Tyacks Marxian Analysis of Compulsory Schooling
By Oscar Medina
David Tyack offers five ways of seeing compulsory schooling. Hoping to learn from his comparative exploration on compulsory schooling, Tyack describes compulsory schooling through a 1) political lens, 2) ethnocultural lens, 3) organization/bureaucratic lens and concludes with two economic analysis 4) human capital theory and 5) Marxian analysis. This paper outlines Tyacks’ Marxian analysis to explain the nature of schooling during the bureaucratic phase of compulsory schooling.
Tyack draws from the work of revisionists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis for his Marxian analysis. Their unit of analysis describes the nature of schooling and the amount schooling that is forced under a capitalist system. The strength of this analysis offers a lens that examines how the capitalist class structure is systematically reproduced through schooling. The Bowles’ and Gintis’ argument posit that schools serve to perpetuate the hierarchical social relations of the capitalist production. Their theory highlights how the capitalist class determines the range of acceptable choice in a manner that strengthens and legitimizes its position. The claim is that schooling supports the reproducing of capitalism and inequality. This perspective illustrates how and why schools prepare individuals differently to perform different roles in the economic hierarchy.
According to Bowles and Gintis the socialization in schools reflects the capitalist economic system. They see educational development as an outcome of class conflict, not class domination. The historical economic function of schooling was to accredit future workers to work in the capitalist system. Prior to Bowles and Gintis, there were Marxist approaches that urged for free and compulsory schooling for all young people (Tyack, 1976). However, Bowles and Gintis assert that schooling reforms were engineered by those who controlled the leading sectors of the economy, hence corporate leaders sought to stabilize and rationalize the economy and support social institutions like the school. This was lead by the existing unequal social classes. David Tyacks’ political construction of compulsory schooling cannot explain the day to day operation of schooling, except for his Marxian analysis. Tyack is concerned with providing an historical analysis of compulsory schooling and not the purpose of schooling in general. In his Marxian analysis, he asserts that the demand for education by the working class lead to further a unequal society. What started as a socialist idea, compulsory schooling for all in the bureaucratic phase, later had a negative impact for the working class. The institution (school) that granted them “educational opportunities” reproduced their status quo.
This case can be made along the same lines for Emma Willard and her role as an advocate for women’s education and academies. It is clear that Willard’s role in the social history of the 19th century was more complex than it has generally been understood. Willard argued that a proper education for Republican Motherhood involved a distinct body of knowledge and philosophic coherence that could only be maintained with the help of state aid and authority (Beedie, 1993). Further, she argued that the state’s investment in female education would yield prepare hardworking women to be mothers or teachers, to raise children of good character (Scott, 1979). Willard was able to frame her case under the circumstances of white male patriarchy.
Both working class people and Emma Willard were seeking educational opportunities. The working class was forced to compromise with schooling in a capitalist system and Willard was given state funding to reproduce women’s roles in a dominant white male chauvinist system. Both compromises were sought under in systems that operate to (re)produce unequal social classes and gender roles.
Tyack concludes that the Marxian model used to analyze compulsory schooling does not sufficiently explain the motive force of religion and ethnic differences. However, this does not mean that the model cannot hold. I support Bowles’ and Gintis’ critique of schooling in capitalist America. Their argument helps explain the American educational opportunities that are a mere illusion to schooled youth in the barrios of East Oakland and East Los Angeles. This phenomenon helps crystallize the social reproductive capitalist class structure. In Willards case, several women in higher education today, take women dominated job position that reproduce their social status.
Work Cited
Beadie, Nancy (1993) Emma Willard’s Idea Put to the Test: The Consequences of State Support
of Female Education, 1819-67. History of Education Quarterly. 33:4.
Scott, Anne Firor (1979) The Ever Widening Circle: The diffusion of Freminist Values from the
Troy Female Seminary. 1822-1872. History of Education Quarterly.19.
Tyack, David (1976) Ways of seeing an essay on the history of compulsory schooling. Harvard
Educational Review 46:3.
David Tyack offers five ways of seeing compulsory schooling. Hoping to learn from his comparative exploration on compulsory schooling, Tyack describes compulsory schooling through a 1) political lens, 2) ethnocultural lens, 3) organization/bureaucratic lens and concludes with two economic analysis 4) human capital theory and 5) Marxian analysis. This paper outlines Tyacks’ Marxian analysis to explain the nature of schooling during the bureaucratic phase of compulsory schooling.
