Education Reform Movements

The following article summarizes the major periods of reform in American education. Although each period of reform—the Common School Movement, the Progressive Reform Era, the Equity Movement, and the Standards-Based Reform movement—are all distinct from one another, educational reform in general shares some common characteristics. These common characteristics are discussed first, especially as they help explain the cyclical and persistent nature of reform.

Keywords Administrative progressivism; Child-centered progressivism; Committee of Ten; Common School Movement; Dewey, John; Equity Reform Movement; Intensification; Progressive Reform Movement; Restructuring; Standards-Based Reform Movement

History of Education > Education Reform Movements

Overview

Ironically, one of the most enduring characteristics of American education is the attempt to change it. In other words, educational reform has as long a history as education itself.

Historian Diane Ravitch (2000) writes, "it is impossible to find a period in the twentieth century in which education reformers, parents, and the citizenry were satisfied with the schools" (p. 13). While each period of reform has distinct characteristics, common elements and patterns have emerged as well (Capone & Hulett, 2021). Before reviewing the specific periods of reform, educational reform in general is reviewed in order to better understand its cyclical and persistent nature.

Researchers and historians argue that one of the main reasons educational reform has become cyclical in nature is because reformers themselves lack a historical perspective. Hunt (2005) writes, "unfortunately, education reforms have consistently been plagued by the reformers' lack of knowledge and appreciation of the history of education" (p. 84). New reforms are doomed to fail, he argues, because they ignore the collective wisdom of generations past. Although specific examples of reoccurring reform proposals are too numerous to cite, Warren (1990) offers career ladders as a prototype; late twentieth century proposals to reward teachers based on merit, he argues, ignore the lessons to be learned from the "various types of merit salary schedules that have been adopted and subsequently discarded in school districts across the country for more than a century" (p. 59).

Another reason education reform has persisted over the years is because educators, policymakers, and parents have very different views about education—its purpose, the people it is intended to serve, and the means by which they are best served. As Horn (2002) argues, even changes that appear superficial—such as incorporating accountability measures or implementing a new teaching strategy—are representative of deep ideological and philosophical differences. Because different stakeholders have different ideas about the purpose of education, reform initiatives are often viewed as power struggles. "Educational reform is inherently political" and as power shifts from one group to another, educational practice and theory so follows (Horn, 2002, p. 5). This political aspect of education reform was still prevalent in the early twenty-first century. The Washington Post author Perry Bacon noted in March 2023 that education reform was dying, allowing real transformation to begin, because President Biden was the first president in many years who did not approach education as though it needed fixing. Bacon cited this approach as the catalyst of change allowing a shift from test score obsession to an "education system that values learning, creativity, integration and citizenship" (Bacon, 2023).

Unfairly or not, schools are often viewed as a vehicle through which to cure social ills or respond to new social challenges. As a result, "educational reform is [never] solely about education" (Horn, 202, p. 3). Throughout history, schools have been shaped to assimilate immigrants, prepare students for the workforce, redistribute wealth, and help the United States compete in a global economy. Even the very first schools were designed as much to create a sense of national unity as they were to develop the nation's intellect. In sum, "typically, we have thought of schools as means to other ends" (Warren, 1990, p. 77). As society and its needs changed, schools changed as well.

Competing interests, unwillingness to learn from the past, and larger societal changes help explain why educational reform has been a significant part of the history of education in America, but the tendency for reform initiatives to fail lends insight as well. As old reforms die out with little substantial change, new reforms are offered in their place. Various explanations have been offered for reform failure, one of the most frequent being impatience on the part of reformers and the public—or, put differently, America's need for immediate gratification (Horn, 2002; Hunt, 2005). Reforms simply do not have enough time to come to fruition. Hunt (2002) also argues that many educational reforms fail because they address social problems that do not easily lend themselves to solutions offered by the scientific process (p. 20).

Schools have arguably received an unfair amount of criticism, with criticism of failed reform efforts piled on top of criticism of the schools themselves. Pogrow (1996) and others have come to their defense, arguing that systemic reform is never easily achieved, and educational reform has been at least as successful as reform in other types of complex systems. Similarly, Paris (2020) suggests that reform fails because too much is asked of schools. He writes, "our constant crises may simply indicate that we have high and perhaps unrealistic expectations about what schools can and should do" (p. 10). Given all that we expect, he continues, one should not be surprised by our continual frustration.

Periods of Educational Reform

Educational historians classify reform movements in the United States differently. Some focus on reform in relation to curriculum development specifically, for example, while others analyze reform in relation to diversity and equity (Parkerson & Parkerson, 2001; Paris, 2020). Still others focus on the role of the government in relation to reform, looking at educational change through the lens of power and control (Horn, 2002). Nevertheless, many historians agree that educational reform in the United States can be defined according to four major periods of reform.

