Education as a Complex Adaptive System:
Contingencies and Continuity in Educational History
Organization for Educational Historians
2010 Annual Conference
September 17-18, 2010
John R. Shoup, Ph.D.
And
Susan Clark Studer, Ph.D.
California Baptist University
M. C. Escher “Night and Day”
Agenda
• Brief Overview of Complexity Science
• Brief Overview of Contingency and Continuity in
the American Educational System
• Implications for Education
• Q&A
In 2002, the U. S. Department of
Education commissioned the
Washington Center for Complexity and
Public Policy to examine how
complexity science is being used “with
special attention to implications for its
use in understanding and influencing
the complexities of our educational
system”
(Sanders & McCabe, 2003, p. 5).
The challenges of the 21st century
will require new ways of thinking
about and understanding the
complex, interconnected and
rapidly changing world in which we
live and work. And the new field of
complexity science is providing the
insights we need to push our
thinking in new directions.
Sanders and McCabe, 2003, p. 5
In the last twenty years, rapid advances in
high-speed computing and computer graphics
have created a revolution in the scientific
understanding of complex systems. We now
have the ability to move beyond the old
paradigm; to look at whole systems; to study
the interactions of many independent variables
and to explore the underlying principles,
structure and dynamics of complex physical,
biological and social systems.
Sanders and McCabe, 2003, p.5
"I
think the
next century
will be the
century of
complexity."
Stephen
Hawking
“Today’s
complexity is
only expected to
rise, and more
than half of
CEOs doubt
their ability to
manage it”
(p. 8)
This study is based on face-to-face
conversations with more than 1,500
chief executive officers worldwide. (p. 1)
IBM (2010). Capitalizing on
Complexity: Insights from the
Global Chief Executive Officer
Study. Somers, NY: IBM
Global Business Services.
Scientists have recently discovered
that various complex systems have
an underlying architecture
governed by shared organizing
principles.
(Barabasi & Bonabeau, 2003, p. 50).
How Successful
Leaders Think
By Roger
Martin
June 2007 (60-67)
“We look for lessons in the actions of
great leaders. We should instead be
examining what goes on in their
heads-particularly the way they
creatively build on the tensions
among conflicting ideas.”
(p. 65)
“We often don’t know
what to do with
fundamentally opposing
models. Our first
impulse is usually to
determine which is
‘right’ and, by the
process of elimination,
which is ‘wrong’.” (p. 62)
“Integrative thinkers
don’t mind a messy
problem. In fact, they
welcome complexity,
because that’s where
the best answers come
from.” (p.66)
1
Determining
Salience
Convention
al Thinkers
Integrative
Thinkers
(p. 65)
Focus only
on obviously
relevant
features
Seek less
obvious but
potentially
relevant
factors
2
Analyzing
Causality
Consider one
way, linear
relationships
between
variables, in
which more of
A produces
more of B
Consider
multidirectional
and non linear
relationships
among
variables
3
4
Break
problems into
pieces and
work on them
separately or
sequentially
Make eitheror choices;
settle for best
available
options
Envisioning
the Decision
Architecture
See problems
as a whole,
examining
how the parts
fit together
and how
decisions
effect one
another
Achieving
Resolution
Creatively
resolve
tensions
among
opposing
ideas;
generate
innovative
outcomes
Kliebard (2002) states “The
term pendulum swing has
become the most widely
used characterization of this
phenomenon, implying,
of course, that educational
reform is nothing but a series
of backward and forward
movements with, in the end,
everything remaining in place.
Whatever the merits of pendulum swing as the
controlling metaphor for the course of
educational reform, it reflects a profound
disillusionment with the enterprise” (p. 1).
Often education reform is
naively characterized as
the newest fad in a series
of fads and summarily
dismissed.
Such limited explanations are consistent
with the traditional, rational and linear
models of framing change in what are,
in essence, complex and dynamic
systems.
Unfortunately, such perspectives distort
the true nature of reform, limit the ability
to anticipate or forecast educational
reform and often sabotage reform
efforts before they even have a chance
to accomplish their intended effect.
According to Cusick (1992),
“Schools are never sufficiently
individualized, equal, excellent
or efficient. So education’s
reform mill never lacks grist”
(p. 179).
Those who cannot
remember the
past are
condemned to
repeat it.
George Santayana
• Complexity theory reveals that
history cannot be help repeat
itself, on some scale.
