Blog #3 1900-1950 As American as Public School Refection

    Part two of the text goes over some of the finer details of the development of education. There are many exciting details in this chapter, so much so that I didn't notice them all in my first reading. It'll be challenging to reflect on the many nuances I saw in the section, but I'll go over some of the main ones. This section shows how the purpose of education is heavily debated, how it handled diverse students, and how IQ testing was made prevalent.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, the skill of teaching was still in its infancy. Schooling was usually was only for five to eight years. Most schools were still in poor condition and had simplistic curriculum; as a result, most children preferred working in factories. Initiatives like the "Gary Plan" significantly changed this format; it introduced moving classrooms, diverse subjects, hygiene standards, and home manners. The idea was to focus on the "whole child" and their development as people; it went against the traditional focus on curriculum and teachers. This would mark the beginning of the debate between making students into well-rounded citizens or specialized workers. I find this debate interesting because it's still a contentious issue. "Does a bricklayer really need to know Shakespear" is a quote that some might easily say today. In my experience, I've seen students in high school completely ignore their learnings so they can focus on other activities such as a job or helping with their family. It's the same exact issues mentioned in the text. These issues seem to be inherently come from what our education is. 

Students Doing the Pledge of Allegiance

    "Americanization" has been a big topic so far, and it's prevalent in this chapter. It's both a unifying force and a destructive one. It's evident that many of those who inforced it had malicious intentions to wipe the cultures of those that seemed undesirable or even barbaric. But, it was still a unifying force that brought together every nationality in the world to be able to peacefully talk to each other. I understand some of my group's hostility towards it. I think this hatred of it comes from how one interprets the meaning of being American. I relate to the author having sympathetic feelings over it, as stated at the beginning of the chapter. As a Chinese, Puerto Rican, American (that's a handful to say), I don't think I'd exist in any other country in the world. In a way, I consider myself to be a part of the infamous "melting pot".

    I found the education system's tendency to categorize students in this section to be very enlightening. There's merit in getting every student onto their own track, but it has also been very destructive. Such a view attempts to stop students from being left out, but it generates another issue. What happens if you put the student on the wrong path. There is no definitive science of what a person can be; this often prevents students from seeing their potential. All it does is form a way of indirectly segregating students. This is seen in the text in IQ testing, causing flawed assumptions for Mexicans, Native Americans, and African Americans. I related heavily to Julian Nava's story of having to fight your way to better education. In high school, I was heavily barred away from AP classes because I didn't have the best SAT scores. I had both advisors and teachers discourage me, but I still went for it. I ended up doing better than some of the honors students who took it. I despise the idea of categorizing students on very illogical merits. 

    To end off this discussion, I had a very interesting group discussion this time. We had similar opinions, but the slight differences between us made me look at the section differently.