The history of American education has followed a path of the long, winding and

rocky nature. Many people have analyzed the major policy and organizational changes

which occurred within the institution of education and those events in the history of the

country which lead to such changes, and have come to conclusions which clash as

substantially as black and white. Examples of such opposing views can be found in the

comparison of two historical accounts: Diane Ravitch's The Troubled Crusade and

David Nasaw's Schooled to Order. The primary theme of both books in the most general

sense answers the question, "Why did they do that?" Ravitch would argue that the

government works primarily for the welfare of the people, though over time the

government became so concerned with equality of opportunity in education that

"excellence" was sacrificed for "access." Nasaw would suggest that the active coalition

of business and government often gives the impression of aiding the people when in

reality they are helping themselves. Any outcome of these activities which does, in fact,

improve the people is secondary, a fortunate by-product of a system created to better the

wealth of the business elite, maintain the status quo of class division and thus deny equal

opportunity. Developments, he argues, most always have mixed motives.

David Nasaw discusses the history of American education in three parts. It is

presented in chronological order, beginning with the formation of the common school.

He maintains that the common school movement was a tactic used to re-program the

political and social values of the immigrant and natural working class children.

According to Nasaw, reformers recognized that the potential power of the urban masses

was enormous. Immigrants held socialist ideas which were dangerous to the capitalist

ideals of America, and poor people in general lacked the good moral sense and respect

for authority middle and upper class people did. By making this education compulsory,

they ensured that every student would hear the advocators of the capitalist system, thus

helping to reduce class conflict and maintain the status quo.

The reformation of the high schools was, according to Nasaw, an attempt by

government and industry to create a submissive workers with good American values, and

ready them for lives in the factories. Through a system of scientific tracking based on

I.Q. and standardized tests, the students were sorted into ability groups and encouraged

to pursue appropriate academic schedules. While reformers at the time suggested this

was true democracy in that every child was receiving an education "equally adjusted" to

their own abilities, Nasaw suggests that the tests and counselors were class and culturally

biased, and tended to divide children not by ability, but instead by race and economic

status. By educating the immigrants and minorities in vocation only, business and

industry were guaranteed the next generation of lower working class citizens, thus

maintaining the existing social classes and thus the status quo.

The third portion of Nasaw's book is concerned wit developments in higher

education. He explains that instances of federal aid to higher education have all come as

responses to situations which were potential hazards to the government(G.I. Bill), or that

promised to yield great benefits for the government or the business world it

protected(R&D). The open admissions policy which encouraged so many students to

attend junior or community colleges, was a ploy used to make people believe they had

been given equal access to higher education when in fact they were being "cooled out" or

made to believe that their failure to achieve was their own fault, thus shifting the blame

from a system which simply didn't work.

The Ravitch book is a detailed account of the governmental responses to the

educational needs of the people during the second half of the century. She begins with a

discussion of the post World War II initiatives taken by the government to help the

returning veterans and protect the national security during the cold war. She continues

with a discussion of the death of progressive, child centered education in 1955, and

attributes the fall to the onset of the "knowledge race" which accompanied the Cold War.

She explains that the loyalty investigations of the McCarthy era were simply "a way of

doing something to starve off the Communist menace that was advancing in other parts

of the world..."(p.113) Ravitch discusses the massive resistance movements related to

the Brown decision, and the effects of the Civil Rights Act on the movement and the

subsequent transformation of the "interracial" movement into a "black" movement. And

while she concedes that this response was necessary, because "Color-blindness was not a

remedy for the wide-spread poverty among blacks, nor for their exclusion from major

sectors of the economy..."(p.146), she seems concerned that this trend has lead to reverse

discrimination. Ravitch talks about the "New Left" and the nature of campus protests

against Vietnam, which she rights off as little more than the actions of a youthful

generation out to get their kicks. She also discusses the implications of Sputnik on

education in America, and the short lived renewed fervor for higher educational

standards. The final chapter, entitled "The New Politics of Education" encompasses

developments from 1965 through 1980, including the implementation of ESL Programs,

Affirmative Action, and a more politically correct treatment of women, who were

becoming more vocal about the sex stereotype issue. Her apparent problem with

Affirmative Action complements her believe in reverse discrimination. While The

Troubled Crusade is supposed to be a history book, and consequently objective, Ravitch

is clearly biased in the traditionalist direction on several issues.

Ravitch seems to ignore completely and perhaps purposely, the role of business in

education. One needs only to look at the phenomena of athletic college scholarships to

see that the relationship between business and academia is very real and very important

to both organizations. Sports scholarships make it possible for some less scholarly

students to experience college and have all the life advantages that accompany a college

degree. One may make the valid case that athletic scholarships have helped many

students who are disadvantaged either culturally or economically, and the college

experience has helped some of these students to realize their full intellectual potential,

and perhaps encouraged them to pursue the social mobility which often seems so

unattainable. On the other hand, knowledge of who actually runs these institutions shows

both the direct and indirect involvement of business in education. Colleges and

universities are run by a Board of Trusties, traditionally comprised of members of the

community, especially business owners. These people are well aware of the financial

implications of having renown athletic teams, and by recruiting talented students, the

college and the surrounding businesses stand to make a profit. Knowledge of this

relationship is central to intelligently assessing the topics presented. Its implications are

tremendous.

Additionally, Ravitch appears to make a habit of excusing inappropriate or

negatives actions which do not succeed. In regards to the McCarthy era loyalty

investigations, she says, "But it should not be forgotten that these efforts ultimately failed

and that freedom of dissent was never choked off."(p.111) Not only is this statement

blatantly untrue (freedom to publicly or privately express opinions against the US

government could get you fired, and was thus "choked off" for a time) but it seems to

presume that this blatant disregard for first amendment rights is somehow less serious

because it's effects were incomplete and short term. This is to say that if I tried to shoot

someone in the back but only succeeded in shooting him through the leg, the crime is

somewhat less abominable because I didn't actually do what I had originally intended.