• The values (strange attractors)
and patterns that shaped the past
at work in the future.
Chaos: Making a
New Science
By James Gleick (1987)
How Colleges Work:
The Cybernetics of
Academic Organization and
Leadership
By Robert Birnbaum (1991)
Leadership and
the New Science
By Margaret J. Wheatley (1999)
School Leadership
and Complexity
Theory
By Keith Morrison (2002)
How Nature Works:
The Science Of Self
Organized Criticality
By Per Bak (1996)
Ubiquity: The Science
of History--or Why
the World is Simpler
Than We Think
By Mark Buchanan (2001)
Complexity: The
Emerging Science at
the Edge of Order
and Chaos
By Mitchell Waldrop (1992)
Managing the
Unexpected:
Assuring High
Performance in an
Age of Complexity
By Karl E. Weick and
Kathleen M. Sutcliffe (2001)
Chaos Theory in
the Social
Sciences:
Foundations and
Applications
Edited by L. Douglas Kiel
and Euel Elliot (1997)
The Edge of
Organization:
Chaos and
Complexity
Theories of
Formal Social
Systems
By Russ Marion (1999)
The Comparative Theme of Complexity Theory
Order
(Linear)
Complete
rationality
Complexity
(Non-linear)
Bounded
rationality
Disorder
(Anti-linear)
Complete
irrationality
Total certainty
Limited certainty
Limited
Predictability
Uncertainty
Predictability
Unpredictability
Linked causes and
effects
Causality is
indeterminate
Causality is
meaningless
Determinism
Evolutionary
change
Chaos
(Indeterminism)
Geyer, Robert & Samir Rihani (2000). Complexity and the Challenges to Democracy in the 21st
Century.
Complex Structures
Federal Govt.
¤International Business
⌂Urban Cities
¤National State Govt.
Public Schools
Business
⌂Suburbs
Thermostat- Office
Complex
Linear
Processes
Number of Internal and
External Demands
Organizational Size and
Layers
Amount of Feedback
Speed of Feedback
Nonlinear
Processes
Local Govt.
Thermostat- Single Dwelling
Factors Influencing
Degree of Complexity
Riots
⌂Rural
Towns
Playground
Private Schools
¤Small Businesses
Classroom
Simple Structures
Peaceful
Demonstration
Characteristics of all Nonlinear Systems
• Strange Attractors
• Cybernetics / Feedback
• Homeostasis / Equilibrium / Change
• Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions
• Symmetry Across Scales (Fractals)
• Emergence
• Self-Organized Criticality
Simple Complexity
70°
74°
72°
Strange Attractor
Homeostasis
Cybernetics / Feedback
Thermostat
•Metz, Mary Haywood (1978). Classroom and Corridors.
•Pauly, Edward (1991). The Classroom Crucible: What Really Works,
What Doesn’t, And Why.
•Powell, Farrar and Cohen (1985). The Shopping Mall High School.
•Theodore Sizer (1984). Horace’s Compromise.
Learning
Student Expectations / Needs
Teacher Expectations / Needs
Staff Expectations / Needs
Parent Expectations / Needs
Community Expectations / Needs
Order
Learning
Student Expectations / Needs
Teacher Expectations / Needs
Staff Expectations / Needs
Parent Expectations / Needs
Community Expectations / Needs
Order
Sources of Expectations and
Demands in Educational Context
– Teachers
– Students
– Parents
– Superiors
– Board
Members
– Community
– State
– Federal
– Spouse
– Children
– Adversaries
– Confidants
– Neighbors
– Friends
According to Cusick (1992),
“Schools are never sufficiently
individualized, equal, excellent
or efficient. So education’s
reform mill never lacks grist”
(p. 179).
Non Negotiables
Excellence
Equality / Accessibility
Efficiency
Choice / Liberty
Features of Complexity
Features of Complexity
Strange Attractors – (Dynamic
Attractors and Repellors) Recursive
patterns that maintain homeostasis or
equilibrium in the system.
Dominant values in the system are the
strange attractors in complex social
environments.
Features of Complexity
All systems are dynamic and possess self-correcting
and referencing feedback loops
Cybernetics
= steersman
Volume and rate of
Feedback has grown
exponentially
Systems grow in
the direction of heeded feedback
Features of Complexity
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme
chose. (French Proverb)
“the more things change, the more they
remain the same.”
