tied to our economic
system: schools prepare children to be workers - however, the primary
preparation is not skills or knowledge - it is social. The majority
of jobs in America, and the world, involve fragmented repetitive
tasks in a hierarchical and authoritarian environment. The very few
control nearly all of the economic resources and set the rules for
our economy - they determine production, how the jobs are done, and
how the workplace is run. I'm talking here about the jobs at Walmart,
fast food restaurants, car rental agencies, custodial workers,
cafeteria workers, agricultural workers - the list goes on and on.
Research has shown that workers in these workplaces are rewarded if
they are obedient, and are not if they are independent and creative.
Guess what - the exact same correlation was found in the schools as
well!"
(f) Chejlava's (2004) Elasticity Theorem: "When the force making a
change (person or grant$) is removed from the educational system, the
system returns to it initial state, in much the same way as a
stretched rubber band snaps back to its original shape when released."
(g) The stagnation of California's K-12 science/math education, due
primarily to the dominance of California's educational bureaucracy by
retrograde direct instructionists [Hake (2004b)].
Two more points:
1. With regard to the NCLB act, Seth Rosenberg (2004a) wrote: "I
have to disagree strongly with the assertion that our education
system has 'inertia'. If that were the case, then the sweeping
changes in testing that came through NCLB would be resisted as
strongly as our attempts in initiate inquiry."
Although it would appear that the NCLB is not working satisfactorily
[see e.g., Ohanian (2003)], IMHO under a more enlightened
administration it might not be all bad. For a reasonably balanced
discussion of the pros and cons of the NCLB see Linn (2003).
2. Regarding Seth's book recommendations, I think people who are
interested in changing the educational system might also take a look
at the history of education from a perspective somewhat broader than
that of Nasaw (1990) and Bowles & Gintis (1976)]. Larry Cuban (1993)
wrote (page 316) [bracketed by lines "CCCCCCCCCCCCC. . . . .; see the
book for references other than Bowles & Gintis (1976) and Nasaw
(1980, 1979?):
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Various strains of neo-Marxist argument point out that as schools
sort out immigrants, the poor, and the caste-like minorities from the
middle- and upper-classes they provide recruits for the bottom,
middle, and top floors of American business enterprises. Thus,
schools are beneficial to capitalism and the prevailing social order.
That schools serve the existing array of social classes is in itself
sufficient evidence that schools and classrooms reproduce
socioeconomic distinctions. For unvarnished versions of this argument
see Bowles & Gintis (1976), Anyon (1980 pp. 67-92), Nasaw (1980 - it
should be 1979?), Everhart (1983)."
For other perspectives see, e.g. Bok (1990), Duderstadt (2000, 2001),
and Thelin (2004) on higher education; and Tyack & Cuban (1995),
Sarason (1990), Sizer (1985, 1992, 1996), Sizer & Sizer (1999), and
Wilson & Davis (1994) on K-12 education.