In my continued study of the history of education, I have been reading up on the period from 1900-1950. It has really opened my eyes to how blessed we are to be living in this time period of education. We might be seeing a lot of reform going on right now with the common core standards that are being implemented in education, but the early 1900's was a mess in regard to education. The main goal for this time period was to "Americanize" the immigrant children that were pouring into the school systems. It was a time for schools and teachers to teach the students the knowledge and skills needed to participate in what was a democratic industrial society.  It was now a law that children were to attend  elementary school and many went on to high school. America was now famous for its free public education and we were ahead of other leading European Nations. Junior High Schools were implemented to handle the large amount of immigrant students and to train children as young as twelve for the work force. Meanwhile, there were many that felt it was time to change the way children were being educated. It was time for more practical studies that would prepare them for the work industry and less of academic courses. This led to the use of IQ testing to determine where the student needed to be placed in education. It would help identify the student's innate, fixed intelligence. Administration would use the results to determine if a student was to go on in the academic studies, or be placed in a program that best fit their abilities toward industrial work or other areas.
     About this time, philosopher John Dewey  campaigned  that children learned by doing instead of by reading about it. He developed an educational system that was a more child-centered and individualized approach. It was built to emphasize a child's interest and culture. This reform was implemented in Gary Indiana by a former student of Mr. Dewey, a William Wirt. It was met with mixed emotion at the time but later became very successful in that area. It was based on alternate periods of study and work.  It failed in New York due to parents feeling that it was preparing their children to go out and get jobs in the factories while they wanted their children to go on to higher education and jobs as doctors or lawyers. It was too bad that this approach did not succeed at the time. It might have changed the direction that education seemed to keep taking. Vocational tracking was still the big push thanks to the IQ testing and later the SAT testing that was developed to test for college acceptance.
     During the 1950's, the focus was on "real life" education, With this change in education came great disatisfaction. There was a claim that education had be reduced student effort, lowered standards, and reduced achievement as well. There was a cry for change in education again. With the Russian launching of the satellite Sputnik, there came a greater push for this reform. Congress passed a law that provided for higher education in the areas of mathematics, science, and foreign language. There was a big reduction in illiteracy  and more children attained an education.  But education still had a long way to go. In 1910, most children were still found at work in factories instead of in a classroom. When asked, many would rather work in the factories than be in unsafe, boring classrooms. Progressive leaders pushed to reform schools into places that would exercise a student's body as well as the mind, teach them by doing hands on learning, and explore the world around them. This lead to the introduction of William Wirt again. He developed a curriculum that would always keep the students moving and not let them have time to be bored. It gave an opportunity to the students to have a rich school experience. It was a split-shift system of Work-Study-Play where the students would learn skills for jobs, then academics, and then play time as well. It was a well-rounded program that met the need of all students and their talents instead of just a few. It was designed to help everyone be successful in academics as well as a working man. There was even a program to help the community members and hopefully meet a need for teaching parents how to manage better at home.
      There was great opposition once again to the "Gary Plan" in New York so it was never successful in their schools. They eventually went on to develop their own texts and curriculum that would focus on "Americanizing" the students. Only English would be spoken in the schools and Christian influence ruled. This became a time of segregation once again. It became harder for children to cross that cultural divide between school and home. IQ testing would build an even wider gap in educational segregation. It was thought that the scores could determine a student's knowledge by ethnicity, race or class. The testing was biased and only given in English so many children failed it. Many Mexican American students as well as Native American students were classified as slow learners or mentally retarded. Some were never even given the test. It was just determined that because of their race, they were bound to fail or only be able to succeed as an industrial worker. This was considered to be another form of segregation as the students' were educated to prepare for the industrial job market instead of higher education.
      Then came yet another push for educational reform. Arthur Bestor, a university professor and author, felt that students were being spoon-fed  information and not being given the chance to develop their own thoughts, or evaluations of the data. How could they come to any conclusions about the material when it was all handed to them and there was no thinking required. He pushed for a return to the basic core subjects of academics. The american school system was in a continuous cycle between progressive education and traditional forms of education. But there was also still the problem of little funding, buildings overcrowded and in disrepair, teacher shortage due to the war,  and cultural bias that needed attention. In 1958, President Eisenhower signed a bill known as the National Defense Education Act that would give huge amounts of money every year to education. It was a push to compete with Russia and reform our school system so that more scientists and mathematicians would be produced. This era would be known as the time of mass education but not of equal education.
     I cannot imagine how hard it would have been to be a teacher at this time. It seemed that ideas were always changing on how you should be teaching and there was a huge responsibility on the teacher to not only teach academics but also hygiene and basic life skills. The teacher often had to take the role of a parent as well as an educator. It must have been hard for the student as well to not know the language and be tested only to be told what you were going to learn so that you could get a job in something you might not have even been interested in. Many were denied the opportunity to expand their learning and find what talents they might have had in the arts, mathematics, or science. They were simply told that they would take courses that would prepare them for the work force. Our education system might have problems now, but at least students have an opportunity to explore different avenues of learning.  What is your opinion?