Tyack draws from the work of revisionists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis for his Marxian analysis. Their unit of analysis describes the nature of schooling and the amount schooling that is forced under a capitalist system. The strength of this analysis offers a lens that examines how the capitalist class structure is systematically reproduced through schooling. The Bowles’ and Gintis’ argument posit that schools serve to perpetuate the hierarchical social relations of the capitalist production. Their theory highlights how the capitalist class determines the range of acceptable choice in a manner that strengthens and legitimizes its position. The claim is that schooling supports the reproducing of capitalism and inequality. This perspective illustrates how and why schools prepare individuals differently to perform different roles in the economic hierarchy.
According to Bowles and Gintis the socialization in schools reflects the capitalist economic system. They see educational development as an outcome of class conflict, not class domination. The historical economic function of schooling was to accredit future workers to work in the capitalist system. Prior to Bowles and Gintis, there were Marxist approaches that urged for free and compulsory schooling for all young people (Tyack, 1976). However, Bowles and Gintis assert that schooling reforms were engineered by those who controlled the leading sectors of the economy, hence corporate leaders sought to stabilize and rationalize the economy and support social institutions like the school. This was lead by the existing unequal social classes. David Tyacks’ political construction of compulsory schooling cannot explain the day to day operation of schooling, except for his Marxian analysis. Tyack is concerned with providing an historical analysis of compulsory schooling and not the purpose of schooling in general. In his Marxian analysis, he asserts that the demand for education by the working class lead to further a unequal society. What started as a socialist idea, compulsory schooling for all in the bureaucratic phase, later had a negative impact for the working class. The institution (school) that granted them “educational opportunities” reproduced their status quo.
This case can be made along the same lines for Emma Willard and her role as an advocate for women’s education and academies. It is clear that Willard’s role in the social history of the 19th century was more complex than it has generally been understood. Willard argued that a proper education for Republican Motherhood involved a distinct body of knowledge and philosophic coherence that could only be maintained with the help of state aid and authority (Beedie, 1993). Further, she argued that the state’s investment in female education would yield prepare hardworking women to be mothers or teachers, to raise children of good character (Scott, 1979). Willard was able to frame her case under the circumstances of white male patriarchy.
Both working class people and Emma Willard were seeking educational opportunities. The working class was forced to compromise with schooling in a capitalist system and Willard was given state funding to reproduce women’s roles in a dominant white male chauvinist system. Both compromises were sought under in systems that operate to (re)produce unequal social classes and gender roles.
Tyack concludes that the Marxian model used to analyze compulsory schooling does not sufficiently explain the motive force of religion and ethnic differences. However, this does not mean that the model cannot hold. I support Bowles’ and Gintis’ critique of schooling in capitalist America. Their argument helps explain the American educational opportunities that are a mere illusion to schooled youth in the barrios of East Oakland and East Los Angeles. This phenomenon helps crystallize the social reproductive capitalist class structure. In Willards case, several women in higher education today, take women dominated job position that reproduce their social status.
Work Cited
Beadie, Nancy (1993) Emma Willard’s Idea Put to the Test: The Consequences of State Support
of Female Education, 1819-67. History of Education Quarterly. 33:4.
Scott, Anne Firor (1979) The Ever Widening Circle: The diffusion of Freminist Values from the
Troy Female Seminary. 1822-1872. History of Education Quarterly.19.
Tyack, David (1976) Ways of seeing an essay on the history of compulsory schooling. Harvard
Educational Review 46:3.
posted by Oscar at 1:41 AM
1 Comments:
Your conclusion belongs in your opening paragraph. Your ideas are hard to distinguish, why begin by outlining 5 theories if your not going to talk about all 5.
Clarifying tip:
Find all promouns (this, that, it...) and replace with 2 or 3 word description of what "that, this, it" actually is. You cant begin a paragrapgh with "This can be..." you have to explain what the fuck "this" is.
If you stop using pronouns your writing will be clearer.
I am not familiar with the authors discussed and you do a poor job of defining each authors distinct characteristics. The word "Marxists" is not self defining. This paper can only be understood by those who are familiar with "Bowles, Gintis, and Emma" was that your intention? Your audience is not broad.
Think about it. Redraft without the words "that" "this" "it"....
Post a Comment
<< Home