What Are Schools For?

Human Potential .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> 190 Chapter 10.Goals 2000: Triumph of the Megamachine. . .<br><br> . 204 Chapter 11.Education for the Twenty-First Century . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> 212 Bibliography. . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . .<br><br> . . 219 Preface to the Third Edition Thisneweditionaddressestheliteratureonholisticandpostmodern education that has appeared since I originally researched What Are Schools For?<br><br> as a doctoral dissertation in the late 1980s. Agreat deal of finescholarlyworkhasbeendoneonspirituality,ecology,epistemology andcultureinthepasttenyearsthatsimplywasnotavailablebefore.In addition,myownthinkinghasmaturedconsiderably,andmyownper- spective has expanded significantly, as I have encountered more variet- ies of scholarly work, become involved myself in the holistic education movement, and observed the direction that national educational policy has taken in the last several years. What Are Schools For?<br><br> was an early attempt to make sense of the emerging transition from modern to postmodern ways of thinking about society and education. As a graduate student in my 20s I was not familiar with cpostmodernism d but had experienced this transi- tion in my own young, intellectual development. I was frustrated by the contradiction between the inspiring ideas of the new culture, whichIhadencounteredinmystudiesofhumanisticpsychologyand my training as a Montessori educator, and the strong resistance to these ideas in the prevailing culture during the Reagan years.<br><br> My re- search was unconventional in that it did not focus on any one specific topic or literature, but looked broadly at the social and intellectual history of American education to find answers to my own sense of frustration. I was satisfied to be able to portray a cbig picture d of cul- tural and countercultural themes in education. This had not been donebefore,andWhatAreSchoolsFor?was,Ithink,alegitimatecon- tribution to the literature; it has been used as a textbook in several courses on educational foundations and I am often told that it stimu - lates thoughtful questions and discussions.<br><br> As my thinking matured, though, I came to see that the explanatory ideas I had picked up from the holistic literature of the 1980s (for exam - ple, the notion of cparadigm shifts d) were not sufficient to address the complexity of the cultural, political and economic crisis of our age. Above all, I now understand that the modern age is not about to be eclipsed by some cholistic paradigm d; there does seem to be a postmodern age coming, but it is far more problematic than the cnew paradigm d thinkers admit. The ecological/ spiritual vision that holistic thinkerspromoteisonepossiblecomponentofanewculture;Icontinue to share this vision and will continue working on its behalf.<br><br> However, I donotthinkthat,byitself,itisgoingtosolveallthesocial,political,eco- nomicoreveneducationalproblemsofourtime.Wehavealotofworkto do, in every arena of culture, to gradually create a more compassionate, democratic,life-affirming,ecologicallysustainablesociety.Holisticedu- cators need to work together with activists and scholars from many dif- ferent communities and perspectives if we are to achieve the transformation of which we dream. In this revised edition, I have replaced the original Chapter Four ( cThe Holistic Paradigm in Education d) with an entirely new essay on cEducationforaPostmodernAge. dI 9veaddedtwonewchapters(Nine and Ten) that reflect on developments in holistic and mainstream edu- cation during the past ten years. (Some of the historical material in Chapter Nine was originally part of cThe Holistic Paradigm in Educa- tion. d) Finally, I have made major and minor revisions in most other parts of the book.<br><br> When I first pursued the research for this book, I worked alone. I did not know of anyone else asking similar questions, and I rarely came acrossauthorswhoaddressedthem.Butnow,tenyearslater,Icangladly acknowledgetheinspiration,supportandencouragementI 9vereceived fromnumerouscolleagues,inparticular KathleenKesson,JeffreyKane, Jack Miller, Aostre Johnson, David Purpel, and the late James Moffett. I have also been encouraged by conversations and correspondence with Don Oliver, Douglas Sloan, Patrick Shannon, Lois Bridges, David Orr, TomDelPrete,Rachael(Shelley)Kessler,ParkerPalmer,DavidConrad, Alex Gerber, David Marshak, Lynn Stoddard, Sambhava and Josette Luvmour, Dayle Bethel in Japan, and David Dufty in Australia.<br><br> Several people in the alternative school and homeschooling movements have What Are Schools For? v been my friends and colleagues for years now, including Jerry Mintz, John Taylor Gatto, Mary Leue, Pat Farenga, and Chris Mercogliano. I alsowanttoacknowledgetwocontemporaryvisionarieswhoarecarry - ing on the work I write about in this book 4 Phil Gang and Ed Clark 4 andCharlesJakiela,adedicatedpublisherwhohaskeptmybooksalive.<br><br> I 9ve worked with numerous other good people and been inspired by many other good books, and am sorry I cannot name them all here. Ron Miller Burlington, Vermont (Birthplace of John Dewey) April, 1997 What Are Schools For? vi Introduction American education is in turmoil.<br><br> For the past fifteen years, leading politicians, corporate executives, journalists, academics and founda- tions have loudly and urgently insisted that our schools are failing to train good enough workers and citizens. The critics demand more cex- cellence, d more caccountability, d and higher test scores. Governors and legislatures have stepped in to mandate more rigorous curricula and more disciplined school policies and practices.<br><br> The federal government hasestablishednationaleducationalgoalsandcalledfornationaleduca- tionalstandards.Meanwhile,publiceducationisunderattackfromdis- gruntled taxpayers, free-market conservatives, and religious groups; homeschooling has grown from an insignificant (and generally illegal) practice into a mass movement; and educators are bombarded con- stantly by new innovations and ideas, such as magnet schools, charter schools, cwhole language, d cmultiple intelligences, d multicultural and Afrocentric curricula, portfolio assessment, emotional literacy, ecologi- cal literacy, the multiage classroom, and an endless stream of others. Mostofthepoliticalandideologicalinterestsstrugglingforcontrolof American education share some basic assumptions about the meaning and purpose of schooling in modern society. They assume that schools existtotransmitacertainbodyofknowledge,andacertainsetofvalues, to young people.<br><br> They assume that the community, or the state, has the right, indeed the obligation, to discipline children 9s minds and abilities into occupations deemed useful to society. And for the most part, they assume that the economy is the central institution of modern life, and hencethatoutfittingyoungpeopleforemploymentisthedominantpur- pose of education. The different interest groups disagree strongly over which body of knowledge and values should be transmitted, which ac- tivities are most useful, and which skills are most needed for economic success, but they do not quarrel over these basic assumptions.<br><br> The purpose of this book is to deconstruct these assumptions, to step backfromtheongoingconflictstoask,fromamoral,spiritualandphilo - sophicalperspective,whattheaimsofeducationreallyoughttobe: What are schools for? Inthefirstpartofthebook,IdemonstratewhyAmerican culturesupportscertainassumptionsaboutthepurposeofeducation.In anationofdiverseethnic,religious,andideologicalperspectives,whose values and beliefs does schooling represent, and why? The first three chapters offer a concise but critical summary of the social and intellec - tual history of American education.<br><br> Over the last few decades, educa - tional historians have provided a detailed, comprehensive analysis of themanypoliticalandsocialforcesthatformedoursystemofschooling. ItisnowwellunderstoodthatAmericaneducationisnotsimplydemoc - racy in action, as we had previously been assured by apologists for the system; we now recognize that Horace Mann and other founders of modernpublicschoolinghadanideologicalagendathatcombinedsome democraticelementswithahostofelitist,nativist,moralist,andtechno- craticviewsthatdonotserveademocraticsocietywell.Thisagendacon- tinues to haunt education in our society, and we need to examine it critically and decide whether some elements of it ought to be trans- formed or discarded. MyperspectiveasanhistorianistheinterdisciplinaryfieldofAmeri- can Studies.