The Common School Movement

The Common School Movement took place in the early to mid-nineteenth century, and although its impact varied somewhat from region to region, it is considered the first nationwide educational reform initiative (Warren, 1990). Prior to the Revolutionary War, colonists were participating in their own diverse educational initiatives. Even after the nation was formed, schooling varied tremendously based on community support and resources. By the early 1800s, Americans recognized the need for a more uniform educational system.

Although Americans were beginning to reach a consensus regarding the need for a common school, their motivations often differed. Some advocates argued that the formation of a common school was necessary to preserve the new republic. Thomas Jefferson wrote, for example, "universal education was 'necessary' in 'rendering the people...guardians of their own liberty'" (cited in Parkerson & Parkerson, 2001, p. 8). Similarly, others argued that education was necessary for responsible citizenship, particularly with respect to the vote. On the other hand, some common school advocates saw education not as protection against a tyrannical government, but as protection against the selfishness of man. They believed education would reduce crime, prevent 'anarchy of the masses' and create more peaceful communities (Parkerson & Parkerson, 2001).

The founders of the nation had lofty goals for the common school, and while the everyday American may have appreciated their vision, economic changes made the issue of public education most relevant for them. In the early nineteenth century, America became a market economy; while the changes presented great opportunity for advancement, they also presented equal opportunity for failure and loss of social, occupational, and economic status. As a result, individuals began looking to schools as an economic safety net, and a potential vehicle for upward mobility (Parkerson & Parkerson, 2001).

Early Americans may have had the motivation for universal schooling before they had the means. As Warren (1990) writes, "with regard to education, the federal Constitution was silent, and no national agency or congressional committee existed to provide educational leadership" (p. 64). Amazingly, the reform initiative spread through informal networks, and created a surprising amount of consensus regarding issues such as curriculum, teacher competency and preparation, school architecture, and measures of achievement. Of all the major periods of reform, perhaps the Common School Movement was the most successful. By the mid to late 1800s, most children in the north were attending school, while attendance in the south lagged only slightly. The movement was also important for establishing a link between education and citizenship, and for introducing the notion of inclusive education, available to all regardless of race, gender, religion, or social class (Warren, 1990).

The Progressive Education Era

The Civil War and subsequent reconstruction spurred educational reform initiatives (Warren, 1990), but historians generally identify the early twentieth century as the next significant period of educational reform. Known as the Progressive Era, the years between 1880 and 1930 were characterized by widespread reform, not just in relation to education, but also regarding labor, safety and health, and basic citizenship. Immigration, the growth of U.S. cities, and the shift from an agrarian-based society to an industrial one, all contributed to dramatic changes in American society, and as a result, the call for change.

In the wake of all these changes, policymakers and educators were debating the purpose of schooling. The Committee of Ten, sponsored by the National Education Association in 1893, represented what some refer to as the humanist viewpoint (Horn, 2002). They recommended a traditional liberal curriculum - instruction in the core subjects such as classics, mathematics, science, and history—for all students, regardless of whether the student intended to pursue higher education. One humanist referred to the core subjects as "windows of the soul" and argued that occupational decisions should be deferred until after graduation (as quoted in Horn, 2002, p. 33). Others however, and most especially businessmen and the politicians who represented them, believed students should be trained for their future occupation. They advocated a differentiated curriculum and vocational education.

By the early twentieth century, the humanists were losing ground. The National Education Association again convened a committee, but this committee was charged with developing a more relevant high school curriculum. As Horn (2002) argues, "this was the first time that school curriculum became the means through which nonacademic goals were to be attained" (p. 35). The committee proposed a curriculum based on "The Seven Cardinal Principles," which emphasized health, family relationships, citizenship, and vocation over academic instruction.

The debate described above was playing out simultaneously in a different arena - not only in the public school classroom, but the halls of the academy as well. John Dewey, arguably the most widely recognized educational philosopher and reformer of the twentieth century, advocated what has since become known as child-centered progressivism. Dewey believed the curriculum should be directed in part by the interests of the child, education should serve the whole child (e.g., her emotional, physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual development), and that students learn by doing (Labaree, 2005). He also believed education could help eradicate social and racial inequity. At the same time, however, a second strand of progressivism—administrative progressivism—was gaining popularity through the work of Edward L. Thorndike. Based largely on principles of social efficiency and scientific management of schools, administrative progressivism led to practices such as tracking, achievement testing, bureaucratization of schools, and vocational education (Warren, 1990). As one historian argues, "one cannot understand the history of education in the United States ...unless one realizes that Edward L. Thorndike won and John Dewey lost" (as quoted in Labaree, 2005, p. 280).