Emerging Homeostasis
Change is necessary for continuity
Complexity theory legitimizes
reforms as reiterations or
patterns of dominant values
education. The French proverb
“the more things change, the
more they remain the same”
explains why reform in public
education is cyclical,
continuously sought and why
external parties play such a
critical role.
When education policy and
practices take off too much in
one direction, another reform
will come along to bring it back
to the center; and when that
reform takes policy and practice
too far off center another reform
will bring it back to center.
Similar to a thermostat, when a
social policy fluctuates in any
direction at the expense of
other social policies, reform
triggers appropriate
adjustments or corrections to
the system for the desired
equilibrium.
The homeostasis of the American
educational system appears to
hover around four basic and
often competing beliefs and
values consistent with a
democratic society (Marshall,
1991; Cusik, 1992; Stout,
Tallerico and Scribner, 1994).
Continuous reform around the
“meta-values” maintains a
relative homeostasis that
allows a public school system
to effectively educate while
accommodating the diverse
values and beliefs
surrounding education.
Features of Complexity
Butterfly
Effect
Sensitive
Dependence on Initial Conditions
Strategic small changes can have a big effect
and creative transformative contingencies.
Contingencies
• 1848 – Egg-crate school, Grade-level
placement, Bell Schedule – Imprint is such that
future reforms are constrained (Tyack, 1974)
• Factory model still prevalent – Superintendent
Sergiovanni (1994) astutely posits that
changing the metaphor changes the theory
and practice
Contingencies
2002
NCLB
1983
Nation at Risk
1867
doe
1958
1917
Smith-Hughes Act NDEA
1979
DOE
– Bilingual Education Act
1965 1968
1972 – Title IX
ESEA 1975 - EACHA
NDEA acknowledged how close to crossing the once very distinct and
taboo-like line of no federal involvement in education it was moving. Section 101
declares:
The Congress reaffirms the principle and declares that the States and
local communities have and must retain control over and primary
responsibility for public education. The national interest requires, however,
that the Federal Government give assistance to education for programs
which are important to our defense.
To meet the present educational emergency requires additional effort
at all levels of government. It is therefore the purpose of this Act to provide
substantial assistance in various forms to individuals, and to States and
their subdivisions, in order to insure trained manpower of sufficient quality
and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.
Section 102 of NDEA makes explicit, lest there be any ambiguity from
Section 101, that federal government was not taking control of education.
Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any
department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of
instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or
school system.
(p. 58)
McGuinn (2006) documents that with ESEA “an important threshold had
been crossed and an important federal role in education policy cemented”
(p. 33) and the establishment of a “crucial beachhead to those who sought
to further increase the federal role in education policy” (p. 37).
Senator John Williams of Delaware announced on the day the
Senate passed ESEA,
This bill, which is a sham on its face, is merely the beginning.
It contains within it the seeds of the first Federal education system
which will be nurtured by its supporters in the years to come long
after the current excuse of aiding the poverty stricken is forgotten.
The tragedy of this legislation is that it plays on the honest desire
of people across the country to assist the needy, now that the
approaches used through the years have been thoroughly
discredited. The needy are being used as a wedge to open the
floodgates, and you may be absolutely certain that the flood of
Federal control is ready to sweep the land. (Congressional
Record, Vol 3, April 9, 1965, p. 7710)
Representative Howard Smith expressed similar concerns when he
lamented,
We apparently have come to the end of the road so far as local control
over education in public facilities is concerned. I abhor that. There is
nothing dearer to the American home than the neighborhood school, where
you have your PTA and your different organizations, and all take a vital role
in the school and have control of it. I hate to see that tradition destroyed
and control removed from the little neighborhood in the country and located
in the bureaucracy of Washington, but I think I see the handwriting on the
wall. This is the day that the bureaucrats in the Education Department have
looked forward to and have fought for a good many years. (Congressional
Record, Vol. 3, March 24, 1965, p. 5729)
Congressman John Rhodes stated that the bill “advertised as an attack
upon the problems of educationally deprived children, is, instead, an assault
upon State and local control of education” (Congressional Record, Vol. 3, March
24, 1965, p. 5766).
Senator Wayne Morse readily acknowledged at the time that ESEA was a
legitimate victory that allowed for federal involvement in elementary and
secondary schools “through the back door” (Congressional Record, Vol 3, April
7, 1965, p. 7317).
Features of Complexity
Gladwell (2002) Tipping
Point: How Little Things Can
Make a Big Difference.
–A rainy day or new student
can alter classroom
dynamics significantly.
