David A. Gamson
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780226634548
- eISBN:
- 9780226634685
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226634685.003.0001
- Subject:
- Education, History of Education
The book’s opening chapter introduces key concepts that rest at the core of The Importance of Being Urban and identifies the years between 1913 and 1928 as crucial to the forging of district ...
More
The book’s opening chapter introduces key concepts that rest at the core of The Importance of Being Urban and identifies the years between 1913 and 1928 as crucial to the forging of district progressivism. Several dilemmas faced Progressive Era school leaders in the early twentieth century; among them was the challenge of harnessing the exciting pedagogical experiments emerging in small, often independent, schools and spreading those innovations throughout large urban districts. Gamson argues that by examining school reform at the level of the urban school system, one sees that “district progressives” often blended approaches that historians have viewed as incompatible, such as hands-on, child-centered instructional practices with more rigid testing and tracking initiatives. Through a comparative analysis of school systems in four western cities—Oakland, Denver, Portland, and Seattle—he demonstrates how the willful eclecticism of district practitioners often mirrored that of municipal leaders. The introduction raises central questions that will be explored throughout the book, including: what did it mean to be a progressive school district? And how did progressives blend science and efficiency with democratic practices in ways that they believed ultimately offered students equal educational opportunities?Less
The book’s opening chapter introduces key concepts that rest at the core of The Importance of Being Urban and identifies the years between 1913 and 1928 as crucial to the forging of district progressivism. Several dilemmas faced Progressive Era school leaders in the early twentieth century; among them was the challenge of harnessing the exciting pedagogical experiments emerging in small, often independent, schools and spreading those innovations throughout large urban districts. Gamson argues that by examining school reform at the level of the urban school system, one sees that “district progressives” often blended approaches that historians have viewed as incompatible, such as hands-on, child-centered instructional practices with more rigid testing and tracking initiatives. Through a comparative analysis of school systems in four western cities—Oakland, Denver, Portland, and Seattle—he demonstrates how the willful eclecticism of district practitioners often mirrored that of municipal leaders. The introduction raises central questions that will be explored throughout the book, including: what did it mean to be a progressive school district? And how did progressives blend science and efficiency with democratic practices in ways that they believed ultimately offered students equal educational opportunities?
David A. Gamson
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780226634548
- eISBN:
- 9780226634685
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226634685.001.0001
- Subject:
- Education, History of Education
The Importance of Being Urban offers several new perspectives on Progressive Era school reform by arguing that educational progressivism manifested itself differently at the local level than at the ...
More
The Importance of Being Urban offers several new perspectives on Progressive Era school reform by arguing that educational progressivism manifested itself differently at the local level than at the national level. This distinction can best be seen by examining how local district leaders—termed “district progressives”—embraced a variety of educational reforms considered novel and innovative. District progressives adopted curricula and instructional practices associated with Deweyan notions of pedagogy while they simultaneously implemented intelligence tests and other reforms that epitomized social efficiency and scientific management. During a period of vigorous urban planning, sweeping municipal reorganization, hastened immigration, and a shifting economic and industrial base, urban school districts began to play an increasingly prominent role in urban society, embedding themselves more and more into American urban life and taking responsibility for a much larger slice of the American childhood than ever before. Standard historical narratives tend to divide progressive educators into separate streams of thought, usually distinguishing between pedagogical and administrative progressives, but these divisions mask a more comprehensive understanding of district progressivism and obscure the ways in which districts combined reforms heretofore seen as incongruous and incompatible. By looking across multiple urban school systems, this study demonstrates that district progressivism was a common pattern, not simply representative of an isolated case or two. Moreover, the way local school leaders interpreted democratic education and assessed the potential of non-Anglo children from different national, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds reveals much about the types of schools they ultimately constructed.Less
The Importance of Being Urban offers several new perspectives on Progressive Era school reform by arguing that educational progressivism manifested itself differently at the local level than at the national level. This distinction can best be seen by examining how local district leaders—termed “district progressives”—embraced a variety of educational reforms considered novel and innovative. District progressives adopted curricula and instructional practices associated with Deweyan notions of pedagogy while they simultaneously implemented intelligence tests and other reforms that epitomized social efficiency and scientific management. During a period of vigorous urban planning, sweeping municipal reorganization, hastened immigration, and a shifting economic and industrial base, urban school districts began to play an increasingly prominent role in urban society, embedding themselves more and more into American urban life and taking responsibility for a much larger slice of the American childhood than ever before. Standard historical narratives tend to divide progressive educators into separate streams of thought, usually distinguishing between pedagogical and administrative progressives, but these divisions mask a more comprehensive understanding of district progressivism and obscure the ways in which districts combined reforms heretofore seen as incongruous and incompatible. By looking across multiple urban school systems, this study demonstrates that district progressivism was a common pattern, not simply representative of an isolated case or two. Moreover, the way local school leaders interpreted democratic education and assessed the potential of non-Anglo children from different national, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds reveals much about the types of schools they ultimately constructed.
David A. Gamson
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780226634548
- eISBN:
- 9780226634685
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226634685.003.0008
- Subject:
- Education, History of Education
The conclusion addresses a fundamental hazard of the analytic urge to divide educational practitioners into distinct categories: it masks the core nature of district progressive practice. Not only ...
More
The conclusion addresses a fundamental hazard of the analytic urge to divide educational practitioners into distinct categories: it masks the core nature of district progressive practice. Not only did administrative reorganization accompany more pedagogically oriented reforms, but progressive leaders often saw such reorganization as essential to carrying out their instructional and curricular innovations. Where scholars see contradictions among practices, they saw pragmatic programs that helped them reach their goals. Gamson also argues that a policy window opened for American schools in the years between 1909 and 1919, a period before the widespread use of intelligence tests when local practitioners not only sought out the reasons for student failure but also experimented with viable approaches to getting pupils back to grade level. Finally, the author suggests that American society is undergoing a major transformation that is not dissimilar to one that occurred roughly a century ago. Progressive educators ultimately delivered an inequitable education system within the context of an unequal world. Can twenty-first-century Americans learn from the mistakes of the past and offer a richer response that fulfills the potential of education in a democracy?Less
The conclusion addresses a fundamental hazard of the analytic urge to divide educational practitioners into distinct categories: it masks the core nature of district progressive practice. Not only did administrative reorganization accompany more pedagogically oriented reforms, but progressive leaders often saw such reorganization as essential to carrying out their instructional and curricular innovations. Where scholars see contradictions among practices, they saw pragmatic programs that helped them reach their goals. Gamson also argues that a policy window opened for American schools in the years between 1909 and 1919, a period before the widespread use of intelligence tests when local practitioners not only sought out the reasons for student failure but also experimented with viable approaches to getting pupils back to grade level. Finally, the author suggests that American society is undergoing a major transformation that is not dissimilar to one that occurred roughly a century ago. Progressive educators ultimately delivered an inequitable education system within the context of an unequal world. Can twenty-first-century Americans learn from the mistakes of the past and offer a richer response that fulfills the potential of education in a democracy?