Ravitch throws around an impressive number of quotations and citations. From

her extensive use of dates and numbers to her frequent quotation and lengthy

bibliography, Ravitch appears to have well supported and documented arguments. And

while the quality of the evidence she provides is high, most of what she uses is pertinent

only to her minor points. They support with great detail the information she provides,

but they do not support the conclusions she draws from these points.

The major problem with this book goes beyond the fact that she gives few if any

supporting details for her crucial arguments. It seems that she takes the circumstantial

evidence that she has to form an opinion, but often overlooks the fairly obvious holes in

the argument when she tries to broaden the scope of that information. For example, on

pg. 6, Ravitch discusses the mindset of Americans during the World War II period.

During the war years, Americans had talked a great deal

about defending the ideals of democracy and the

American way of life, and the education lobby sensed that

the time had come to base its appeal on the promise of

democratic ideology...there was concern that both of these

trends-the growth of population and the rising levels of

education-would exacerbate divisions within the society

along the lines of race and class and intensify inequality

unless educational opportunities were equalized across

the nation.

Because some of the information she provides here is fairly obvious(war times generally

rally feelings of nationalism, i.e., defending democracy and the American way of life),

the lack of concurring evidence can be, if not excused, at least understood. Yet her use

of the unsupported claim that Americans were concerned about class division and racial

inequality is inexcusable, not because it lacks evidence but because is does not

necessarily apply to the correct institution within society.

No one will deny that during this time Americans were becoming more aware of

the problems associated with class and race discrimination. However, awareness is not

necessarily associated with willingness to act or the desire or ability to do so.

Furthermore, the reader is expected to accept that the trend of American thought and

concern was definitively reflected in the concern and action of the government. Just

because the people we talking about something doesn't mean the officials on capital hill

cared what they thought.

The topic under discussion by Ravitch is federal aid to education, her claim being

that "More than any other time in American history, the crusade against ignorance was

understood to mean a crusade for equal educational opportunity. At every level of formal

education, from nursery to graduate school, equal opportunity became the overriding goal

of postwar educational reformers." We have no reason to believe that the government's

"crusade against ignorance" was to promote the welfare of the public or to alleviate the

inequality of education for certain groups of people. In fact, the most compelling

evidence we do have supports the precise opposite. Throughout the history of federally

funded financial assisting of schooling and education, the government has consistently

displayed little genuine concern for the underprivileged people or their improvement,

save occasions when these results are in the best interests of the big industry and business

with which the government allies itself, or when the government is directly affected by

problems which arise.

The major points in Schooled to Order are fairly well supported and documented.

Though I disagree with some of what Mr. Nasaw concludes, I find his evidence far more

relevant and compelling than that of Ms. Ravitch's book. And while the Nasaw book is

clearly one sided, it is consistently so. It is evidently a history presented from the

revisionist point of view, and does not pretend to be otherwise. Additionally, Nasaw

does admit that not everything is as terrible as it seems. "This is not to say that the

history of public schooling has been no more than a history of public victimization."

(p.242) He sees that people have been able to protect themselves from falling victim to

the most "antidemocratic" reforms. Yet Ravitch seems unable to see the overwhelming

merits of the opposing view, and consequently never even mentions the possibility of the

government acting on its own behalf.

It seems clear that neither Ravitch nor Nassau were completely correct in their

opinions and hypotheses regarding the history of American education. Both are so far to

their respective sides of the spectrum that they sometimes make claims which are

exaggerated and questionable. Yet it takes only a very cursory survey of the historical

evidence and an elementary understanding of capitalism to recognize how truly one-sided

the history of American education has been. Capitalism and the democratic ideals of

equality are fundamentally in opposition. Capitalism naturally produces class divisions.

The people who control the money are not the people who, in essence, make the money,

and so a rift develops between the two groups. The producing, or working class in this

relationship becomes the lower class, because the product of the worker is by some

device worth more than the worker himself, and thus his wages reflect this lower worth.

The capitalist system is self perpetuating, and also perpetuates a societal division along

the lines of class.

What is important to remember is that while it may appear that children during

the past 40 years in this country have been given equal access to education and an

opportunity to succeed, this is only a facade, carefully built and maintained by a

government in cahoots with big business and industry. Money, not pedagogy, is the focus

of their actions. Financial gain, not equal opportunity, is the goal of their plans. Though

nearing the millennium and considered the most modern country in the world, we are a

nation still plagued by racism, class discrimination and gender bias. Yet the

conservatives running the government continue to favor gradual, moderate change.

Truly, what reason would the US government have to rock the proverbial boat.

We are a nation obsessed with money, and have been for quite some time. Maintenance

of the status quo keeps the majority of the wealth in the hands of the few who just so

happen to running this country. And as we all know, education is money, and money is

power. By empowering the masses with consistently high quality education, the elite

stand to loose all they know. Business and industry tycoons would loose a considerable

portion of their workforce, because people would no longer be satisfied with subsistence

incomes. As the lowest classes in society diminish, the enormous wealth of the few is

distributed. Over time, this redistribution of wealth would lead to the extinction of

economic extremes (the billionaires and the poverty stricken) and send this country in the

direction of every capitalist businessman's worst nightmare-socialism.

A Tale of Two Historians:

Schooling to Order the Troubled Crusade

Trinity College

The History of American Education

Bibliography

Nasaw, David. Schooled to Order. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Ravitch, Diane. The Troubled Crusade. Basic Books, 1983.