The Tipping Point
By Malcolm Gladwell (2002)
Features of Complexity
Fractals – Symmetry of
Irregularity Across Scales Exploring Fractals-Nature World
of Fractals
Features of Complexity
Strange attractors are mirrored throughout the system at
different scales.
What is attended to and how it is attended to will be
mirrored throughout the institution (i.e., indicants of
excellence, gossip vs. confidences; harsh vs. gentle,
gossip vs. confidences; harsh vs. gentle).
Behavior in classroom is a microcosm of rules of
engagement in the faculty lounge, faculty meetings, etc.
David and his sling shot (practice with animals prepared
him for Goliath).
Features of Complexity
Emergence of Patterns (form, storm,
norm, perform).
Systems grow in the direction of
feedback.
Application: Adopt a non-linear orientation –
look for multiple causes, patterns and
outside the box. Even the evolution of the
rational model was in a historical context.
Features of Complexity
Problems are symptoms usually with a 5th
why – Root Cause.
(Solutions are problems
waiting to happen)
Know your defining values
that provide the equilibrium to the system
Recursive patterns – 80/20 rule,
anticipate/forecast vs. react.
Self-Organized Criticality
Variables are relational.
Bak (1996) illustrates self-organized criticality through the metaphor of a sand pile.
Application: Plan for best, prepare for the worse.
2007
Artwork by Elaine Wiesenfeld (from Bak, 1996, p. 2)
Origin of Dominant Values
•The official beginning of the American educational
system is located in the values that led to the founding
of the country (the beginning can be found even earlier
in history, but for the sake of brevity, this history will
begin with the earliest European settlements).
•The values are codified in the founding documents of
the country.
•The imprinting of the values found in the Declaration of
Independence and the U. S. Constitution drives the
emerging educational system and are as a result,
cohesively mirrored through out the educational system.
Origin of Dominant Values
•The pursuit of individual liberties and better life is what
brought people to a new continent.
•Excellence,
•equality and
•individual freedom
were the founding and defining principles of the
emerging nation.
•The values of excellence, equality and choice would
imprint themselves in one form or another in everything
that would follow in the forming of the United States. In
the settlers’ quest for a better life based upon principles
of liberty, conditions eventually emerged for
independence to be declared on July 4, 1776.
Declaration of Independence – 1776
When in the course of human events
it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have
connected them with another and to
assume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness….
The Constitution of
the United States of
America - 1787
Preamble
“We the People of the United States, in
Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United
States of America….”
The values of
–excellence,
–equality,
–choice and
–efficiency
serve as the strange attractors to keep
the system in a constant state of
change to maintain stability among
competing values.
United States
Department of
Education
Mission is to
ensure equal
access to
education and to
promote
educational
excellence
throughout the
nation.
Commitment to excellence and individualism (choice)
evident by nine IHE prior to 1776
Date
Original Name
Religious
Affiliation
1636
Harvard College
Congregational
Same
1693
College of William and Mary
Anglican
College of William and Mary
1701
Collegiate School at New
Haven
Congregational
Yale
1740
The College of Philadelphia
Nonsectarian
University of Pennsylvania
1746
College of New Jersey
Presbyterian
Princeton
1754
King's College
Nonsectarian
Columbia University
1764
College of Rhode Island
Baptist
Brown University
1766
Queen's College
Dutch Reformed
Rutgers University
1769
Dartmouth College
Congregational
Same
Name Today
*Table created from dates and names cited by Lucas, 1994.
Colonial Period ca. 1600-1776
Latin Grammar School
• The first Latin Grammar School was established in Boston in 1635.
These schools were originally designed for only sons of certain social
classes who were destined for leadership positions in church, state or
courts. The study of Latin and Greek and their literatures was blended
with the religious denominationalism coming from the heritage of the
Protestant Reformation. The only pupils who were even considered for
these schools were the male students who belonged to a certain class
bracket. Girls were not considered for these schools because all of the
world leaders and important "persons" were males from the upper
class brackets.
Colonial Period ca. 1600-1776
Massachusetts Education Laws of 1642 and 1647
• The Law of 1642 required that parents and master see to it that
their children knew the principles of religion and the capital laws
of the commonwealth.
• The Law of 1647, also known as the Old Deluder Satan Act,
was born out of this above-mentioned parental negligence. It was
at this point in our nation's educational history that formal
schooling as we know it became more desirable.
