Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia James Keating

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

Tinkering Toward Utopia is an outline of how financial oligarchs created a command and control government dominated educational system then transformed it into the Soviet model that exists today. t is a well written !ook which seems to document the history of pu!lic education reform !ut the socialist if not fascist leanings of the authors will !e revealed in this review.

n chapter "# Tayak and $u!an present the traditional classroom model as a %grammar of schooling& where the departure from the existing paradigm has !een di'cult !ecause of traditional organi(ational structures. This fossili(ed organi(ational structure considered an unaltera!le paradigm for generations came under scrutiny in the late )*++s and continued to face challenges throughout the twentieth century. The %grammar of schooling is a product of history& and the %result of groups that mo!ili(e to win support for their definitions of pro!lems and proposed solutions& These are most likely the groups that have funding sources and political in,uence. %The more powerful and prestigious the groups# the more likely they will !e a!le to !uttress their reforms with laws# regulations# and accreditation re-uirements.& The authors argue that the %esta!lishment& which has kept the status -uo in place involves widespread cultural !eliefs and %unexamined institutional ha!its&. The authors compare the pu!lic school system to grammar in the way that the system operates without re-uiring understanding of the mechanics or organi(ational details !y the people using it. They compare it to a di'cult ha!it to !reak !y referring to it as an institutional pattern reinforced !y %ingrained ha!its&. .evertheless# challenges arose within the ranks of the policy elites at the helm of the command and control structure esta!lishing the US educational policy of the time. /oundations# associations of professional educators# and administrators critici(ed the traditional one room schoolhouse concept of the )*++s as irrational# narrow in aim# anti-uated# harsh# ine'cient# unprofessional# and dominated !y the community in which it existed. Reforming institutions involved instructional time# speciali(ed su!0ects# and academic credits. The policy elites would eventually mold these elements into institutional forms known as the graded schools and $arnegie units. These institutions would face several challenges !ut never !e usurped !y well1connected elite reformists and their financier promoters.

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

The graded school involved !atch processing# sorting students according to academic proficiency and age. Since this system penali(ed under performing students who were set !ack when they couldn2t progress to the next grade# semiannual tests were proposed. $arnegie units represented an accounting methodology that assigned credits to classes studied. n this way# courses could !e separated into modular units that could !e studied separately !ut could !e counted with other classes to meet accreditation re-uirements. 3lthough $arnegie units were critici(ed for creating a !usiness accounting mentality in the U.S. pu!lic school system and resulting in domination of the high schools !y colleges# they !ecame the standard for academic accreditation. Reformers challenged these institutional forms many times !ut reforms failed. 3ccording to the authors# many reforms %ended up in speciali(ed niches& such as industrial training programs# special education# continuation schools# and hy!ridi(ed classrooms. The authors contend however that reformers launched three ma0or challenges to the %grammar of schooling&. These were the 4alton 5lan# the 6ight 7ear Study# and 8igh Schools of Tomorrow. The 4alton 5lan involved contracts with students and teachers where students progressed at their own pace. The 4alton 5lan used la!oratories instead of classrooms so that students could accomplish the re-uirements of their contracts !y moving through various work stations administered !y a teacher with materials. The 4alton 5lan# although adopted !y 9: of the pu!lic schools surveyed according to the text# was critici(ed for !eing too individualistic# uninspiring# and paperwork intensive. 5arkhurst# the originator of the plan# would see her ideas a!sor!ed !y the pu!lic school system in hy!rid educational forms rather than fully implemented in secondary schooling. 3nother challenge to the status -uo came from the 6ight 7ear Study. The 6ight 7ear Study ;)<==1)<")> was an attempt to reform secondary education !y dissolving the distinction !etween formal and informal su!0ect matter shifting attention to less formal studies such as art and music. The reforms were eventually discarded with only shadows of their in,uence remaining. The authors attri!ute the causes for failure to the heightened sense of security during ?? driving attention to fundamental su!0ect matter# an increased num!er of