<br><br> Thus, I am not as interested in the politics or mechanics of public schooling as an institution, so much as in the cultural context of education. I have sought to understand how schools reflect the prevail- ing worldview of American society 4 the basic, and largely implicit, epistemological and moral assumptions that guide the formation of so- cialpracticesandinstitutions.AnthropologistCliffordGeertz(1973)and other scholars have emphasized that culture is essentially a system of meaning;itisthewaythatasocialgroupdefinesthescopeofreality,na- ture, and human possibility. Phenomenological and postmodern thoughtholdthathumanbeingsdonotperceiveanobjectiveworldand then make up different cultural stories about it; rather, we perceive the worldthroughculturallenses,andliterallyexperiencedifferentrealities according to the culturally conditioned meanings inherent in percep- tion.PsychologistCharlesTart(1986)hasspokenofthissociallyshaped realityas cconsensusconsciousness dor cconsensustrance. dTo cdecons- truct d cultural assumptions means to step back and deliberately exam- ine the cultural shaping of meaning, making explicit what is usually What Are Schools For?<br><br> 2 takenforgranted,andacknowledgingthatthereareothervalidversions of reality. Ibelievewecanunderstandwhyschoolingservescertainideologies, and not others, by examining the cultural themes that have defined the meaning of ceducation d in modern American society. In the first part of thisbook,Iwillsuggestthatfivethemesseemparticularlyinfluentialin the evolution of American schools: (1) Aparticular religious worldview thatmaybereferredtoasa cCalvinist dor cPuritan dtheology;(2)Afasci - nation with the power of science and technology based on the reductionistic, mechanistic thinking of Rene Descartes and Francis Ba - con;(3)Arestraineddemocraticideologythatcelebratesfreedomandin - dividualism but within definite boundaries of social discipline; (4) Capitalism 4 an economic system that emphasizes competition, meri- tocracy, and the protection of self-interest; (5) Nationalism 4 the belief that the state is somehow the sacred guardian of cultural ideals.<br><br> Histo- riansofmodernculture(e.g.,Rifkin1991)haveshownhowthesethemes are intertwined and mutually reinforcing; feminist scholars have sug- gested that the theme of patriarchy runs through all these facets of the modernworldview.Together,theyformacoherent,integrated,andvery solidlyestablished cconsensusconsciousness dthathasselectedparticu- lar forms of education over other possible meanings. Inthesecondpartofthisbook,Iwillintroducesomeoftheserejected possibilities. Since the beginnings of modern schooling, various educa- tors and thinkers have dissented from the consensus view and argued thatitrepresentsatragicallylimited,one-dimensionalconceptionofhu- manlearningandgrowth.Mostofthesedissentershavebeenignoredor dismissed as sentimental romantics because they speak of children 9s hiddenpowersandseeeducationasadisciplineoffreedomandself-ex- pression rather than as an agent of the state and the economic system.<br><br> Few historians of education have taken these dissenters seriously or ex- aminedthecontinuityandcoherenceoftheirideasacrosstwocenturies. In recent years, the emergence of a postmodern perspective known as holismenablesustoreinterprettheseromantic,Transcendentalist,anar- chist, progressive and other radical educators and see them, not as iso- lated cranks, but as perceptive critics of modernity who happened to be yearsaheadoftheirtime.Theywerenotsimply cchild-centered deduca- tors, but cultural dissidents who saw that the worldview of modern Americahas,througheducation,suppressedthemostvital,soulful,cre- ative energies of human growth. Starting in Chapter Four, I will explain What Are Schools For?<br><br> 3 how holistic thought provides a critical perspective for recognizing this element of educational dissent. Thisbookaimstoprovideasubstantialintellectualfoundationforho - listiceducation.Ontheonehand,itisgroundedinextensiveresearchin the social and intellectual history of American education and recent writingoneducationaltheory,culturalhistory,systemstheoryandecol- ogy, spirituality and epistemology. I want to demonstrate that holistic educationisnotmerelyaromantic,NewAgefantasybutacoherentand significanttheoreticalperspective.Ontheotherhand,Idonotwriteasa detachedobserverofeducationaldissentbutasapassionateadvocate.I believe that the modern world is in crisis and that the reductionist worldview of our age is obsolete and inadequate.<br><br> I believe that modern schooling is a spiritually devastating form of social engineering that is hostile to human values and democratic ideals, especially now that our nationisembarkingonacrusadetostandardizeteachingandlearning.I thinkwehaveagreatdealtolearnfromtheromanticsandrebelswhom the guardians of culture have silenced for two hundred years. They are voicesofthehumanspirit,callingusbacktoaprofoundwisdomthatwe in the modern age have forgotten. What Are Schools For?<br><br> 4 Part One Cultural Roots of American Education Chapter One Themes of American Culture Holistic education is a countercultural movement seeking radical, far-reaching changes in American society. The holistic critique is not a classconflictintheMarxistmodel,norisitrootedinethnic,racial,orreli- gious tensions. Holism is, literally, a search for wholeness in a culture that limits, suppresses, and denies wholeness.<br><br> At first, this claim appears extreme. Americans do not commonly view their culture in this light: We honor our nation as the world 9s stan- dard-bearer of freedom, democracy, opportunity and personal fulfill- ment.TheStatueofLiberty,theDeclarationofIndependence,andother nationaliconsconveythebeliefthathere,asnowhereelse,humanbeings are free to pursue their happiness, their dreams, their own paths of growth.Thosewhoaredissatisfiedwith ctheAmericanwayoflife dhave generally been viewed as unrealistic romantics, unappreciative of the precious freedom we enjoy in this country. Certainly, let us appreciate this freedom, and the heritage of political vision and battlefield heroism that made it a reality.<br><br> At the same time, however, let us understand that the full truth of American culture is far more complex and ambiguous than our national mythology will admit. Letusunderstand,aswell,thatculturesneedtoevolveorelsetheystag- nate, because the human mind continues to evolve and expand. Ideol- ogies and social institutions that arose to serve specific purposes in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries need to be reexamined, reapplied to the conditions of an emerging postmodern age.<br><br> We can celebrate our heritage of freedom and opportunity, but we must not celebrate it blindly. Inspecificways,Americanculturehasfailedtoliveuptoitsownide - als.Someofthesefailuresareblatant,andare,bynow,widelyacknowl - edged. Slavery was accepted in the compromises that formed the Constitution,andracismhasremainedastubborndiseaseoftheAmeri - canspirit.Women 4overhalfthepopulation 4wereexcludedfrompo - litical and economic power for much of our history.<br><br> And recent generations of historians have documented how truly unjustly large numbers of human beings 4 such as indigenous people, Asian and non-Protestant European immigrants, and unskilled workers 4 have been treated in this country. Clearly, enough opportunity and hope ex - isted(andstillexist),incomparisontomanyotherpartsoftheworld,to continuedrawingmillionsofimmigrantstothisland,butwecannolon - ger ignore the human suffering and cultural consequences of the fre - quentandflagrantbetrayalofdemocraticvaluesthroughoutourhistory. TheeducationaldissidentswhomIcall cholistic deducatorswerecon- cernedaboutthesefailuresofAmericandemocracy,buttheyareofinter- estprimarilybecausetheyalsoperceivedmoresubtleculturalflaws.As educators, they recognized that American culture rests on an implicit imageofthehumanbeingandimplicitassumptionsaboutthehumanre- lationshiptonatureandthecosmosthatpreventtheexpansionandevo- lution of human capacities.