     I have recently started reading a new book titled, "School, The story of American Public Education." It is sectioned out into four areas of the building of education. The first section that I just finished talked about the years 1770-1900. This was an era where the school system was still being developed in the United States. It was known as the starting era of the "Common School". In the pre-revolution era there were not many schools available to attend. If there was a school in a town or community, it was usually payed for and supported by the families that could afford to pay to send their children to school. Often, the girls were sent to "dame schools" to learn their letters and discipline.  Most teaching came from the Bible. If you were a boy and came from a privledged family, you might have been sent to a grammar school where you learned mathematics, Latin, and philosophy. If you were wealthy enough, you might have even made it to college or university. At this time, most Americans had received enough education to be able to read something such as the newspaper, and were able to prepare their taxes. Some could still only sign their name.  There were some men such as Thomas Jefferson that felt that America needed an educational system. He felt that it was important for man to be educated in order to make informed decisions in choosing the rulers of the country. He tried to establish a law requiring 3 years of education for all children and the opportunity for advanced education for those  aristocrats that could serve the country such as he had done. Some problems with his plan is that he felt that girls should only be taught how to sew and take care of their families and home. He also totally excluded the slaves in his plan. Jefferson's plan for education did not pass at the time, but other important leaders would later continue with the idea of education for all. Horace Mann was one of those great men. He set out to set up a school system that would be free and available for everyone. He started a new system of education known as the "common schools." It was a system of free schooling for everyone and taught the same common body of knowledge so that every child had an equal opportunity to be successful in life. It was to be funded by the tax dollars that citizens paid each year, and it was to be governed by the state. This is where he gained opposition. Citizens did not want the states to have control and they did not want a heavier tax burden. Mann was also responsible for getting better textbooks, seating, chalkboards and other needed materials as well as better school buildings with adequate lighting, heating, and other necessities.
      Religion also began to play a bigger role in education at this time. There was a huge debate over what religion should be focused on in the schools. Many Catholic parents felt that their children were being taught Protestant methods and beliefs and that their own religion was being persecuted. Bishop John Hughes demanded that public money be made available for the Catholics to start their own schools. This led to a huge public uproar with other religions wanting their share as well. This eventually led to the development of the New York City Board of Education. One of the first such boards that would develop throughout the country. The Catholic  citizens eventually created  their own funding and started private schools of their own. This was the start of the major alternative school system in the US.
     At about the same time, the African American citizens were starting to demand an education for their children as well. They wanted an end to segregation and wanted better schools with better materials.  This led to a court case against the City of Boston by  Benjamin Roberts in behalf of his daughter Sarah. It eventually made it all the way to the  state legislature.  This court case led to the 1855 Massachusetts law abolishing segregation in their schools. This law was later part of the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit that ended segregation in all public schools.
      There was so much reform going on in this time period in regards to education. Women were now being educated to become teachers in the West as it expanded. There were more schools in the United States than in any other country.  It seemed that the dreams of Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann were off to a great start. I can't wait to see how the next era of education goes as I continue to read this book. Stay tuned and I will let you know what I discover as I read about the new public school system.