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

university applicants# parents and teachers resisted# and the colla!oration of teachers re-uired !y the plan was la!or intensive and teacher turnover added to insta!ility within the system. The authors also claim that conservative forces overwhelmed the progressive forces that had !een promoting the plan. The Schools of Tomorrow plan# originating with the %lighthouse& high schools funded !y the /ord /oundation# sought to eliminate the $arnegie unit# the self contained classroom# teacher dominated curriculum# passive learning. These concepts coalesced into the %Schools of Tomorrow& concept funded !y the 4anforth foundation. Schools implementing the plan formed teacher teams# small classes or groups# more student free time. Student turnover was high and conservative critics opposed the reforms for the lack of structure in the ,exi!le scheduling scheme involved in the plan. 4iscipline pro!lems were rampant. The plan evaporated as had the others. The authors attri!ute failure of reforms to many causes including lack of pu!lic support# waning enthusiasm !y supporters# and cultural forces. The authors contend that the pu!lic2s perception of educational norms and teachers2 desire to customi(e the reform initiatives to the local customs also contri!uted the failure of reforms. $hapter @ descri!es attempts to reform schools using !usiness management techni-ues# shifting educational administration to the !usiness community# employing new technology# and cultivating competition within the teaching field. The authors argue that these reforms had little lasting impact. 3n attempt to integrate management theory into the pu!lic school system resulted in schools resem!ling a !usiness model. 3lthough concepts such as e'ciency and Aanagement !y B!0ectives ;ACB> worked well for !usinesses schools lacked the analytical staD to manage resources in the same way. Schools also were deeply aDected !y a political environment which profit1!ased !usinesses were not. $ontracting for performance involved government su!sidies to companies that could show performance achievements in learning programs. $ritics argued that early success were due to the 8awthorne eDect# the case where novel innovation produce short term results until interest and attention to the su!0ect fade. These company run educational systems typically concentrated on

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

improving test results in a mechanistic factory like environment where education was a process rather than an experience. Under pressure to produce profits and show results# tests were shown to students in advance and curriculum was design to maximi(e grades. t also !ecame unclear as to what the measurements of success were for this reform despite the grade in,ation and !usiness like process management. Teaching !y machine involved initiatives !y government and elitist foundations to e-uip classrooms with telecommunication and conferencing machines. This initiative progressed over a span of a!out forty years and was finally shown to !e ineDective as teachers rarely adopted television as an instructional medium even into the mid )<E+s after the television had !ecome widely accepted in 3merican culture. The authors argue that teaching !y machines have not !een fully adopted !y teachers !ecause of %regularities in institutional structure and teacher centered pedagogy&. The authors give high marks for the use of computers as educational technology !ut refrain from con0ecture a!out the likelihood of acceptance in the classroom at the time of the writing in the mid )<<+s. 3nother reform# the !usiness of teaching# involved pricing teachers in the la!or market according to supply and demand. Teachers would also work under merit !ased and hierarchical organi(ational structures. These reforms typically failed !ecause of the ina!ility of administrators to agree on clear measurements for evaluating teaching. Since teaching is di'cult to -uantify# the merit !ased system is not o!0ective and is vulnera!le to political in,uences as teachers would compete rather than share teaching ideas. The !usiness of teaching also failed to introduce incentives to motivate massive num!ers of teachers to outperform.

3nyone with an appreciation for literary talent must give these authors credit for pinpointing key turning points in U.S. pu!lic educational policy while interlacing their own views within a context of o!0ectivity and from a detached !ut o!servant perspective. These views usually take the form of reasons for the institutionali(ation or failure of reforms. 8owever# rather than !eing a Shakespeare writing diDerent plays containing diDerent characters# these authors were also institutionali(ed within the paradigm they often critici(ed and lacked an o!servation point far enough away to !e a!le to see the grand scheme of the system in which they had !ecome so intimately involved. 3lthough they have proven themselves powerful

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

analysts worthy of literary and academic accolades# we must -uestion the dichotomy of choices presented throughout the chapters as !eing the only ones. /or example# there is the choice of progressive versus traditionalist opposing each other. Aay!e they were 0ust two factions of the same elite group of policy makers with the same overall o!0ectives in mind. 6ven citi(en groups are conveniently !ifurcated into two homogenous groups on page ))E when the authors claim# %Farious citi(en groups# on the right and on the left# attacked 55CS.& t seems that they are a!le to encapsulate every idea into a dual social paradigm that can !e used to explain the complexity of forces involved in managing policy decisions. Tayak and $u!an avoid the appearance of a !iased perspective !y o!0ectively presenting two viewpoints in every controversial policy initiative. Gike an omnipotent indiDerent o!server# they com! through the history of the pu!lic school system appearing to cover the range of thought while using metaphors and analytical reasoning to make it seem as though history is progressing through a 8egelian dialectic# which synthesi(es the optimal state from two opposing viewpoints. This is their assumption of the way policy is implemented in a %democracy&. Bn page )+< the authors argue that %in a democracy# fundamental reforms that seek to alter the cultural constructions of a %real school& cannot succeed without lengthy and searching pu!lic dialogue a!out the ends and means of schooling.& 8ere they are admitting that the pu!lic was neglected rather than engaged to generate community1!ased initiatives. 5olicy initiatives# heavily funded !y internationalist financiers and industrial ro!!er !arons# forced on an unsuspecting pu!lic failed due in part to the lack of overt clear measura!le o!0ectives. The authors also mischaracteri(e the United States as a democracy when in fact the word %democracy& does not appear once in the founding documents which esta!lished the United States as a constitutional repu!lic. t is rather ironic that the authors who mistake the United States for a democracy have a clear disdain for the %grammar of schooling& held together !y traditional cultural values when they sneer# %The hold of the standard grammar of schooling was tenacious.& $ould it !e !ecause the reformers were the pro!lem and the HgrammarH was actually workingI 3fter all# the period during this time of reform was argua!ly the time when the U.S. was the most powerful country in the world.