<br><br> They recognized that entire dimensions of the personality 4 aesthetic, expressive, and spiritual dimensions 4 are chronically undernourished, if not actively suppressed, by schooling and other childrearing practices. In various ways, they pointed out that wholeness is a vitally important value for human happiness and fulfill- ment, and desperately needs to be reclaimed. Indeed, they have repeat- edlyarguedthatthemoreblatantproblemsofAmericandemocracyare directly related to, if not rooted in, these more subtle, epistemological and spiritual problems.<br><br> Although most of these educators (and their few intellectual allies) spoke out with passion and eloquence, they were most often treated as romanticcranksandeitherignoredorridiculed.Fewofthempresented their critique in a systematic way; today, from the perspective of social andintellectualhistoryandamoreexplicitawarenessoftheprocessesof culture,wecandescribethebroadculturalthemestowhichholisticedu- cators have objected. We can see quite clearly why American education routinely handles children in ways that the dissident educators could not accept. The following summary of five cultural themes is not meant to be a definitive study of American culture, which is, of course, a com- What Are Schools For?<br><br> 7 plex and multifaceted social reality, but it does suggest that educational ideas are rooted in certain dominant cultural assumptions. The colonies had been settled by an overwhelmingly Protestant pop- ulation. Indeed, many colonists had emigrated from Europe in order to establish a more purely Christian society (according to their Calvinist theology) than they could find at home.<br><br> These religious impulses have continued to pervade American culture: The cGreat Awakening d of the mid-eighteenth century and the cSecond Great Awakening d at the turn ofthenineteenthweremajorculturaleventsthatleftalastingimpression on the evolution of American society. Historian Warren Susman (1984, 56) claims that NoanalysisofAmericanculturemakesanysenseifitfailstore- alizethatthiswasfromthestartandlargelyremainsaProtestant nation in which the role of religious ideology in the shaping of other ideological positions is key. Other, more secular cultural themes, such as Enlightenment philoso- phy, commercial expansion, and political agitation also characterized late colonial and early national society.<br><br> But as Susman argues, each of these themes shared important elements of the Protestant worldview, particularly the emphasis on individual moral and economic responsi- bility. TheCalvinisttheologythatthePuritansbroughttoNewEnglandwas an essential ingredient of the emerging modern worldview. Medieval Christianity represented an organic form of society, in which individu- als 9liveswereregulatedbyritual,myth,andparticipationincommunal enterprises such as guilds.<br><br> Each person had a destined position in soci- ety,andhumanityhadasecurepositionintheGreatChainofBeing.The new capitalist, scientific worldview required liberation from such regu- larity. There were new worlds to explore, new resources and markets to exploit, new nations to build. Calvinist Protestantism accommodated these urges, but provided a rigorous moralism to keep humans 9 unsa- vory impulses in check.<br><br> The Puritan worldview was a particularly nar- row and pessimistic view of nature and human nature; it allowed for personal ambition and enterprises so long as these were tempered by guilt, repentance, and pious recognition that worldly pursuits are ulti- mately worthless in comparison to the divine reality. What Are Schools For? 8 According to theologian Matthew Fox (1983), the Christian tradition hasproducedtwoprofoundlyopposedcosmologies.The ccreation dtra - ditionflourishedintheorganicreligioussocietyoftheMiddleAgesand found expression in the mystical visions of Francis of Assisi, Hildegard ofBingen,MeisterEckhart,JulianofNorwichandothers.Thisviewsaw God 9s presence in all created things, and maintained that humans may participate directly in the ongoing creation of the cosmos through disci - plinesofcompassionandartisticexpression.However,saysFox,thecos - mology of St.<br><br> Augustine, which he calls the cFall/ Redemption d theology,hasproventobemorecompatiblewiththe cimperialist dinsti - tutionsofchurchandstatebecauseitteachesthatpeoplecannotpartici - pate directly in divine reality, and need to be controlled and molded by thoseinauthority.CalvinistPuritanism,althoughreleasingtheentrepre- neurial energies of modern capitalism, compensated by insisting on strong theocratic control over human impulses. This view has emphasized an utter separation between the material and spiritual realms 4 between natural and supernatural, profane and sacred, human and divine, person and God. The material world is cfallen, dmeaningnon-sacred;itistherealmofdepravityandsin.Conse- quently, human nature is seen as a never-ending battle between the cfallen dstateofourphysicalbeingandtheelusiveidealofdivinegrace.<br><br> Inrelationtotheabsoluteperfectionofthedivine,thehumanbeingis,in the words of many an orthodox minister, a cpoor worm. d To the Puri- tans, the person was by nature a seedbed of depravity and corruption, and in order to deny the personal, physical self, they practiced intense, guilt-inducing introspection (Bercovitch 1975, 15-23; Karier 1986; Roszak 1973, chap. 4; and Roszak 1978, 89-90). According to historian Charles Leslie Glenn, this theology teaches that sin is an inborn ccorruption of human nature cutting man off from Godandfromhisownhappiness d(1988,48).ThisextremeCalvinistpes- simismwaschallengedintheeighteenthcenturybytherisinginfluence of secular rationalism and in the nineteenth century by romantic influ- ences, and Glenn argues that these secular and romantic trends came to be embraced as the religion of American public education.<br><br> (This is the basisforthefundamentalists 9complaintthatthereligionof csecularhu- manism d permeates the schools.) However, despite these liberalizing trends, cFall/Redemption dviewsofnatureandhumannaturehavere- mained embedded in American culture. First of all, secularization and publiceducationdidnotextinguishtheinfluenceofPuritanideas.Glenn What Are Schools For? 9 recognizes, in numerous references, that conservative sects were cgreatly in the majority among the population d during the formative yearsofAmericanculture;that cinfactevangelicalismwasevolvingand expanding rapidly; d that cpowerful revival impulses ...<br><br> were shaping American Protestantism; d and that religious leaders were confident cthattheyspokeforthenation. dCalvinistProtestantismcontinuedthen andcontinuesnowtobeanactiveforceinAmericanculture(Glenn1988, 150, 162, 182, 195). Furthermore, the separation of human from divine, secular from sa - cred has remained a constant theme in American culture and had a stronginfluenceonalltheothermajorthemes.Believingthathumanbe - ingsarecutofffromthedivineandare,instead,movedbyinnateevilim - pulses, American culture has become highly moralistic; it is commonly believed that a rigorous moral code, and vigilant enforcement of social mores,standardsofbehavior,andcivillawsareallthatstandintheway of social upheaval and anarchy. As some historians have observed, Americanpoliticsandreformmovementshavetraditionallydefinedso- cial problems as problems of personal morality and discipline, and therefore have often failed to address the ideological or economic sources of social conflict.<br><br> This moralistic approach has chronically pre- scribed religious authority and education rather than consider funda- mental institutional change to remedy serious social problems. This moralism is further reflected in the traditional Puritan attitude toward work and success. Work is seen as a necessary discipline of the naturally slothful human being.<br><br> Therefore, those who undertake this disciplinemostdiligentlyexhibitasuperiormoralstatus,andareconse- quentlyfavoredbymaterialprosperity.Privatepropertyis,inthissense, sacred. Poverty 4 the absence of property 4 is not attributed to social factors(especiallygiventhepresumablyopenopportunitiesavailableto all) but is seen as the inevitable result of personal moral failure. Another factor in Puritan religion is its emphasis on intellectual de- bate and interpretation (often literal interpretation) of scripture, creeds, and catechisms.