– The Law of 1647 required that towns of fifty families hire a
schoolmaster who would teach children to read and write.
Towns of a hundred families must have a grammar
schoolmaster who could prepare children to attend Harvard
College.
– Efficiency cannot but be a factor in the system
Wealth of Nations - 1776
• Smith argues that the education of
youth is a worthwhile enterprise
requiring minimal level of
governmental involvement (primarily
in the form of financial subsidies) with
individuals choosing the quality, and
even religious message, of the school
experience. While Smith was
ultimately appealing to a market
model of education as more efficient
and effective means for achieving
success, he legitimized the value of
individual choice (liberty of
conscience) in pursuing educational
means.
Early American Period ca. 1776-1840
The Land Ordinance of 1785 and Northwest
Ordinance of 1787
• Land Ordinance Act of 1785 required that
the territory outside the original 13
colonies be divided and sold into
townships of six miles square and be
made available for public sale as long as
“there shall be reserved the lot N 16, of
every township, for the maintenance of
public schools, within the said township”.
Early American Period ca. 1776-1840
• Two years later came the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance
provided land in the Great Lakes and
Ohio Valley regions for settlement. (It
eventually broke into five states:
Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
Illinois). Of particular interest is Article 3
of the ordinance, which reads in part:
Religion, morality, and knowledge
being necessary to good government and
the happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.
Lancaster / Monitorial Instruction 1806
• The first monitorial school on U.S. soil was
opened in New York City in 1806 and quickly
spread to other cities (Cubberly, 1922). In a
factory like settings, hundreds of students
could learn their spelling, arithmetic, reading
and catechisms with factory like precision
under one teacher and with one book
(Lancaster, 1805). Education for the masses
was now seen has affordable and the issue of
classroom size would continue plaque a
public system of education without unlimited
resources.
• Whole scale efficiency
Early American Period ca. 1776-1840
The Yale Report of 1828
• Should the traditional curriculum of higher
education continue? Up to this point the rigid
classical curriculum of higher education had
resisted change. Then, as now, institutions of
higher learning were more resistant to change
than were elementary and secondary schools.
The strength of the conservative view was
centered at Yale University. The Yale Report of
1828 was written to rebut critics who were
challenging the classical curriculum.
Immigration
Give me your tired,
your poor,
your huddled
masses yearning
to breath free.
Send these, the
homeless, tempesttossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the
golden door.
“The New Colossus,” by the nineteenthcentury American Poet Emma
Lazarus.
Immigration
Irish Potato Famine 1845 -1849
Source: Derived from Table 1 in U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistical Yearbook of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, forthcoming
The Catholic Debate
By 1840, nearly half of New York City residents were foreign born.
Many were Irish Catholics, who were generally poor and desperate for
an education. Yet in New York, they found that the public schools,
while free and open to all, were effectively, Protestant…
Bishop John Hughes launched a protest. A forty-three-year-old Irish
immigrant known as “Dagger John,” Hughes was fierce and
uncompromising. He proclaimed, “We are unwilling to pay taxes for
the purpose of destroying our religion in the minds of our
children…”
These children deserved their own schools, Bishop Hughes believed.
He demanded that the New York Public School Society, the Protestant
civic leaders in charge of education, make city funds available for
Catholic schools. Controversy over the use of the Protestant Bible in
the public schools escalated nationwide. In Pennsylvania in 1843, a
Catholic church was burned to the ground and thirteen people
were killed in a conflict known as the Philadelphia Bible riots.
The Catholic Debate
(http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/photo_gallery/photo2.html)
1848 The first egg-crate school– each room
would accommodate 56 students
Common School Period ca. 1840-1880
Horace Mann
• Horace Mann felt that a common school
would be the "great equalizer." Poverty
would most assuredly disappear as a
broadened popular intelligence tapped new
treasures of natural and material wealth. He
felt that through education crime would
decline sharply as would a host of moral vices
like violence and fraud. In sum, there was no
end to the social good which might be derived
from a common school (8, Cremin).
Common School Period ca. 1840-1880
The Morrill Act of 1862
• The Morrill Act of 1862, the Land Grant College Act was a
major boost to higher education in America. The grant was
originally set up to establish institutions is each state that
would educate people in agriculture, home economics,
mechanical arts, and other professions that were practical at
the time. The land-grant act was introduced
by a congressman from Vermont
named Justin Smith Morrill.
He envisioned the financing of
agricultural and mechanical education.