My approach to teaching.

            In the journey to becoming an elementary teacher, I have had to do some deep thinking on what style of teaching methods I would use. Would I use the executive approach to teaching, the facilitator approach, or the liberationist approach? I believe that I will use the executive approach the most in my classroom as I tend to want control of what is happening around me, what the students are learning, and how the students are learning. I feel that it is very important for younger children to have rules and procedures in place on the first day that they step into a new classroom. It is necessary to have lesson plans that are detailed and specific to what is expected for those children to learn. I am hoping to teach kindergarten and these children need to know what is going to happen next, as well as what exactly is expected of them or they get confused and upset. The goal of education is to prepare students to the current norms and conventions of society. This means that children need to learn to follow rules and procedures to function successfully in the community around them. It will be my job as their teacher to help them learn how to do this.

            As I have studied the three approaches to teaching, I have opened my mind more to the possibilities of incorporating at least one of the other approaches to go with my executive approach. I am starting to think that I could easily include the facilitator approach to me teaching methods.  I feel it is necessary to encourage each student’s potential in regards to learning. Each child is so different and learns in their own way so it would be necessary for me as the teacher to find that student’s learning style and help make it possible for them to learn. It would be easy to find each child’s need and interest when it comes time to develop lesson plans for the month and accommodate them as much as possible. If I don’t include some of the facilitator approach into my classroom, I am afraid the students’ will find the classroom to structured and boring. It is necessary to find things that will catch their attention and give them the desire to keep learning. As a facilitator, I will help the students learn by finding ways to learn myself as well. I love to learn new things and look forward to helping my students learn these things as well. I think that as I try to combine the two approaches of executive and facilitator, I will learn so much more of what it takes to help the students reach their potential. I will be able to have my structure and classroom management; however, I will also be able to have the discovery of new things, as well as creating new life experiences for every person in the classroom. I will be able to  be compassionate, caring, and lead the children toward their own learning and still have the ultimate say in what is being studied and have the classroom management that is so necessary with young children.

As a teacher, would I ever be able to use the liberationist approach in my classroom?

      I have struggled to decide how I would develop my teaching methods as I move closer to my goal of having my own classroom one day. I have learned of many methods that would be effective in teaching but I am not sure what one exactly will work best for me. I have been studying the three approaches of executive, liberationist, and facilitator over the course of this semester. I find that I would in all reality apply all three approaches in my teaching approach at one time or another depending on the requirements of the curriculum and the students at that time.
      I have been considering what it means to me to be a liberationist. To me, a liberationist is about liberating the mind, using imagination and creativity to develop further knowledge in myself and my students, and to create a sense of wonder and understanding.  The liberationist approach aids one in acquiring skills of thinking, deliberation, imagination, and the knowledge to search and investigate for greater understanding for oneself. This type of approach is a great way to push  for higher efficacy of achievement and thought. The teacher would present the material and the students would then work to reach greater understanding of that material.
     There are sure to be some difficulties in using this approach with students. First, it does not focus on the student's life experiences, instead, there is focus on the depth and breadth of the student's learning. It is up to the teacher to help the student become informed and how to make informed decisions based on the material that they have learned from. Democracy must be taught along with other core instruction. The liberationist approach relies on the teacher and educational material to teach the students the necessary skills to deal with difficulties and how to problem solve so that they can become model citizens. This can be a lot of pressure on a teacher who is not organized and ready for such learning. The teacher must keep himself/herself well educated and up on current needs of the students and the world around them in order to successfully aid the students in reaching their goal.
     There is some benefits that come from using this approach. The biggest benefit is that it will require deeper thinking skills from the student and the teacher.Often students will work in groups to help facilitate deeper learning, understanding, creativity, and conformity with what is real and true in the world around. This approach also leans toward the understanding that there is human goodness in everyone.