<br><br> It is true that various sects have sanctioned emotional conversionexperiencesandheartfeltmoralsentiment,butAmericanre- ligionisnotmysticalandhasreliedmoreheavilyonconceptual,verbal, anddoctrinalpathstotruththanuponthosewhicharemoresubjective, aesthetic, or contemplative. This emphasis on authoritative texts and creedshashadaprofoundeffectontheeducationalpracticesofourcul- What Are Schools For? 10 ture.Whenreligiousbeliefsencourageamorepersonalormysticalcom- munion with the divine, ideas of education are vastly different.<br><br> Finally, American Protestantism has always been charged with a senseofmission,adeeplyheldbeliefthatAmericawastheNewJerusa - lem, the ccity upon a hill d which would bring forth God 9s Kingdom on Earth.RobertHandyobservesthat cfromthebeginningAmericanProt - estants entertained a lively hope that someday the civilization of the countrywouldbefullyChristian d(Handy1984,ix-x).Convertingothers in the national community was an urgent task; there was a sense that if they failed to build a holy commonwealth, God would judge them se - verely. When the western frontier was opened to massive migration in the nineteenth century, Protestant sects hastened to send ministers, Bibles,inspirationaltracts,andcircuitriderstothewildernesstoensure the perpetuation of Christian morality. Forthisreason,weshouldbeskepticalofthehistoricalthesisthatthe frontierinspiredaself-reliantdemocracyintheAmericancharacter.The pioneers did not experience the frontier with innocent awe but through the filter of their Protestant worldview.<br><br> In this view, the pioneers had to be even more vigilant than the settled kinsmen they left behind. Nature was a howling, Godless wilderness; the Indians were uncivilized pa- gans;thelandexistedtobetamed;andthecommunitymustbeboundby a strict moral code or degenerate into lawlessness. Thus, while the fron- tiermayhavedissolvedsomeofthepioneers 9previousclassdistinctions inaneconomicorsocialsense,itdidnoterasethemoralisticPuritanism of their ancestors.<br><br> American culture 4 on or off the frontier 4 has not encouragedtrueself-relianceinamoralorspiritualsense,becauseitdis- dains nature and so mistrusts an unconverted, uncontrolled, undisci- plined human nature. Intheso-calledEnlightenmentoftheeighteenthcentury,the cnatural philosophy dofBacon,Descartes,Galileo,andNewtonbecamefirmlyes - tablishedinWesternthought.Accordingtothisview,natureisasystem oflawfulregularities,bestunderstoodthroughreason 4thecarefuluse ofinductionanddeduction(ideallyexpressedthroughmathematics) 4 ratherthansubjectiveexperience.Truthisnottestedbypersonalrevela - tion but by actual effectiveness in practical use. Knowledge of natural laws would give humankind power to control physical events 4 the highest aim of science.<br><br> Applied to human affairs by Hobbes, Locke, What Are Schools For? 11 Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and others, the scientific worldview was a major underpinning of the republican vision which moved the Ameri - canrevolutionariesandfoundingfathers.Inanimportantbook, Individ - ualism and Nationalism in American Ideology , Yehoshua Arieli (1964, 110-111) says the Enlightenment taught that cman was capable of re- shapinghimselfandhissociallifeaccordingtothedictatesofreasonand couldreflectinhissocietytheharmonyofthelawswhichmaintainedthe universe. d In this sense, the scientific worldview offered a more progressive so - cial philosophy and a more optimistic image of human nature than did CalvinistProtestantism.TheBaconian-Cartesianmovementwasinpart a response to the religious warfare that had torn Europe, a hope that a universally valid method of gaining truth would supplant endless doc - trinal strife. Those who were most enthusiastic about the scientific worldview,suchasJefferson,Franklin,andPaine,arguedthat cunalien- able d natural rights applied to all men, and thus called for a broadly democraticsocietywithlimitedconcentrationsofpolitical,social,orreli- gious authority.<br><br> The view that a rational scientific approach is the most authenticmeansforachievingahumane,democraticsocietywasechoed overacenturylaterinthethoughtofJohnDeweyandsecularhumanists and progressives. But in a very important sense, the scientific revolution was not so much a repudiation of Protestantism as the other side of the Fall/Re- demption coin. Scientism retained the religious dichotomy between matter and spirit.<br><br> The material world is ruled by impersonal, amoral laws,notbyanytranscendent,self-creativepurpose;thespiritualrealm iswhollysupernatural,andthusnottheconcernofscience.Thescientific emphasis on reason over subjective, mystical experience was an exag- geration, but not a rejection, of mainstream Puritan epistemology. The early scientists could 4 and did 4 pursue their rational approach to- wards nature while remaining devoutly religious in their personal and socialbeliefs.AndexceptforthemostimplacableBiblicalliteralists,are- ligiousAmericanculturecouldaccommodateandevencomplementthe rise of scientism. During the early, formative years of American culture, in social and political thought the secular view remained subordinate to the Protestant.<br><br> Few of the founding fathers took the natural rights philoso- phy to its democratic extremes. In general, the ruling Federalists re- tained what Arieli calls a cProtestant nationalism d which was jealously What Are Schools For? 12 protective of public morality and order.<br><br> The more radical followers of Enlightenment ideas such as Paine, who attacked Christianity directly, were unpopular, and the violence of the atheistic French Revolution gave conservatives a rallying cry for purging whatever influence the radicals did have. Some historians suggest that conservatives 9 horrified response to the French Revolution led directly to the wave of revivals that comprised the cSecond Great Awakening. d So even as the Enlight - enmentradicalJeffersonwaselectedtothePresidencyin1800,American culture was reembracing Protestantism, delaying a more secular worldview for well over half a century. But after the middle of the nineteenth century, the scientific worldview became more aggressive and pervasive.<br><br> Religion began to share its central cultural role with a consuming scientific positivism; it was believed, with ever greater fervor, that the scientific method could solve all the riddles of the universe and all the problems of society. This echoedthehopeoftheJeffersonianrepublicans 4exceptthatnineteenth century science, freeing itself from all religious concern, veered toward materialism, the belief that all reality is essentially physical matter (which is measurable and manipulable) without any spiritual, tran- scending force. It became more mechanistic , presuming that natural events are produced by lawful cause-and-effect relationships rather thananyoverarchingpurpose.Anditbecamemorereductionistic,seek- ingtoexplainphenomenabybreakingeverythingintocomponentparts and measuring the pieces.<br><br> By the early twentieth century, even the hu- man sciences had adopted these biases, and still today behavioral and quantitativeapproachesremainthepreferredmethodsforstudyinghu- manandsocialproblems.Asscientismhasmovedalongsidereligionas a dominant influence on American culture, the result for society, as we will see in Chapter Three, has been the cculture of professionalism, d which is actually a serious erosion of the Jeffersonian democratic faith. Still, even before the rise of elitist professionalism, American culture had always harbored a tension between radical Jeffersonian ideals and far more conservative principles. Historians have debated which ideol - ogy was the most basic in the formation of American culture.