He wanted to assure that education
would be available to those in
all social classes.
Progressive Period ca. 1880-1920
The NEA Committee of Ten - 1892
• The National Education Association appointed
a Committee of Ten to establish a standard
curriculum. This committee was composed
mostly of educators and was chaired by
Charles Eliot, the president of Harvard
University. Eliot led the committee to two
major recommendations. The first was earlier
entry of some subjects. The second was the
teaching of subjects for both college-bound
and terminal students.
Progressive Period ca. 1880-1920
The NEA Committee of Ten
• The significance of the Committee of Ten was its
contribution towards liberalizing the high school by
offering alternatives to the Latin and Greek classic
curricula and the belief that the same subjects would
be equally beneficial to both academic and terminal
students. The goal of high school was to prepare all
students to do well in life, contributing to their own
well-being and society's good, and to prepare some
students for college.
Progressive Era ca. 1880-1920
John Dewey (18591952) Progressive
/Pragmatic
Education – (1896)
Teaching Lab at U.
of Chicago
Empirical approach /
Child-centered
– 1905 – Binet – Intelligence Test –
Testing movement – first to assess placement
to assessing achievement. (Used in WWI
and WWII- selection) / 1916 – Lewis
Terman (Stanford professor) refines Binet
(Stanford-Binet IQ Test)
– 1912 – IQ coined by William Stern
– 1926 – First administration of the SAT
developed by Carl Brigham / Henry
Chauncey (originally worked for James
Bryant Conant – President of Harvard
– 1948 ETS formed – Henry Chauncey
President
Scientific management / Efficiency and
meritocracy are the driving forces.
• Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) - Principles
of Scientific Management (1911)
• What was transforming industry was good
for schools
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth – Joined Taylor in 1907.
(Cheaper by the Dozen –1949 by Frank B. Gilbreth,
Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey, two of the twelve
children of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.)
1913 – Helen Todd – Factory Inspector
Of 500 children interviewed, 412 reported
they “preferred factory labor to the
monotony, humiliation and even sheer
cruelty that they experienced in school.”
(Kliebard, 1995, p. 6).
1918 – NEA’s Commission on the
Reorganization of Secondary Education
The Cardinal Principles (Birth of Compreh.
HS.)
Seven goals of education Health, command of fundamental
processes, worthy home membership,
vocational preparation, citizenship,
worthy use of leisure time, and ethical
character.
Modern Period ca. 1920-present
1917 – Smith-Hughes Act (Vocational Act – Prosser)
1923 – Meyer v. Nebraska- English Language Only
Instruction
1925 – Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy
Names of Jesus and, 268 U. S. 510
Petitioners challenged Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act
that required parents of children between the ages of eight and
sixteen to send their child “to a public school for the period of time
a public school shall be held during the current year.” The Society
of Sisters operated schools that gave students moral training
according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The act
led to students withdrawing from the religious schools- costing it a
portion of its income.
Modern Period ca. 1920-present
Prosser Resolution 1945It is the belief of this conference that…the vocational school
of a community will be able better to prepare 20 percent of its
youth of secondary school age for entrance upon desirable skilled
occupations; and that the high school will continue to prepare 20
percent of its students for entrance to college. We do not believe
the remaining 60 percent of our youth of secondary school age
will receive the life adjustment training they need and to which
they are entitled as American citizens – unless and until the
administrators of public education with the assistance of the
vocational education leaders formulate a similar program for this
group.
~The Prosser Resolutions, Charles Prosser, 1945
1933-1941 – 8 years study (PEA) (Directed by Ralph
Tyler)
•1944 – Servicemen Readjustments Act – (G.I. Bill)
•1947 – The
President’s
Commission on
Higher
Education
• 1954 Brown v. Board of Education – Topeka Kansas
"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but
equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. 495 (May 17, 1954)
1954 – Brown v. Board of
Education
On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court
ruled in a unanimous decision that the
"separate but equal" clause was
unconstitutional because it violated the
children's 14 amendment rights by
separating them solely on the
classification of the color of their skin.
Chief Justice Warren delivered the court's
opinion, stating that "segregated schools
are not equal and cannot be made equal,
and hence they are deprived of the equal
protection of the laws.“ This ruling in
favor of integration was one of the most
significant strides America has taken in
favor of civil liberties.
[ cf. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 ]
Modern Period ca. 1920-present
• 1957 – Sputnik
• 1958 – National Defense
Education Act
The NDEA was instituted
primarily to stimulate the
advancement of education in
science, mathematics, and
modern foreign languages.