Thorndike may have eventually won the war, but both 'sides' won many different battles along the way. A backlash against child-centered progressivism known as the Essentialist Movement emerged in the 1920s, calling for higher student expectations, more discipline, and more evaluation of achievement. In the 1930s, the Progressive Education Association declared victory with the publication of the Eight Year Study, proving that children educated in non-traditional environments did as well as, if not better, than their traditionally schooled counterparts on almost all academic measures (Feldman & Watson, 2003). By the beginning of WWII, reformers were calling for a Life Adjustment curriculum, once again advocating a nonacademic agenda. Despite the many twists and turns of educational reform, the next significant call for change did not occur until the late 1950s and 1960s.

The Equity Reform Movement

In 1957, the Russians beat Americans into space with the launching of the space satellite Sputnik; Americans interpreted this event as a sign of the nation's declining competitive edge, and as in times past, turned to the schools for a solution. Educators and policymakers criticized progressives for making students 'soft,' and rallied for a back-to-basics movement, with an emphasis on science and math. While certainly a memorable event, Sputnik nevertheless did not spawn a lengthy reform movement. Ravitch (2000) explains, "In 1963 and 1964, the post-Sputnik enthusiasm for academic improvement abruptly ended, replaced as the leading national topic by the 'urban crisis'" (p. 383). The 'urban crisis' was largely about providing equal educational opportunities for minority students, and so the reform emphasis shifted quickly from excellence to equity.

Momentum for the equity movement began to build with the 1954 Supreme Court decision, 'Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.' In this landmark decision, the Court ruled that segregated schools—also known as "separate but equal" schooling for Black and White children—were inherently discriminatory. The equity movement got another boost in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act; in addition to empowering minorities with voting and employment rights, the Civil Rights Act gave the government the power to withhold federal funds from schools who failed to comply with desegregation laws (Horn, 2002). Finally, as another example of the expanding role of the federal government regarding educational reform, the 1960s saw the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Part of President Johnson's larger "War on Poverty," ESEA attempted to eradicate social inequity for providing equal educational opportunity for minority and disadvantaged students; Head Start is one of the most widely recognized outgrowths of ESEA.

As with most reform initiatives, the efforts of the 1960s had its critics as well as its proponents. Those who argued against programs such as Head Start—also known as compensatory education programs—argued that they were modeled on a deficit view of minorities that regarded all differences—cultural, linguistic, cognitive, and behavioral—"as pathological conditions to be eliminated" (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006, p. 69). Others claimed such programs simply did not work. In 1996, James Coleman published a report—later known as the Coleman report—which stated student achievement was in no way related to the quality of academic facilities or curriculum. Compensatory education programs, therefore, could not correct student deficits. The report itself was then used to support divergent agendas; some saw it as evidence that differences in achievement were due to innate differences in intelligence, while others saw it as evidence that disadvantaged children needed access to the same cultural capital as White middle-class children. The latter argument was used to support busing programs, one of the many ways in which districts have attempted to integrate over the past several decades.

According to Ravitch (2000), reformers' dissatisfaction with inequity in the school system resulted in "a rejection of virtually all manifestations of formal education...In the age of counterculture and the student revolution, the answer to most problems was freedom" (p. 391). Freedom manifested itself in practices such as the open classroom, increased electives, fewer curriculum requirements, pass-fail grades, and less discipline and teacher authority. Some went so far as to reject the notion of schooling altogether. The most renowned of such radicals was Ivan Illich. In his 1971 publication Deschooling Society, he argued that the very structure of schools crushed students' curiosity and independent thought. Although many of these educational innovations—in particular, the open classroom movement—gained popularity quickly, support waned almost as fast. By the late 1970s, excellence—not equity or freedom—was once again the keyword of educational reform.

The Standards-Based Reform Movement

The standards-based reform movement was ushered in by a watershed moment when, in 1983, President Reagan's National Commission on Excellence in Education issued a report titled 'A Nation at Risk.' Using rhetoric that quickly caught the attention of the public, the report warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity" and claimed America's security was at risk because of failing schools. Documenting declines in academic achievement as measured by standardized tests—not only in comparison to the performance of students in other industrialized nations but compared to the performance of students in the United States in the 1950s—the report's authors advocated for a return to the basics, the creation of curriculum standards, the development of 'high-stakes testing,' and increasing accountability for schools and teachers (Hayes, 2007).