<br><br> Louis Hartz (1955) and cconsensus d historians claimed that an individualistic liberalism, based on John Locke 9s ideas, pervades American culture; otherhistorians,suchasGordonWood(1969),havearguedthatthemore What Are Schools For? 13 conservative ideals of classical republican virtue were very influential. Charles Beard and Progressive historians earlier in this century argued thatthefoundingfatherswereopportunisticbusinessmen.Clearly,there has been an ongoing conflict between conservative elements 4 repre - sented by the Federalist, Whig, and Republican parties, which are ori - ented to commercial expansion, traditional morality, and obedient citizenship 4andliberalelements 4inspiredbyJefferson,Jackson,and various populist movements, which tend to emphasize personal free - dom and opportunity.<br><br> Althoughbothtendenciesarerepresentedamongmainstream,patri - oticAmericans,thedifferencesbetweentheconservativeandliberalele - ments should not be taken lightly. These are different ideals of social order, based on different images of human nature. In conservative/re- publicanthought,humanexcellenceislimitedtoaselectfew,whonatu- rallytendtorisetoeconomicandsocialprominenceandwhoshouldbe entrustedwithguidingtheaffairsofstateandsociety.Themasses,espe- cially immigrant masses not schooled in national traditions, are often feared as subversive elements.<br><br> Excessive liberty granted to individuals isseenasadangerousthreattothesocialorder.Therefore,freedommust go hand-in-hand with discipline. The welfare of the community 4 the common good 4 supersedes the personal freedom of the individual. Liberal democratic ideology, on the other hand, argues that most (if not all) people have the potential to conduct their own lives and do not needtobecontrolledfromabove.Ifpeoplewerefreefromeconomic,so- cial,andreligiousinjustice,theywould,willingly,behard-workingand moralcitizens.Whilethisideologyisarguablythemajority,mainstream viewofAmericanculture(itiscertainlythecoreoftheAmericanmyth), thereisnoquestionbutthatitisheldincheck,andincertainperiodsseri- ously compromised, by the more conservative tradition.<br><br> Throughout American history, large numbers of people, notably women, Afri- can-Americans, non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, native Americans, and children,havebeendeniedthe cnaturalrights dpromisedtothembythe liberalideology.Conservativeattitudestowardpovertyandothersocial problems,stronglyinfluencedbyPuritanProtestantism,tendtobemor- alisticratherthansympathetictowardthosewhofailtoattainprosperity orpower.Aswewillsee,theongoingtensionbetweenconservativeand liberalinterpretationsofdemocracyisreflected,andhasplayedamajor part, in the development of American education. What Are Schools For? 14 American culture, however, has never accepted extreme doctrines of either the right or the left, because the core values of capitalism are sharedbythevastmajority.Infact,perhapsmorethananyothertheme, it is capitalism that defines the identity of American culture.<br><br> It is the al - most unanimous acceptance of capitalist ideology 4 by the worker as wellastheentrepreneur,bythefollowersofJeffersonandJacksonnoless than those of Alexander Hamilton 4 which distinguishes the United States from most other nations. The vast majority of Americans eagerly defendcapitalismbothforitseffectiveness(ithas,afterall,producedun - precedented material prosperity for the nation) as well as for its moral virtues (to a large extent capitalism does reward ingenuity, initiative, andeffort,andtheeconomicfreedomitengendersishistoricallyrelated to the political freedom offered by democratic government). But in significant ways, capitalism also places limitations on human experience.Asaworldview(notsimplyasaneconomicsystem),capital- ism involves the belief that nature exists to serve human needs and wants; consequently inventiveness and audacity in taming nature are highly valued, and quality of life is measured in terms of how quickly rawnatureisconvertedtohumanuse 4thegrossnationalproduct.Fur- thermore, capitalism involves the belief that there are no inherent limits to human progress and comfort; therefore, the most ambitious and wealth-producingentrepreneursarewidelyhonored,andtechnological innovations are almost always welcomed.<br><br> Another core belief is that in an open society there are no unfair barriers to opportunity; it is only one 9s own talent and initiative that determine one 9s status (the life of Franklin and the stories of Horatio Alger are thus important myths in American capitalism). Capitalism as a worldview is based on meritocracy, that is, an almost unchecked competition between individuals for social and economic status. And the standards for measuring success are overwhelmingly materialistic; whole realms of human experience, notably the aesthetic, emotional,andspiritual,donotcountasqualificationsforthejobmarket or asemblems ofachievement.Capitalism promotes individualism and self-assertion in social and economic terms, but places far less value on self-understanding,oncriticalintelligence,orspiritualdiscovery.Practi- calityandproductivityaremoreimportantthancontemplationorinner questing; meditative practices are disdained as ccontemplating one 9s What Are Schools For?<br><br> 15 navel. d Intellectuals have long complained that American culture is canti-intellectual d and hostile to the life of the mind; ruled by an unre - lenting competitiveness, American culture is suspicious of contempla - tion that does not demonstrate its immediate practicality. Just as the religioustoneofthecultureencouragespracticalmoraldisciplinerather than mysticism, capitalism demands tangible results, not inward seek- ing or self-realization. CapitalismiscloselyintertwinedwiththeotherthemesoftheAmeri- can worldview as well, including the restrained democratic ideology of Americanculture.Ononehand,capitalismdoespromise,andoftenpro - vides, opportunities for social and economic advancement.<br><br> Class dis - tinctions are not imposed by law or custom; the meritocracy invites aspirations and achievement by anyone who is capable. Certainly there istruthintheFranklin/Algermyth.Yetitcannotbedeniedthatthecom - petition for wealth and status results in some highly undemocratic con- sequences. If clever entrepreneurs represent the heroic ideal of American culture, it is not surprising that we have robber barons and corporate raiders, men (generally white Protestants) with enormous concentrationsofwealthandpower.Todaytherichest1%ofthepopula- tion control something like 30% of the national wealth.<br><br> It is considered normal for a corporate executive to be paid a hundred or two hundred timeswhatmostofhisemployeesmake.Thisisfarbeyondthepersonal success to which Franklin or Alger 9s heroes aspired. Undercorporatecapitalism,onlyasmallnumberofpeoplecanreach thispinnacleofsuccess,nomatterhowmanypeoplearetalentedormo- tivated to succeed. Capitalism preaches democracy for all, but clearly somepeopleenjoymoreactualdemocracy,intheformofmoreaccessto quality education, more influence on economic and political decisions, morefreedomtopursuehappinessandpersonalmeaning,andmoreop- portunities to acquire still further wealth.<br><br> This is not a call for a revolution or legislation to forcibly guarantee equality. But we should reconsider seriously the cultural beliefs that al- low us to place such incredibly disproportionate values on the worth of entrepreneurialclevernessversuseventhemostdiligentphysicalwork, andwhichallowustoacceptplacidlysuchconcentrationsofwealthand leisure when over 20% of our nation 9s children are growing up in pov- erty.Thepointisthatcapitalismasaworldviewdoesnotsufficientlyad- dress the extreme effects of its cherished meritocracy. The conservative versionofcapitalismacceptstheseeffectsasperfectlynatural;itassumes What Are Schools For?<br><br> 16 that only a select few can actually attain the pinnacle of success because human nature is lazy and untrustworthy; those few who discipline themselves to achieve should be amply rewarded, and the mass of peo - ple should simply be content to share in the general prosperity by re- specting private property and the rule of law. During the surge of corporate industrial expansion in the late nineteenth century, the doc- trineofSocialDarwinismwasusedtojustifytheextremepolarizationof society; to some, natural law dictated the survival of the fittest, and it was considered healthy for society 9s failures to be weeded out alto - gether! (Hofstadter, 1955b).