April 7 Reader’s Guide
Why do we have public schools, and what purpose do they serve?
The Common School Era of the 1830s-1860s
Kaestle, Pillars of the Republic, chapter 6
John Ireland, “State Schools and Parish Schools”
the AFT v. the Heritage Foundation on vouchers
Your secondary source for this week, Carl Kaestle’s Pillars of the Republic, offers a brief synopsis of the Common School Era (which occurred between 1830 and 1860 in the Northeast and Midwest and is when public schooling as we know it emerged). Prior to this time, most schools served the elite with a combination of public and private funds. The new concept was a difficult sell. One, common school reformers had to grapple with the question of how the same school could serve a large and diverse population (by this time, immigration from different parts of Europe had increased). In response to the challenge, the reformers championed the schools as tuition-free, deliberately inclusive, public in support and in control, and the crucible in which the “teeming masses” would be made into Americans—in essence, they were democracy in action according to the reformers. As David Labaree stated in last week’s readings, democratic equality was the dominant goal, and the primary outcome was supposed to be moral and assimilated American citizens. How could anyone argue with that? (Kaestle discusses opposition to the schools by the elite and working poor, and we will examine another opposing group in the primary sources.)
Two, common school reformers worked to standardize, centralize, and professionalize schooling and the teaching profession. Their reforms—graded schools, uniform textbooks, uniform normal schools/teacher training institutions, the establishment of the superintendency, etc.—continue to influence schooling and teaching in contemporary times, but they were hotly debated (and their reforms were sometimes ignored) at the time.
Three, reformers had to figure out how to convince those opposed to the common school for cultural/religious reasons to turn away from private schooling. It is this debate—public money for private education—that our primary sources will engage. According to many Catholics, the common schools were not as “common” as promised. Catholics accused the public school system of a strong Protestant bias although reformers proclaimed the schools taught the “common elements of Christian truths;” they argued for local control so they could monitor the religious education of their children; they blasted the common school for placing itself between parents and children; and they accused the public schools of encouraging Catholic children to become “untractable, disobedient, and even contemptuous toward their parents unwilling to learn anything of religion.” As you will see, the debate was not easily settled.
Your contemporary primary sources take up the same question: do pubic funds always have to be aligned with public control of schools? In the sources, the American Federation of Teachers and the Heritage Foundation register very different opinions on vouchers.
When you are doing the readings, ask yourself:
· What remnants of the Common School Era do you see in schools? How does this impact the role/identity of the teacher?
· Do you believe public funds should be aligned with public control of schools? Why? Why not?
· Who should control education? Should it be centralized or decentralized? What are the consequences of hyper-centralization or local control? And what does this mean for the teacher?