The National Defense Education Act
provided $887 million over four years
for education that could support
national security goals—especially
training scientists. The act contained ten
titles designed to improve the nation's
schools:
Nuclear scientist Edward Teller claimed of
the launch that the U.S. had lost “a battle
more important and greater than Pearl
Harbor.” (Cited by Wolfensberger, 2005)
March 24, 1958
March 31, 1958
“The Crisis in Education” that ran in March and April [1958]. “The
schools are in terrible shape,” the editors opined. . . . Pointing to a lack of
agreement on a national curriculum, the magazine concluded, “Most
appalling, the standards of education are shockingly low.” (cited by
Wolfensberger, 2005. p. 8).
1965 - The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation reauthorizes the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the federal government’s
largest investment in K-12 education. Title I of ESEA targets over $11 billion in
financial assistance to schools educating low-income students. ESEA allocates
almost another $10 billion for teacher recruitment and professional development,
educational technology, after-school programs, and other purposes.
9/29/05 -- Written Testimony of Kati Haycock, Director, the Education Trust before The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education
and the Workforce: “Closing the Achievement Gap in America’s Public Schools: The No Child Left Behind Act”
President Lyndon B. Johnson is joined by his
first teacher, Kate Deadrich Loney, for the
signing of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) on the grounds of
former Junction Elementary School in
Johnson City, Texas. April 11, 1965. (Photo
by Yoichi R. Okamoto/LBJ Library)
While the Johnson administration talked of
annual expenditures exceeding $5 billion by
1969, ESEA actually receive less than $1.7 a
year (about the cost of ten days of the
Vietnam war). (Halperin, 1975. Educational
1972 – Title IX –
Education Amendments
1975 - The
Education of All
Handicapped
Children Act
A Nation at Risk –April 1983
“Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged
preeminence in commerce, industry,
science, and technological innovation is
being overtaken by competitors throughout
the world….The educational foundations
of our society are presently being eroded
by a rising tide of mediocrity that
threatens our very future as a nation
and as a people….If any unfriendly
foreign power had attempted to
impose on America the mediocre
educational performance that exists
today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. . . . We
have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking,
unilateral educational disarmament.”
1990 – Milwaukee
Parental Choice
Program
1991 – Minnesota
Charter School Law –
Over 4,100 charter schools in 40 states and
DC educationg approximately 1.2 million
students as of 9/2007.
The Goals 2000 Educate America Act (March 31, 1994) n March 31, 1994.
8 ambitious goals that focused on outputs versus inputs
By the year 2000,
1. All children in America will start school ready to learn.
2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.
3. All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging
subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics an
government, economics, the arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will
ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation's modern economy.
4. United States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
5. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to
compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
6. Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence
of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
7. The nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their
professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct
and prepare all American students for the next century.
8. Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation
in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children."
January 8, 2002
Hamilton HS in Hamilton, OH
Nonlinear Perspective on the History of Education
Complexity science - the science of dynamic
nonlinear systems, argues that educational
policy reforms emerge and adapt (emergence)
as reiterations (fractals) of precedents
(sensitive dependency on initial conditions),
timing (butterfly effect, self-organized
criticality), competing voices (feedback) and
competing values (strange attractors) to
develop into a relatively homeostatic system
(homeostasis and change).
Evaluating the history of
educational reform through the
lens of complexity science
demonstrates how regular
patterns of educational policies
are not just “faddish” trends,
but are necessary and inevitable
to the American educational
system.
This paper identifies 33 historical
milestones determined to be
indicative of major policy themes in
the history of education and
documents how the dominant
values of excellence, equality,
efficiency, and choice act as strange
attractors to establish dynamic
patterns of reform.
The paper utilizes complexity
theory to illustrate the dynamic
pattern of educational policies
and suggests future reform
patterns. This paper equips
policymakers to treat reform
and politics as an ongoing
contest for values.
Each value seems to compete with the
others in such a way that the over-all
system maintains a sense of equilibrium.
Continuous reform is needed to keep the
dynamic system in balance. As more
things change (reform), the more they
stay the same (appropriate tension
among the expression of the four
values).
Selection and placement based upon . . . .
