The+One+Best+System+Part+IV


 * Return to Reading Response and Discussion

The One Best System: Part IV**

The men and women that sought centralization in the education system wanted a change in the way decision making was done. In the late 1800's there were several board members (ward boards) and by the early 1900's, they diminished to seven board members that consisted of successful business men with the superintendent making the decisions. (1)Business and professional men turned to universities to get the expertise on further centralizing education. University presidents and professors were able to speak for educational reform without fear of losing their jobs. Educational societies met yearly through the Public Education Associations in different cities to share "reform strategies" and hear results on school reorganization. The corporate administrative model was used to shape the educational administration using less politics and people to make the decisions. Superintendents were the managers of what was taught and over seeing most aspects of the ongoings in the schools with the school board having less duties to perform. (2)The educated and successful people are the ones that supported the centralization idea. The people that opposed a structural reform were the ones in politics or had a stake in how the system was already being run. (3)Although centralization was to take politics out of the education area, in the earlier part of the 1900's politics crept back in because there was not a perfect plan to stop this from occurring. The people who supported reform still believed that by placing successful people on school boards and in the superintendent position would keep the politics out of the schools, but mayors and citizens were influenced by the public when electing and appointing the educational positions. One superintendent helped to get a governor elected, and mayors were appointing school boards where ethnicity and religion were balanced. This allowed political bias to still be a part of the educational system which also allowed corruption and unstability within.
 * Summary:**
 * In New York, changes began in 1896. A Committee of 100 was organized to gain support in the city and legislature of a bill that would help with centralization. The Committee was made up of non partisan, successful people. The bill would end ward boards and give decision making to the superintendent and board. Laymen and teachers were not supportive of the bill since accusations were made that education in the city was poor. A journalist visited the schools and found the remark untrue. In 1896 the mayor signed the bill, and in April the ward boards were abolished.
 * In 1891 Philadelphia, the reorganization bill was not approved. Unlike New York, some teachers supported the bill. Teachers were portrayed as victims rather than part of the corruption. In the passing of the bill in 1905 by the legislature, nearly all the powers of ward boards were abolished, and the central board was cut in half. A judge appointed the members from throughout the city.
 * In St Louis a charter was passed in 1897 that described an oath that had to be taken, strict eligibility criteria, and a code of conduct for school board members. The purpose for centralizing education was not just to get good men into office, but to keep bad men from causing harm. The reforms that took place was to give the superindent more power.
 * In San Francisco, it was not the government that had a choice in reform, but it was the voters in the city that decided the outcome for amendments to the charters. In 1898 a new charter was ratified that the schools would be run by an elected superintendent and the mayor would appoint four directors to run the school and each would be paid $3000 a year. In 1920, Amendment 37 was passed that abolished the board pay and the superintendent being elected.


 * Key Passages:**

They planned to delegate almost total administrative power to an expert superintendent and his staff so that they could reshape the schools to fit the new economic and social conditions of an urban-industrialized society. p.126

One cannot expect reform of urban education from the men and women who presently serve as board members or employees, [Andrew S. Draper] argued; "any advance...will have to come from outside the schools: it is more than likely to have to be made in spite of the opposition of the schools. The school boards are jealous of prerogatives; the teachers are apprehensive...The leaders of the intellectual life of the city will have to evolve a plan; and the masses will have to be educated to its support." p.130

[The administrative progressives in urban education] wanted to seal the city schools off from "political" forces by remodeling them on the business corporationin which supposedly influence entered at the top and percolated down rather than slipping in through holes in the sides of the organization. Once the system was thus shielded, they thought, it would be possible to pin down responsibility within the organization and to give professionals autonomy within their individual spheres. p.167

"With centralization and the corporate model in large cities came the growth of vast and layered bureacracies of specifications of a new "science" of education, Byzantine organization charts, tens of thousands of incumbents protected by tenure, and many people within the city bewildered about how to influence the behemoth that had promised accountability." p176"

"Toulmin Smith could define "centralization" as "that system of government under which the smallest number of minds, and those knowing the least, and having the fewest opportunities of knowing it...and having the smallest interest in its well-working, have the managment over it." p143

//consolidation-// Tyack talked about the "age of consolidation" and how at this time (late 1800's to early 1900's) places of industry and religion were combining their smaller groups into one large organization to be watched over by one executive head, so it only made sense to the people of this time to do the same when it came to school administration.
 * Important Terminology:**

//class distinction//- A member of Butler's groups term for what an opponent of centralization calling advocates "aristocrates and theorists,without any intimate knowledge of our public school system" p150

//bureaucracy//- a negative label progressives used to put on aspects of the educational system they wanted to change. Similarly used by Thomas Carlyle. p167

//Bureaucrat//-Thomas Carlyle's term for people "tied up in heir own red tape, eager to avoid responsibilty, preoccupied with preserving their own position or power, or so constricted by rules tht they could not exercise their professional judgement. p168

"//administrative progressives//"- The name Tyack gives to those during the late 1800's, and early 1900's who sought to centralize the decision making power over the urban schools. p 127

//centralization//- Tyack discusses this process where the power distribution of decision making for schools was given to only a few men, as oppose to a decentralized society where representatives from several wards were able to help in decision making. Centralization was supported primarily by the upper class.

ward- Tyack describes how ward control of education, in which several different members of cities and towns served a purpose in administering education had slowly diminished due to centralization. Ward control was soon thought of as "primitive". P143

If enough people get together for a specific purpose will their voices be heard and demands be met?/Are we able to create a movement in today's society and make a difference?
 * Discussion Guiding Questions:**

Do politics have a benefical role in education today or do they hurt our education system?

Is there too much power in anyone's hands in our educational system?