<br><br> The liberal version of capitalism has been more generous, asserting that there is room for everyone to succeed 4 if not a particular individ - ual,thensurelyone 9schildren.Society 9smajorobligation,then,istopro- vide education in order to equalize economic and social opportunities. Significantly, the liberal capitalist view shares with the conservative the belief that social problems and cultural discontent are best solved by stimulating personal ambition and increasing individual opportunity, ratherthanbyradicallyquestioningtheculturalvaluesthatmaybetheir root cause. Consequently, the use of education as a panacea for social and cultural problems is a consistent pattern in American history.<br><br> Oneoftherootculturalcausesofmodernsocialproblemsisthatcapi- talism, in its materialist urge to control nature, is aligned with scientific reductionismandtechnocracy.Thismaterialismisamajorsourceofper- sonal spiritual alienation and the disintegration of family and commu- nity life. All industrial age cultures share this faith in scientism and hence share its social problems, but in American culture, Protestant teachingsgivematerialism(ironicallyenough)adistinctlyreligiousfer- vor; the moral and vocational responsibility of the individual, the disci- pline of work and saving, and the sanctity of private property clearly distinguish capitalism from socialism, and they are especially pro- nounced in American culture. Historian Bernard Wishy (1968, 20) has observedthat cthewillforrighteousnessandwillforsuccess...[a]com- plex play of moralism and materialism d have been strongly ingrained intotheAmericancharacter.Ibelievethatagenuineconcernforhuman potentials and their attainment must include a penetrating analysis of such a religiously sanctioned materialism.<br><br> What Are Schools For? 17 Finally, an unusual urgency is given to all these cultural themes be- cause they are so completely tied to national identity. Unlike European countries, in which national loyalty is inherited through deep-seated historical,mythical,religiousandartistictraditions,tobe cAmerican dis to overcome such given distinctions in order to identify oneself deliber- ately with a certain body of ideals: the American worldview, or as it has frequently been called, the cAmerican way of life. d ln the writings and speeches of early American leaders, a deeply felt conviction was ex- pressed again and again: This society was unique, absolutely different from all the his - toric societies.<br><br> Only here had the universal rights of man been translated into a living reality. (Arieli 1964, 78-79) This self-righteous nationalism has had positive as well as negative connotations.SinceEuropeansocietieswereconsideredtobecorrupted by tyranny of church and state, by poverty, ignorance, and superstition, emerging American nationalism was a secular restatement of the Protestant urge to create a holy commonwealth, a model society to in- spire the rest of the world. Early Americans, religious and rationalist both,wereexhilaratedbythesenseofbeingonthevergeofamonumen- tal human experiment.<br><br> Paine captured this feeling in Common Sense : We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth.Wehaveitinourpowertobegintheworldoveragain.(in Arieli 1964, 72) American nationalism has, ever since, had an aggressive, missionary tone. According to the American worldview, no other nation offers hu- manity a better example to follow. The negative meaning of nationalism, however, is a nagging insecu- rity.Othernationshaveancienttraditionsandtobeacitizenistohavea lifelongmotherlandandasecurenationalidentity.Americans,however, arepeoplewhohavesurrenderedtheirancestraltiestocometothenew world.Theyneedtoprovetheirloyaltytoasetofabstractideals.Seenin thislight,assertivenationalismisadefensivegesturetoreassureAmeri- cans that they do, indeed, belong to the national community.<br><br> Further- more, especially in the early years, the ideals themselves needed to be What Are Schools For? 18 proven;notsinceantiquityhadcitizensforgedasuccessfulrepublic.The Americanexperimentwasnotanassuredsuccess.Asaresultofthisinse - curity, American culture has generally mistrusted foreign cultures and periodically resorted to xenophobic crusades against immigrants and dissidents.Thishastakentheformoffederallaws,politicalparties,out - right violence, and the notorious Congressional cunAmerican activi - ties dinvestigations.And,ofcourse,educationhasbeenamajorweapon in these crusades. I would argue that these five themes 4 Puritan theology, scientific reductionism,restraineddemocraticideology,capitalism,andnational - ism 4 are defining characteristics of the common, middle class Ameri- can worldview, the cconsensus consciousness d through which most Americans interpret their experience of the world.<br><br> If there is a common thread which ties these themes together, it is the need for social disci- pline. Despite the emphasis on cliberty, d cfreedom, d cindependence, d and cindividualism d in the American myth, the dominant worldview actually does not trust the spontaneity and self-expressive creativity of theindividual.Theproperbeliefsandproperwaysofactingwhichlead tosocialandeconomicsuccessarepredominantlymoral,rational,entre- preneurial, and cprofessional d; in short, they impose rational discipline on the deeper, more impulsive, intuitive, mystical, and emotional as- pects of human nature. Certainlyallculturesimposedisciplineandadegreeofconformity;in many ways American culture is individualistic 4 even atomistic 4 in comparison to more traditional cultures.<br><br> But this individualism is al- most exclusively economic, competitive, and superficial. The issue here is American culture 9s pervasive mistrust of the deeper subjective facets of human experience. Specifically, American culture does not value the trulyspiritualelementofhumanlife.By cspiritual dImeanareceptivity to the more subtle, interior aspects of existence: a search for deeper meaningtoexistencethanisofferedbytheintellectorbysocialconven- tionalone.TheAmericanworldviewimposesamoralistic,materialistic, rational discipline on this inward receptivity; in this culture, the truly spiritualisdismissedas cmystical dand cromantic. dHolisticthinkingis an effort to regain this essential element of our being.<br><br> What Are Schools For? 19 Bibliography Aikin, Wilford M. 1942.<br><br> The Story of the Eight-Year Study . New York: Harper. Albanese, Catherine L.<br><br> 1977. Corresponding Motion: Transcendental Reli - gion and the New America . Philadelphia: Temple University.<br><br> Alcott, A. Bronson. 1938.<br><br> The Journals of Bronson Alcott . Edited by Odell Shepard. Boston: Little, Brown.<br><br> Alcott, A. Bronson. 1960.<br><br> Essays on Education by Amos Bronson Alcott . EditedbyWalterHarding.Gainesville,FL:Scholars 9Facsimiles&Re- prints. Alcott,A.Bronson.1972.<br><br> ConversationswithChildrenontheGospels (1836). New York: Arno/New York Times. Allender, Jerome S.<br><br> 1982. Affective Education. In Encyclopedia of Educa- tionalResearch (5thed.).EditedbyH.E.Mitzel.NewYork:FreePress.<br><br> Archdeacon,ThomasJ.1983. Becoming American: An Ethnic History .New York: Free Press. Arieli,Yehoshua.1964.<br><br> IndividualismandNationalisminAmericanIdeology . Cambridge: Harvard. Armstrong,Thomas.1985.<br><br> TheRadiantChild .Wheaton,IL:QuestBooks. Arons,Stephen.1983. CompellingBelief:TheCultureofAmericanSchooling .<br><br> New York: McGraw-Hill. Avrich,Paul.1980. TheModernSchoolMovement:AnarchismandEducation in the United States .<br><br> Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Barlow,ThomasA.1977. PestalozziandAmericanEducation .Boulder,CO: Este Es Press /University of Colorado.<br><br> Barnes,Henry.1980.AnIntroductiontoWaldorfEducation. TeachersCol- lege Record 81(3). Barr, Robert D.<br><br> 1981. Alternatives for the Eighties: ASecond Decade of Development. Phi Delta Kappan 62(8).<br><br> Barth,RolandS.1972. OpenEducationandtheAmericanSchool .NewYork: Agathon. Bateson, Gregory.<br><br> 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity . New York: Dutton.<br><br> Bereovitch, Saevan. 1975. The Puritan Origins of the American Self .<br><br> New Haven: Yale. Berman,Morris.1981. TheReenchantmentoftheWorld .Ithaca,NY:Cornell University Press.<br><br> Bernstein, Richard J. 1966. John Dewey .<br><br> New York: Washington Square Press. Bestor, Arthur. 1953.