'The Book' - Blog 3

Hello my Fellow Classmates,

Chapter 1 continued...

We left off when everyone was pointing the finger at everyone else in order to place the blame for why society was plagued by failed liberal / educational reforms. The war on poverty had failed, the poor were getting poorer and education was not the answer. The reforms that existed were now band-aid remedies, which could explain why, as mentioned in the previous blog, there was a strong feeling of pessimism within the intellectual and political circles at the time. From this situation there were two camps of people who were actually optimists. The first group believed that the old methods that were relied on could still work, and the 1960's was just a quirk. The 'old methods' that I think the authors were referring to here, came from the eternal optimism that was created after W.W. II. Now this is just a thought on my part, but from what I have learned the climate just after the war around 1945 to the early 1960's was one of pure optimism. The war was over, the creation of suburbia was born, the baby boom started and all was 'swell.' A great example of the decadence of the time I think is the T.V. series Mad Men. It is currently in its third season on A.M.C.

The second camp of optimists were a group of individuals who understood what was going on, but inherently believed that things would get better. The authors at this point became aware that education played a role in economic life. They then go into arguments for concrete evidence as to why the liberal reforms were not working. One of their main arguments that liberal / education reforms were not working was that despite the fact there was an increase in college enrollments, the reason for this was not because racism had been conquered or society had changed. The authors felt they knew this because the chance that a high school graduate attended college, at the time the book was written, was still just as dependent on their parents socio-economic status as it was 30 years ago. Now that is depressing if that is true.

The authors also wanted to make it clear that they did not believe in the theory of I.Q. and its connection to poverty. This lends itself to what we discussed in class regards to why is G.P.A. such a huge requirement to get into the faculty. I have heard from more than one source that G.P.A. does not necessarily mean one will become a great teacher. One would have to question at this point if some of these ideals from the past have filtered down to the very policies we are dealing with today. At the time of all these failed reforms the free school movement was joining the discussion as to why all of these reforms were failing. There was a consensus that there was a problem but the authors state that the free school movement was not focused on the social logic behind the issue.

There is a shift that occurs in the book at this point, that explains the'social logic' mentioned in the previous sentence. This is where the authors get into the following idea: The guiding force behind socialization in schools was actually due to the fact that schools were preparing students for the labour force. So as was stated in the previous blogs, education reforms were not working, the school system could not cope with the social ills that had been occurring.

The following has been mentioned that I feel it is the main argument of the book:

This whole book is looking at how can we best understand the relationship that must exist between the education system and capitalism...and how does that effect the education system?

Educational reforms have failed to correct these social inequalities and the authors believe that society must turn to economic reforms.

To be continued ...