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

These elites# consisting of well1known names like Rockefeller# $arnegie# /ord# and 4anforth# often !ecame divided into opposing factions. To an outside o!server# this might mas-uerade as a democratic process !ut was in reality opposing initiatives within tightly controlled paradigms of reality. The authors did not seem to notice eDorts to reform schools in other countries which may have in,uenced U.S. 5olicy or even historical methods of educating students that esta!lished this %grammar of schooling& in the first place. The reader gets the sense that they are !eing guided through a linear dialectical process where policy elites led !y financiers and vy Geague University administrators are herding the masses of sheep with a few educators# who were often 0ust the name !rand !acking an elitist policy of their time. .ot surprisingly# these reforms failed to overthrow the %grammar of schooling&. These wealthy social engineers known throughout the !ook as %policy elites& are constantly illustrated throughout the !ook as two opposing factions. n the case of the challenges to the status -uo of the pu!lic school system known here as the %grammar of schooling&# the policy elites were divided !etween progressives and traditionalists or some other convenient la!el representing no more than two opposing forces. The text could clearly !e improved !y analy(ing reasons for not looking outside of the narrow range of thinking presented. 3re readers supposed to casually accept the idea that educational reform can !e so neatly packaged into two dialectical opposing forces such as progressives versus traditionalists or cultural !eliefs versus conscious conservatismI Aay!e if the reformers# financed !y the wealthy industrial power players# had considered the constituents more these reforms could have !een revised to conform to the needs of the communities they were supposed to improve. f the people who were going to !e aDected !y these policies had !een consulted it is possi!le that reformers would see the state or local community as !eing the appropriate reformers. The assumption throughout the !ook is that large foundations along with government su!sidies and legislation are a %democratic& process even though the parents# school !oards# and teachers were hardly factored into the calculus of policy implementation. This !egs the -uestion of whether or not these authors are not themselves part of the group of elite policy makers that they appear to !e o!serving from a vantage point of o!0ectivity and critical analysis.

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

The choices they oDer as reasons for policy failure indicate that they were only aware of a narrow range of forces at play# which could !e reduced into two opposing perspectives. They conse-uently scapegoat the institution itself and the communities as !ackward traditionalists una!le to change. $learly the challenges to graded schools and $arnegie units failed !ecause these policy makers failed to prove the !enefits of the federali(ed hierarchical !ureaucratic command and control structure !eing implemented and not !ecause of the %grammar of schooling&. The reformers also failed to clearly identify the pro!lems with the system in the first place other than using vague immeasura!le a!stract terminology. The authors lightly touch on the fact that industrial titans like /ord# Rockefeller# and $arnegie dominated reforms throughout the 9+th century. 6ven the fact that the $arnegie unit is named after an industrial kingpin rather than an educator does not seem to raise concern with the authors who often pin the reasons for reform failure on a !ackward pu!lic who is too rooted in ine'cient or mismanaged systems to change. The su!tle advocacy of elitist reforms !y the authors can !e found in statements like %it makes sense to us to graft thoughtful reforms onto what is healthy in the present system& on page )==# where %healthy%# like other words used to promote reforms or critici(e the existing structure# is not defined. $ould another solution !e to keep what is healthy and eliminate parts that are notI Aay!e it is the fact that the reformers could not decide on eDective units of measurement to evaluate their reforms2 in,uences in the first place. n one example of disguising !ias as rational o!0ective o!servation# Tyack and $u!an arrogantly insult the parents and school !oards as if policy elites and government mandated pu!lic policy are !eyond reproach !y such commoners. ?ith a power of apparent omnipotent mind reading they write# %8a!ituated to the traditional organi(ational practices and either taking them for granted or seeing them as institutionally and socially functional# educators# parents# and school !oards resisted fundamental change&. $ould it !e that the existing systems were already working or may!e the people actually aDected !y the reforms could see the political and !ureaucratic impossi!ility of government mandated system wide reform that Tyack and $u!an seem to !e missingI Tayak and $u!an succeed in maintaining an o!0ective viewpoint within the narrow constraints of the controlled paradigm# a dichotomy of two monolithic ideologies esta!lished !y the %policy

