American schools after World War Two and educational reform

¶ … social institution -- school -- in present-Day society.

Schools since World War 2

In the aftermath of the Second World War, America's population grew significantly, a phenomenon popularly known as the 'baby boom'. A similar boom was witnessed in higher education, with the passing of the 1944 GI Bill, which provided war veterans with subsidies for attending colleges/universities. More than ten million war veterans made use of this facility, leading to a considerable rise in number of college-completing individuals. With growth in proportion of school-goers, there was increased demand for teachers and educational facilities. This heightened demand for teachers led to lowering of teacher certification conditions; in some instances, the conditions were nearly eliminated, i.e., minimal-to-no professional education was required for teaching school children (AMERICAN EDUCATION, n.d). This trend, however, reversed itself subsequently -- where there was, earlier, a shortage of educators, they could, now (i.e., in late 60s-early 70s) be found in excess, prompting a renewed rise in teacher certification conditions. There was a call for establishment of more schools, in order to contain the progressively growing number of kids of school age; further, smaller school districts combined to form bigger ones, better-equipped to bear increased costs of capital and administration. America witnessed a near-disappearance of its rural single-room school houses, in which a single teacher taught students of all grades (normally first to eighth grade); this was because building larger schools and transporting students by bus to central spots was more economical.

The political focus during the sixties underwent a shift from a global/external focus (Cold War, for instance) to internal affairs (i.e., the 'War on Poverty' campaign of President Johnson, and civil rights). President Kennedy, during his 1961 inaugural address, requested Americans to think not of what the nation could do for them, but what they could do for the nation, heralding a new age of consciousness with regard to the true meaning of poverty alleviation and equal opportunity (AMERICAN EDUCATION, n.d). Johnson as well as Kennedy assigned large amounts of funds to various fields, including education, for the purpose of severing the poverty chain. Initiatives like Head Start, Title One, Job Corps, and subsidized lunches at school were launched. A novel curriculum emphasis characterized educational reform. School teachers were urged to be creative and innovative, making education more fun, and ensuring increased student involvement in the learning process. Instead of mere, boring textbook-learning (which was the 50s schoolroom trend), children could choose, and were given personalized instruction, non-graded institution, and flexible scheduling opportunities. The 60s curriculum reform program, however, failed to improve educational outcomes as desired; instead, it brought about a drop in test scores and school enrollments, resulting in loss of society's confidence in educators. A powerful back-to-basics campaign ensued, placing emphasis on arithmetic computation, reading, and writing, together with accountability of teachers (AMERICAN EDUCATION, n.d). The next decade was marked by economic concerns --the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil crisis of 1973, high unemployment, two-digit inflation, and high rates of interest. These economic conditions also affected schools, since public education funding was decreased. In the 80s, there was an escalation in criticisms directed at teachers and public education. The 1983 national report, A Nation at Risk expounded the miserable failure of American public school structures. A consequence of the above report was increased, and rapid, school reform campaigns, with many states passing laws that mandated improved standards, and expected more from students.

The fundamental focus of 90s education was school reform. The Congressional effort, Goals 2000, was intended for instituting educational standards for the nation. Most educators concentrated on reorganization of schools for meeting the diverse population's demands and increased global competition, owing to rapid technological changes. Teachers, on the whole, have responded to the challenge, assuming leadership roles and guiding the educational sector into the twenty-first century (AMERICAN EDUCATION, n.d)

American Form Compared to Two Other Countries

Japanese and American school systems differ in a few ways, including the number of days in an academic year, kinds of schools, and pressure on students for acquiring good grades. School children in Japan need to attend school for 240 days in an academic year, which is over 720 extra days over the same schooling period of 12 years. Spring holidays, while switching grades, constitute the only real holiday they enjoy (.Difference Between American and Japanese Schools, n.d). While they do get summer break, it is filled with activities, such as homework, to be completed and handed in when school recommences. Japanese school teachers also suffer -- they only enjoy two weeks' holidays in a year. All schools in Japan have an identical syllabus and curriculum. Children are excessively pressurized to work hard and gain good results. Though this pressure makes Japanese children excel in international examinations, it has also culminated in a few less desirable situations (e.g., increased suicides). Despite this huge pressure, it appears that Japanese high-school graduates have lesser knowledge than their American counterparts. Students in Japan undergo testing to gauge whether they are qualified to receive high school or college education. Students who fail this test have to enroll in career-orientated institutes, which teach skills that may lead them to work all their lives (Difference Between American and Japanese Schools, n.d). Though one may believe that schools in the U.S. can be relatively violent and crime ridden sometimes, or in some specific areas, the nation does have some excellent schools, as well. Similarly, Japan has good as well as bad schools. In U.S. schools, one can witness cultural diversity of students and staff, while Japanese schools are characterized by a homogenous culture. This fact makes the environment of Japanese schools comparatively well-managed and calm. Japanese kids learn from a very tender age to be respectful of elders, and younger children. Their parents give more importance to children's responsibilities than children's rights. Furthermore, children in Japan are reported to respect and care for their friends. The aforementioned societal and academic pressures aren't imposed upon students in America (Difference Between American and Japanese Schools, n.d). American school-goers also enjoy more holidays and lesser school days. One advantage of U.S. schools is access to advanced technology; Japanese schools employ technology on a relatively smaller scale.