Just as the efforts of previous reform eras fractured in different directions, the efforts of the 1980s lacked consensus as well. Horn (2002) differentiates between those who advocated restructuring versus those who advocated intensification. The former stressed teacher and parent empowerment, the involvement of the community in local schools, and a general rearrangement of power relationships. The latter, on the other hand, emphasized accountability, centralized authority and decision-making, and standardized curriculum. With twenty-first century initiatives like Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind—both of which place heavy emphasis on standards and testing—most agree that "intensification has become the dominant reform philosophy" of the 1980s and 1990s (Horn, 2002, p. 59).

Though these reforms have fractured in different directions, historians argue that they are unparalleled in scope and momentum (Murphy, 1990). "The level of concern and amount of energy being expended in thinking about public and secondary schooling are more intense now than at any other previous time in our history" (Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, & Cusick, as quoted in Murphy, 1990, p. 6). The No Child Left Behind movement has focused its attention on issues previously unaddressed and received greater public support than was shown for other movements.

While the movement has been sustained longer than some movements, whether it has been successful is a matter for debate. Critics argue that the move toward national standards and accountability has created a 'culture of sameness' that devalues diversity and creativity, depersonalizes education, and controls teachers (Horn, 2002). Others claim that the reforms of the last two decades have been too narrowly focused on the individual and have failed to take into account the contextual nature of many of the problems facing education, such as institutionalized racism, poverty, and social class. On the other hand, proponents argue the reforms of the 1980s have been more successful than reforms of the past. "Available data support the contention that reforms, both individually and collectively, are connected to improvement in measures of student performance" (Murphy, 1990, p. 35). This period of reform has been successful, they argue, because it was implemented within existing school structures, based on current research about the conditions that promote learning, and has the support of the public and school personnel.

Lunenburg (2013) is less sanguine about the claims of success and advocates for schools based on "core principles" that include individualized instruction and mastery of "essential" skills. Such programs are hard to implement in large, bureaucratic, standardized school settings with entrenched cultures. School choice became the rallying cry of the first decades of the twenty-first century, and many parents pulled their children from traditional schools and placed them in experimental charter schools. Unburdened with many of the regulations and mandates of regular public schools, charters developed programs that often yielded impressive results. Critics pointed out that charter school families tended to self-select for high achievement and the processes involved in applying and attending were discouraging to parents who did not have the time or inclination to pursue the option. Taylor, McGlynn, & Luter (2013) asserted that neighborhood conditions such as poverty and violence were frequently dismissed as obstacles to better school performance, and in fact charter schools attempting to meet the needs of these students were frequently unable to best the outcomes of established traditional school coping with the same issues. The long recession and foreclosure crisis resulted in repeated and sustained budget cuts to districts, which were then faced with meeting higher standards with fewer resources. In an effort to ease district budget constraints, many states allowed greater flexibility with how monies were spent. Further, schools sought partnerships with businesses and universities, tapping local and corporate resources to help save old programs or establish new ones.

Title IX and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Title IX was passed in 1972 to protect students from discrimination based on sex. This allowed all students—elementary school through college—to have the same opportunities to participate in athletics and pursue education of their choosing. Following the implementation of Title IX, female applications to medical or law school could not be rejected based on their sex. Further steps toward educational equality, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975 to ensure individuals with disabilities were provided opportunities to a reasonable degree in schools, which led to special education in public schools. The federal law later became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Capone & Hulett, 2021).

Other Twenty-First Century Changes

In addition to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), reauthorized in 2001 and 2015, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 supported the education reform plan, Race to the Top. The same year, the Common Core State Standards Initiative was launched. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was implemented to aid in the recovery of lost learning from the previous year. The Act supplied $130 billion to schools, of which, $2.7 billion funded IDEA, and the majority of the remaining was utilized for evidence-based interventions in schools (Capone & Hulett, 2021).

Conclusion

Whether or not the standards-based reform movement is ultimately deemed successful, it is likely that another period of educational reform will soon follow. As history has proven, our schools have been asked to change in response to social and cultural changes, in response to shifts in power and ideology, and in response to new demands and needs. And they will undoubtedly be asked to change again. Those involved in the next stages of reform may do well to heed the advice of Warren (1990): "there cannot be a reform without a past. And if we do not know where we have been regarding educational improvement, and why we went there, we are left to chart our direction in the shallow waters of contemporary comparisons and current political moods" (p. 63).

Terms & Concepts

Administrative Progressivism: One of the two major strands of the progressive education movement of the early twentieth century. Most closely associated with the work of Edward L. Thorndike, advocates of this strand emphasized the role of the environment in teaching and learning, scientific management, social efficiency, and vocational education.