<br><br> Educational Wastelands . Urbana: University of Illi - nois Press. Bestor, Arthur.<br><br> 1955. The Restoration of Learning . New York: Knopf.<br><br> Bledstein,BurtonW.1976. The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class andtheDevelopmentofHigherEducationinAmerica .NewYork:Norton. Bode,Boyd.1927.<br><br> ModernEducationalTheories .NewYork:Macmillan;re- printed by Vintage Books. Bohm,David.1980. WholenessandtheImplicateOrder .London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.<br><br> Bourne, Randolph. 1965. The World of Randolph Bourne .<br><br> Edited by Lillian Schlissel. New York: Dutton. Bowers, C.<br><br> A. 1993a. Education, Cultural Myths, and the Ecological Crisis: Toward Deep Changes .<br><br> Albany: SUNY Press. Bowers,C.A.1993b.ImplicationsoftheEcologicalCrisisfortheReform of Teacher Education. In The Renewal of Meaning in Education: Re- sponses to the Cultural and Ecological Crisis of our Times , edited by R.<br><br> Miller. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press. Bowers, C.<br><br> A. 1995. Educating for an Ecologically Sustainable Culture: Re- thinking Moral Education, Creativity, Intelligence, and Other Modern Or- thodoxies .<br><br> Albany: SUNY Press. Bowers,C.A.,andDavidJ.Flinders.1990. ResponsiveTeaching:AnEcolog- ical Approach to Classroom Patterns of Language, Culture, and Thought .<br><br> New York: Teachers College Press. Brown,GeorgeIsaac.1971. HumanTeachingforHumanLearning:AnIntro- duction to Confluent Education .<br><br> New York: Viking. Butts,R.Freeman.1978. PublicEducationintheUnitedStates:FromRevolu- tion to Reform .<br><br> New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cajete,Gregory.1994. Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Edu- cation .<br><br> Durango, CO: Kivaki Press. Callahan,RaymondE.1962. Education and the Cult of Efficiency .Chicago: University of Chicago.<br><br> What Are Schools For? 220 Capra, Fritjof. 1976.<br><br> The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Be- tweenModernPhysicsandEasternMysticism .Boulder,CO:Shambhala. Capra,Fritjof.1982. TheTurningPoint:Science,Society,andtheRisingCul - ture .<br><br> New York: Simon & Schuster. Capra,Fritjof.1996. The Web of Life: ANew Scientific Understanding of Liv- ing Systems .<br><br> New York: Anchor/ Doubleday. Carbone, Peter F., Jr. 1977.<br><br> The Social and Educational Thought of Harold Rugg . Durham, NC: Duke University. Channing, William Ellery.<br><br> 1900. Works . Boston: American Unitarian As - sociation.<br><br> Channing, William Henry. 1880. Life of William Ellery Channing .<br><br> Boston: American Unitarian Association. Church, Robert L., and Michael Sedlak. 1976.<br><br> Education in the United States . New York: Free Press. Clark, Edward T., Jr.<br><br> 1988. The Search for a New Educational Paradigm: The Implications of New Assumptions About Thinking and Learning. Holistic Education Review 1(1): 18-30.<br><br> Clinchy, Evans (ed.). 1997. Transforming Public Education: A New Course for America 9s Future .<br><br> New York: Teachers College Press. Corn, Sandra. 1986, September 15.<br><br> Education 9s Failure Stirs Small Busi- ness Ire. Crain 9s Chicago Business. Cott, Nancy F.<br><br> 1977. The Bonds of Womanhood: cWomen 9s Sphere d in New England 1780-1835. New Haven: Yale.<br><br> Counts, George S. 1930. The American Road to Culture .<br><br> New York: Day. Counts, George S. 1932.<br><br> Dare the School Build a New Social Order? New York: Day. Cremin, Lawrence.<br><br> 1961. The Transformation of the School . New York: Knopf.<br><br> Cronin, Joseph M. 1973. The Control of Urban Schools .<br><br> New York: Free Press. Curti, Merle. 1968.<br><br> The Social Ideas of American Educators (1935). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Dahlstrand, Frederick C.<br><br> 1982. Amos Bronson Alcott: An Intellectual Biog- raphy . East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses.<br><br> Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1994.<br><br> For the Common Good: Redi- recting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustain- able Future , 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press. DelPrete,Thomas.1990.<br><br> ThomasMertonandtheEducationoftheWholePer- son . Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press. What Are Schools For?<br><br> 221 Dennison, George. 1969. The Lives of Children: The Story of the First Street School .<br><br> New York: Random House. Dewey, John. 1938.<br><br> Experience and Education . New York: Macmillan. Dewey, John.<br><br> 1939. Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey 9s Philoso - phy . Edited by Joseph Ratner.<br><br> New York: Random House. Dewey,John.1940. Education Today .EditedbyJosephRatner.NewYork: Putnam.<br><br> Dewey,John.1957. HumanNatureandConduct (1922).NewYork:Modern Library. Dewey, John.<br><br> 1966a. Democracy and Education (1916). New York: Free Press.<br><br> Dewey, John. 1966b. Lectures in the Philosophy of Education (1899).<br><br> Edited by Reginald D. Archambault. New York: Random House.<br><br> Doll, William E., Jr. 1993. A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum .<br><br> New York: Teachers College Press. Dorrance, Christopher A. (Ed.).<br><br> 1982. Reflections for a Friends Education . Philadelphia: Friends Council on Education.<br><br> Downs, Robert B. 1975. Heinrich Pestalozzi: Father of Modern Pedagogy .<br><br> Boston: Twayne/G. K. Hall.<br><br> Downs, Robert B. 1978. Friedrich Froebel .<br><br> Boston: Twayne/G. K. Hall.<br><br> Duberman,Martin(Ed.).1965. The Anti-Slavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.<br><br> Edwards, Newton, and Herman Richey. 1963. The School in the American Social Order (2nd ed.).<br><br> Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Eisler, Riane. 1987.<br><br> The Chalice and the Blade . New York: Harper & Row. Elkins, Stanley M.<br><br> 1968. Slavery (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chi- cago.<br><br> Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 1965. Selected Writings Edited by William H.<br><br> Gilman. New York: New American Library. Faler, Paul G.<br><br> 1981. Mechanics and Manufacturers in the Early Industrial Revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts 1780-1860. Albany: SUNY Press.<br><br> Farenga, Patrick. 1995. Unschooling 2000.<br><br> In Educational Freedom for a Democratic Society: A Critique of National Educational Goals, Standards, and Curriculum . Edited by Ron Miller. Brandon, VT: Resource Center for Redesigning Education.<br><br> Featherstone, Joseph. 1967. Schools Where Children Learn .<br><br> New York: Liveright. Ferrer, Francisco. 1913.<br><br> The Origin and Ideals of the Modern School . Trans- lated by Joseph McCabe. New York: Putnam.<br><br> What Are Schools For? 222 Finser, Torin M. 1994.<br><br> School as a Journey: The Eight-Year Odyssey of a Wal- dorf Teacher and His Class . Hudson, NY. Anthroposophic Press.<br><br> Fox, Matthew. 1983. Original Blessing .<br><br> Santa Fe, NM: Bear. Fox, Matthew. 1988.<br><br> The Coming of the Cosmic Christ . San Francisco: Harper & Row. Fox, Matthew.<br><br> 1991. Creation Spirituality: Liberating Gifts for the Peoples of the Earth . New York: HarperCollins.<br><br> Froebel,Friedrich.1893. TheEducationofMan (1826).TranslatedbyW.N. Hailmann.<br><br> New York: Appleton. Gang,PhilipS.1988.HolisticEducationforaNewAge. HolisticEducation Review 1(1): 13-17.<br><br> Gang,PhilipS.1990.OurChallenge. HolisticEducationReview 3(4):54-56. Gardner, Howard.<br><br> 1984. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences . New York: Basic Books.<br><br> GATE (Global Alliance for Transforming Education). 1991. Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective .<br><br> Atlanta, GA: Author. Gatto, John Taylor. 1992.<br><br> Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling . Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. Geertz, Clifford.<br><br> 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books.<br><br> Geiger, George R. 1958. John Dewey in Perspective .<br><br> New York: Oxford. Glenn, Charles Leslie, Jr. 1988.<br><br> The Myth of the Common School . Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Gold, Martin, and David W.