• Frequently referenced in educational history
texts for relative impact on the system or what
they represented in the system
• Evaluated for primary and secondary values
• Degree of arbitrariness in what was selected
and where placed
Excellence/Standards
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 – Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 – Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 – Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 – Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 – Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Wars / Philadelphia Bible Riots
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 – Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest
Ordinance
5. 1806 – Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 – Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 – Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest
Ordinance
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
5. 1806 – Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 – Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 – Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 – Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 – Land Ordinance and Northwest
Ordinance
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
5. 1806 – Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 – Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
14. 1901 1st Community College
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
Equality/
Efficiency/
Accessibility
Cost
14. 1901 1st Community College
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
14. 1901 1st Community College
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Cost
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
Efficiency/
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
Accessibility
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
Accessibility
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
26. 1965 ESEA
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
Accessibility
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
Accessibility
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
Equality/
Accessibility
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
30. Nation at Risk
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
30. 1983 Nation at Risk
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
31. 1990/91 Milwaukee Choice/Charter School Movement
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
32. 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act
30. 1983 Nation at Risk
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
31. 1990/91 Milwaukee Choice/Charter School Movement
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
33. 2002 NCLB
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
32. 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act
30. Nation at Risk
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
31. 1990/91 Milwaukee Choice/Charter School Movement
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
33. 2002 NCLB
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
32. 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act
30. Nation at Risk
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
Efficiency/
Cost
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
31. 1990/91 Milwaukee Choice/Charter School Movement
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
Excellence/Standards
1. 1635/1636 Boston Latin Grammar School /Harvard College
33. 2002 NCLB
6. 1828 Yale Report
2. 1642/1647 Massachusetts Education Laws
32. 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act
30. Nation at Risk
25. 1957/58 Sputnik/NDA
11. 1892 NEA Committee of 10
4. 1785/1787 Land Ordinance and Northwest Ordinance
5. 1806 Lancaster/Monitorial
Instruction
8. 1848 Grade Level
Placement/Egg-Crate Schools
10. 1862 Morrill College Land Gran Act
9. 1852 Compulsory Education
26. 1965 ESEA
27. 1968 Bilingual Education Act
28. 1972 Title IX
29. EAHCA
Equality/
13. c. 1900 John Dewey/Progressive Education
Accessibility
24. Brown v. Board of Education
20. 1933-41 Eight Year Study
21. 1944 G.I. Bill
22. 1945 Prosser Resolution/Life Adjustment Movement
23. 1947 Truman Commission Report
18. 1918 NEA Cardinal Principles
17. 1917 Smith-Hughes Act
14. 1901 1st Community College
31. 1990/91 Milwaukee Choice/Charter School Movement
19. 1925 Pierce v. Society of the Sisters
7. 1840-43 – Catholic School Movement
3. 1776 – Wealth of Nations
Choice/Liberty
B
U
D
G
E
T
C
Y
C
L
E
S
12. 1894/1906 Carnegie Unit
15. 1911 Principles of
Scientific Management
16. 1916/1926 Stanford-Binet
IQ Test/SAT
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
Efficiency/
Cost
• Patterns reveal continuity
• Butterfly Effect / Self-organized
Criticality reveal contingencies
The system, while
complex and
emergent, there are
simple rules at work at both the
micro level and
the macro level.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strange Attractors
Feedback
Homeostasis
Fractals
Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions
Emergence
Self-Organized Criticality
Excellence, efficiency and liberty – emphasis on efficiency
Excellence, efficiency and liberty
Equality and Excellence
Efficiency Regime
Equality Regime
Equality Regime
Accountability Regime
Complexity theory . . . .
1. Normalizes the pendulum
A swinging pendulum is better than
a static pendulum.
Complexity theory . . . .
1. Normalizes the pendulum
2. Calls for balance in
future reform.
Temper the rate and
extreme oscillations of
the pendulum
Complexity theory . . . .
1. Normalizes the pendulum
2. Can temper the pendulum
3. Anticipates future reforms
Suggests where the
pendulum will swing
next
Accountability Regime
September 20, 2010
(p. 38)
Complexity theory . . . .
1. Normalizes the pendulum
2. Can temper the pendulum
3. Anticipates future reform
4. Legitimizes a variety of
reforms.
Competing values
legitimize reform
within the parameters of
the pendulum
Limitation?
ENDS
Equality
Excellence
MEANS
Choice
Efficiency
Additional Implications/ Outcomes
Change from the
Factory Metaphor to
The Shopping Mall
High School Metaphor (1985)
Growth of Charters/ Voucher
Programs
Calls for Excellence