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

elites&# !ut fail to step even further out their own cultural !ox to address the fallacy of an educational system dominated !y elite financiers rather than educators. 3s an example# many countries name educational institutions and academic methods after great educators not financiers like $arnegie. ?ith names like Rockefeller# $arnegie# and /ord emerging as powerful in,uences in the educational reform de!ate one has to -uestion the real aim of these reforms and if they are even reforms at all or 0ust political strategies !eing used to secure financial empires of the elite class. 3fter all# most elitists send their children to private schools. The authors suggest an approach of changing the system slowly rather than a!rupt policy changes. .o eDort is made to acknowledge cultural or geographic diDerences which might o!struct the implementation of a singular federally mandated policy. The policy implementation they descri!e and suggest is one that would succeed in $u!a or .orth Korea !ut fail in the U.S. 3ma(ingly# the pattern of failure with the socialist central planning model advocated !y the authors does not dissuade them from promoting more of the same. They also suggest %grafting& reforms into the existing system rather than %reinventing& schooling. This is good advice for reformists or totalitarian social engineers !ut still shows that the authors are shifting !lame away from the command and control elitist policy structure they deemed %democracy&. They !lame the unsuspecting pu!lic who will ultimately !e aDected. Cy suggesting an incremental approach they are coming close to indicating that the pu!lic must !e slowly indoctrinated with their ideas !ecause they cannot show good reasons for changing the existing system and therefore una!le to convince the pu!lic of their success. f anything has proven to !e true in years after the writing of this !ook# it is that the hierarchical top down approach has !een a failure as teachers# students# and school !oards whose input was ignored will continue to drown in a rotting educational !ureaucracy. ?hy not !lame the channel through which the policies were !eing initiatedI 8ad school !oards# parents# and teachers !een empowered from the !eginning we might have seen a -uite diDerent structure. Aay!e the authors are on the edge of this reali(ation when they write on page )==J Schooling is !eing reinvented all the time# !ut not necessarily in ways envisaged in macro planning. Kood teachers reinvent the

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

world every day for the children in their classes. ;Tyack L $u!an# )<<@> n the epilogue# the authors ela!orate on this point !y stating# %Teachers do not have a monopoly on educational wisdom# !ut their first hand perspective on schools and their responsi!ility for carrying out o'cial policies argues for their centrality in school reform eDorts.& ?hat responsi!ility do teachers have for carrying out policies that do not conform to the communities in which the teachers serveI s it not a contradiction to say that teachers are at the center !ut at the same time must !e responsi!le for carrying out government policyI /or example# teachers with a large immigrant student population may find it necessary to devote more attention to language curriculum and less to art or music as the 6ight 7ear 5lan mandated. 8ere the authors seem to recogni(e the failure of reformers !ut also continue their predicta!le pattern of assuming government command and control policy must !e followed for !est teaching practices. Aay!e when the elite policy makers stop viewing the students# teachers# parents# and school !oards as herds of sheep to !e herded !y policy mandates there will !e a renaissance in the arena of school reform. f government policy were the answer to education then Socrates would have remained anonymous and the U.S. pu!lic education system would !e the envy of the world today. /inally# the authors end the epilogue in what seems to !e a vote for the empowerment of students and teachers !ut hardly give them advice as they gave to reformers. ?hile suggesting that reformers introduce policy in increments and %graft& initiatives onto the existing structure# no advice is given to parents or students on how they can contri!ute to policy decisions. The epilogue evokes propagandist slogans a!out democracy# Kod# and country. Bn page )"+ the authors indicate that %the !elief system that undergirds pu!lic education has fragmented.& 8ere they admit that pu!lic education is supported !y nothing more than a !elief system and not government policy. Auch of the epilogue seems to !e more of an emotional appeal to rally the troops around the policy elitists who ultimately pull the strings. The message clearly is that top down policy should !e sold to the pu!lic !ecause they are too !ackwards and ingrained in ritualistic traditions# Hthe grammar of schoolingH# to enter into the de!ate over school reforms. Tyack and $u!an although great literary masters and insightful insiders within the pu!lic school system cannot seem to !reak away

Review of Tinkering Toward Utopia

from their own grammar of schooling. The simplistic categori(ations of the prevailing ideological viewpoints into compartmentali(ed dichotomous categories such as left versus right and traditionalist versus progressive demand a critical analysis of the !readth of their perspective. n the democracy that these authors !elieve they live in# people should control the policy not elitist university faculty and wealthy !usiness tycoons. 8owever# in the United States the educational system is a Soviet command and control model which does not tolerate much deviation from policy !eing pontificated from ?ashington 4.$. t does not cultivate further de!ate a!out school reform to view reform from the perspective of elite technocrats and vy Geague administrators. This is tinkering with utopia not towards it. 3 high school degree once meant something !ut today it is little more than a piece of paper while homeschooling is rapidly !ecoming the !est choice for disillusioned parents. The authors2 monolithic context of reform could rightly !e called the clothing of schooling where they !elieve one si(e fits all. References Tyack# 4.# L $u!an# G. ;)<<@>. Tinkering toward utopiaJ 3 century of pu!lic school reform. $am!ridge# A3J 8arvard University 5ress.