<br><br> Mann. 1984. Expelled to a Friendlier Place: A Study of Effective Alternative Schools.<br><br> Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan. Goldman, Eric. F.<br><br> 1966. Rendezvous With Destiny: A History of Modern American Reform (1952). New York: Knopf.<br><br> Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Literacy .<br><br> New York: Bantam Books. Gordon, Thomas. 1989.<br><br> Teaching Children Self-Discipline: At Home and at School . New York: Times Books. Graham,PatriciaAlbjerg.1967.<br><br> ProgressiveEducation:FromArcadytoAca- deme . New York: Teachers College Press. Graubard, Allen.<br><br> 1974. Free the Children . New York: Vintage.<br><br> Greene,Maxine.1965. The Public School and the Private Vision .NewYork: Random House. Greene, Maxine.<br><br> 1997. Art and Imagination: Reclaiming a Sense of the Possible. In Transforming Public Education: A New Course for America 9s Future .<br><br> Edited by Evans Clinchy. New York: Teachers College Press. What Are Schools For?<br><br> 223 Griffin, Clifford S. 1960. Their Brothers 9 Keepers: Moral Stewardship in the United States 1800-1865.<br><br> New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Griffin, Clifford S. 1967.<br><br> The Ferment of Reform . New York: Crowell. Griffin, David Ray.<br><br> 1992. Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. In Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transi - tion to a Postmodern World by David W.<br><br> Orr. Albany: SUNY Press. Gutek, Gerald Lee.<br><br> 1970. The Educational Theory of George S. Counts .<br><br> Co - lumbus: Ohio State University. Gutek, Gerald Lee. 1978.<br><br> Joseph Neef: The Americanization of Pestalozzianism . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Gutman,Herbert.1976.<br><br> Work,CultureandSocietyinIndustrializingAmer - ica . New York: Knopf. Handy,RobertT.1984.<br><br> AChristianAmerica:ProtestantHopesandHistorical Realities (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford. Harding, Walter.<br><br> 1982. The Days of Henry Thoreau (1965). New York: Do- ver.<br><br> Harris, Anastas (Ed.). 1980a. Mind: Evolution or Revolution?<br><br> The Emer- genceofHolisticEducation .DelMar,CA:HolisticEducationNetwork. Harris, Anastas (Ed.). 1980b.<br><br> Holistic Education: Education for Living . Del Mar, CA: Holistic Education Network. Hartz, Louis.<br><br> 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.<br><br> Harwood,A.C.1958. TheRecoveryofManinChildhood:AStudyintheEdu- cational Work of Rudolf Steiner . Spring Valley, NJ: Anthroposophic Press.<br><br> Henry, Mary E. 1993. School Cultures: Universes of Meaning in Private Schools .<br><br> Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Herndon, James. 1969.<br><br> The Way it Spozed to Be. New York: Bantam. Herndon,James.1971.<br><br> How to Survive in Your Native Land .NewYork:Si- mon & Schuster. Higham, John. 1970.<br><br> Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism (1955). New York: Atheneum. Hofstadter, Richard.<br><br> 1955a. The Age of Reform . New York: Vintage.<br><br> Hofstadter, Richard. 1955b. Social Darwinism in American Thought .<br><br> Boston: Beacon Press. Holt, John. 1964.<br><br> How Children Fail . New York: Pitman. Holt, John.<br><br> 1972. Freedom and Beyond . New York: Dell.<br><br> What Are Schools For? 224 Howe, Harold II. 1997.<br><br> Uncle Sam is in the Classroom! In Transforming Public Education: A New Course for America 9s Future . Edited by Evans Clinchy.<br><br> New York: Teachers College Press. Hugins, Walter (Ed.). 1972.<br><br> The Reform Impulse, 1825-1850. New York: Harper & Row. Illich, Ivan.<br><br> 1970. Deschooling Society . New York: Harper & Row.<br><br> Jones,MaldwynAllen.1960. American Immigration .Chicago:University of Chicago. Jones,RufusM.1931.<br><br> PathwaystotheRealityofGod .NewYork:Macmillan Kaestle, Carl F. 1983. Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society 1780-1860.<br><br> New York: Hill & Wang. Kallen, Horace M. 1949.<br><br> The Education of Free Men . New York: Farrar, Straus. Kandel, I.<br><br> L. 1943. The Cult of Uncertainty .<br><br> New York: Macmillan. Kane, Jeffrey. 1993.<br><br> Toward Living Knowledge: A Waldorf Perspective. In The Renewal of Meaning in Education: Responses to the Cultural and EcologicalCrisisofourTimes ,editedbyRonMiller.Brandon,VT:Holis- tic Education Press. Kane,Jeffrey.1995.EducationalReformandtheDangersofTriumphant Rhetoric.<br><br> In Educational Freedom for a Democratic Society: A Critique of National Educational Goals, Standards, and Curriculum , edited by Ron Miller. Brandon, VT: Resource Center for Redesigning Education. Karier, Clarence J.<br><br> 1986. The Individual, Society, and Education (2nd ed.). Urbana, University of Illinois Press.<br><br> Karier, Clarence J., Paul C. Violas, and Joel Spring. 1973.<br><br> Roots of Crisis: AmericanEducationintheTwentiethCentury .Chicago:RandMcNally. Katz, Michael. 1968.<br><br> The Irony of Early School Reform . Cambridge: Har- vard. Kessler, Shelley.<br><br> 1991. The Teaching Presence. Holistic Education Review 4(4): 4-15.<br><br> Kestenbaum,Victor.1977. ThePhenomenologicalSenseofJohnDewey:Habit and Meaning . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.<br><br> Kliebard, Herbert M. 1986. The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958.<br><br> Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kohl,Herbert.1969. TheOpenClassroom:APracticalGuidetoaNewWayof Teaching .<br><br> New York: New York Review. Kozol,Jonathan.1967. DeathatanEarlyAge .Boston:HoughtonMifflin.<br><br> Kozol, Jonathan. 1972. Free Schools .<br><br> Boston: Houghton Mifflin. What Are Schools For? 225 Kozol, Jonathan.<br><br> 1975. The Night is Dark and I am Far From Home . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.<br><br> Kramer, Rita. 1976. Maria Montessori: A Biography .<br><br> New York: Putnam. Krishnamurti. 1953/1981.<br><br> Education & the Significance of Life . San Fran - cisco: HarperSan Francisco. Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe.<br><br> 1989. The Plural Worlds of Educational Re - search. History of Education Quarterly 29(2): 185-214.<br><br> Lasch, Christopher. 1965. The New Radicalism in America 1889-1963: The Intellectual as a Social Type .<br><br> New York: Knopf. Laszlo, Ervin. 1993.<br><br> The Creative Cosmos: A United Science of Matter, Life, and Mind . Edinburgh, U.K.: Floris Books. Lazerson, Marvin.<br><br> 1971. Origins of the Urban School: Public Education in Massachusetts 1870-1915 . Cambridge: Harvard.<br><br> Lemkow,AnnaF.1990. The Wholeness Principle: Dynamics of Unity Within Science, Religion and Society. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.<br><br> Leonard, George B. 1968. Education and Ecstasy .<br><br> New York: Delacorte. Lerner, Michael. 1996.<br><br> The Politics of Meaning . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Link, Arthur S., and Richard L.<br><br> McCormick. 1983. Progressivism .<br><br> Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. Lynd,Albert.1953. QuackeryinthePublicSchools .Boston:Little,Brown.<br><br> Mahdi,LouiseCarus,StevenFoster,andMeredithLittle(Eds.).1987. Be- twixt & Between: Patterns of Masculine and Feminine Initiation . LaSalle, IL: Open Court.<br><br> Mahdi, Louise Carus, Nancy Geyer Christopher, and Michael Meade (Eds.). 1996. Crossroads: The Quest for Contemporary Rites of Passage.<br><br> LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Mander,Jerry.1991.IntheAbsenceoftheSacred: TheFailureofTechnology &theSurvivaloftheIndianNations .SanFrancisco:SierraClubBooks. McDermott, Robert A.<br><br> (Ed.). 1984. The Essential Steiner: Basic Writings of Rudolf Steiner .<br><br> San Francisco: Harper & Row. McCluskey,NeilG.1958. PublicSchoolsandMoralEducation:TheInfluence of Mann, Harris, and Dewey .<br><br> New York: Columbia University. McCuskey, Dorothy. 1969.<br><br> Bronson Alcott: Teacher (1940). New York: Arno/New York Times. Mendelsohn, Jack.<br><br> 1971. Channing: The Reluctant Radical . Boston: Little, Brown.<br><br> Merchant,Carolyn.1980. TheDeathofNature:Women,EcologyandtheSci- entific Revolution . New York: Harper & Row.<br><br> What Are Schools For? 226 Messerli, Jonathan. 1972.<br><br> Horace Mann . New York: Knopf. Metzger, Milton, and Walt<br><br>

less