A Nation at Risk: Report published by President Reagan's National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The report documented declines in student achievement as measured by standardized tests and argued that the "rising tide of mediocrity" threatened the nation's security. The strong language used in the report generated public support for reform and ushered in one of the most sustained reform efforts in the history of American education.

Child-centered Progressivism: One of the three strands of the progressive education movement of the early twentieth century. Most closely associated with the work of John Dewey and G. Stanley Hall, advocates of child-centered progressivism argued that instruction should be tailored to the developmental stage and individual interests of the child.

Committee of Ten: Sponsored by the National Education Association in 1893, the Committee of Ten represented the views of progressive reformers known as humanists. The committee recommended a liberal arts education for all—weighted in favor of the core academic subjects—regardless of whether a student intended to pursue higher education or a vocation following high school graduation.

Coleman Report: Report published by James Coleman in 1965 that argued against the effectiveness of compensatory education programs. Evidence showed that student achievement was unrelated to curriculum and academic facilities, but rather was more closely associated with socioeconomic background.

Compensatory Education: Education programs of the equity reform movement of the 1960s and 1970s, that attempted to eradicate social and racial inequities by providing disadvantaged children with equal educational opportunities. Such programs were criticized for not valuing different cultures and for being ineffective.

Dewey, John: One of the most prominent educational philosophers and reformers of the twentieth century whose name is most closely associated with the progressive education movement. Dewey argued that the curriculum should be based in part on the interests of each child, education should serve the whole child, and students learn best by doing. His ideas became known as child-centered progressivism.

Intensification: One philosophy of the education reform movement of the 1980s, advocating for a standardized curriculum, centralized authority, greater accountability, and less teacher autonomy. Intensification has become the dominant reform philosophy of the last two decades, overshadowing a competing philosophy known as restructuring.

Restructuring: One philosophy of the education reform movement of the 1980s, advocating for teacher and parent empowerment, community involvement in education, and less centralized power structure. Restructuring efforts have been overshadowed by a competing philosophy known as intensification.

Bibliography

Capone, R., & Hulett, K. (2021, December 30). K-12 education reform in the US. Let’s Go Learn. Accessed June 10, 2023, from https://www.letsgolearn.com/resources/education-reform

Bacon, Perry. (2023, May 8). ‘Education reform’ is dying. Now we can actually reform education. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 10, 2023, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/08/how-to-reform-education

Feldman, D., & Watson, T. (2003). The eight-year study revisited: John Burroughs School, St. Louis, Missouri. Educational Research Quarterly, 27, 5-13. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11445665&site=ehost-live

Hayes, W. (2007). The progressive education movement: Is it still a factor in today's schools? Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Horn, R. A. (2002). Understanding educational reform: A reference handbook. ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Hunt, T. (2005). Education reforms: Lessons from history. Phi Delta Kappa, 87, 8-89. Retrieved from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18121058&site=ehost-live

Knaak, W. C., & Knaak, J. T. (2013). Charter schools: Educational reform or failed initiative? Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79, 45-53. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88216774&site=ehost-live

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Pedagogica Historica, 41, 275-288. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16573272&site=ehost-live

Lunenburg, F. C. (2013). Why school reform efforts have failed: School reform needs to be based on a set of core principles. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 31, 55-63. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91851967&site=ehost-live

Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: A comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s (pp. 3-56). McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Pai, Y., Adler, S. A., & Shadiow, L. K. (2006). Cultural foundations of education. Merrill Prentice Hall.

Paris, D. C. (2020). Ideology and educational reform: Themes and theories in public education. Routledge.

Parkerson, D. H., & Parkerson, J. (2014). Transitions in American education: A social history of teaching. Routledge.

Pogrow, S. (1996). Reforming the wannabe reformers. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 656-663. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9606127831&site=ehost-live

Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. Simon & Schuster.

Taylor, H., McGlynn, L., & Luter, D. (2013). Neighborhoods matter: The role of universities in the school reform neighborhood development movement. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 88, 541-563. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91667913&site=ehost-live

Warren, D. (1990). Passage of Rites: On the history of educational reform in the United States. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s (pp. 57-82). McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Suggested Reading

Berube, M. R., & Berube, C. T. (2007). The end of school reform. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Borman, K. M., & Greenman, N. P. (Eds.). (1994). Changing American education: Recapturing the past or inventing the future? State University of New York Press.

Finn, C. E., & Rebarber, T. (Eds.). (1992). Education reform in the '90s. Macmillan Publishing Company.

Jossey-Bass Inc. (2001). Jossey-Bass reader on school reform (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.