The three-tiered educational structure of German schools begins following four primary-schooling years. As per a June 2011 Wall Street Journal article, top performers who seek entry into college/university attend gymnasiums; average performers who have to settle for white-collar occupations attend real schules; and, lowest scorers attend haupt schule, where they receive vocational training. In contrast, students in the U.S. don't have to deal with the career planning phase until high school. The newspaper reveals that efforts towards reforming Germany's school system have failed, in spite of protests that it is in the favor of the high classes of society (Heibutzki, n.d). Similar to the U.S., education policy in Germany is set by local authorities. German Way -- a website of all things German -- reports that the sixteen states of Germany govern all aspects of its educational system, including regulations mandating attendance of children aged 6-15 years. However, the option of home schooling allowed to American children isn't permitted in Germany. Germany does not have many parochial and private schools -- there are only 2,500 schools of this form in the nation populated by eighty million individuals. Schools in Germany are more study-oriented in comparison to American schools. Barely 10-15% of German school kids enroll in local extracurricular clubs, for engaging in drama, sports and other activities, according to a German student, Ruben Gehb, who was interviewed for the June 2013 newsletter of the University of Arkansas (Heibutzki, n.d). The teacher-student bond is also relatively formal in Germany; there is minimal or no communication between them outside of class. The annual school calendar of Germany comprises 220 days, 40 days more than that of the U.S.; however, students enjoy more frequent holidays throughout the academic year.

Positive and Negative Impacts

Clearly, children whose performance at school (indicated by exam grades or standard achievement test scores) is better, tend to advance in school and university. Also, net expenditure of improving quality of schools, if signaled through increased student attainment, is lesser than it looks (maybe even substantially so), owing to the resultant declines in dropout and repetition rates (THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD QUALITY: WHAT RESEARCH TELLS U.S., 2005). Therefore, higher levels of achievement ensure continuance of schooling, which will result in improved schooling completion rates. Economic progress regulates the extent of improvement that can take place in a society's overall living standards. Furthermore, each individual's education can improve others' financial status (apart from individual benefits). A more erudite society can, in particular, translate into greater innovation rates, better overall productivity by way of organizations' ability to launch newer, more superior production techniques, and quicker introduction of novel technologies. It is also known that several years' education and training in cognitive skills (especially basic numeracy and literacy skills) have social and economic returns with regard to income improvement, enhanced productivity in urban as well as rural non-farm settings, and increased effectiveness of family life and household behavior (THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD QUALITY: WHAT RESEARCH TELLS U.S., 2005) .

A recent research by the University of Texas-Austin and Rice University researchers has revealed that the public school accountability structure of Texas, a standard for the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, is directly responsible for poorer graduation rates. It has been indicated by the research that as schools were subject to the system of accountability, which utilizes children's test scores for disciplining/rewarding principals and rating schools, hordes of children exited schools (Negative Implications Of No Child Left Behind: As Graduation Rates Go Down, School Ratings Go Up, 2008). It appeared as though test scores were rising and the gap in achievement between minority and white children was diminishing because of departure of low achievers; consequently, school ratings improved. This research work has major implications for American schools under NCLB legislation. It has proven that increased stakes and duration of schools' governance by the accountability system will make school authorities increasingly regard their students as potential assets/liabilities for school financing, performance indicators, or personal career growth, rather than as children who are to be educated.

The above study demonstrates a close link between increasing accountability ratings of schools and the growing number of students who dropout; it has found that (Negative Implications Of No Child Left Behind: As Graduation Rates Go Down, School Ratings Go Up, 2008):

Under the system of accountability, loss of low achievers facilitates growth of school ratings.

The system permits school authorities to detain students they regard as capable of lowering their school's scores; a number of students detained in this manner ultimately drop out.

Examination scores are classified on the basis of race; they help identify low-achievers in these race-based subgroups as likely dangers to school rating, making school administrators encourage such children to quietly leave school.

No-tolerance rules, under this accountability system, for behavior and attendance, by which young children are dragged to court for absences and trivial offenses, alienate them, increasing drop-out possibilities.

Institutional Theory

Ever since the last decade of the twentieth century, a theoretic approach - "new institutionalism" -- has managed to capture academic experts' imagination; these experts work in disciplines contributing to policy analysis and educational research, including political science, sociology, organization theory, and economics. The growth of this approach was partly because of an extensive disappointment of social-science experts with organizational and social action models, wherein fairly independent players are perceived to be functioning with limitless rationality for pursuing personal interests (Meyer and Rowan, 2006). Another reason for its development is research and theory advances, exhibited in the issuance of numerous influential volumes, depicting how a novel institutionalism may be employed in research in specific fields of study.

The above novel institutional realities which have, accordingly, been created, challenge the ruling educational institutional theories, particularly those formulated in late 70s-early 80s by John W. Meyer and coworkers. Institutional educational analyses formulated during that period have immensely impacted the social science area, in general, and particularly, the educational arena (Meyer and Rowan, 2006). However, educational institutions' perspective that arose from that study now appears to be strangely at odds with present trends in the arena. Meyer and team's institutional analyses state that USA's educational framework is loosely bound, mainly because formal school/college structures were derived more from the requirement to retain their legality in society than from technical efficacy demands. From this standpoint, education was perceived as being completely under governmental and professional control, and hence, beyond market forces' power (Meyer and Rowan, 2006). Furthermore, in this primary institutional theory version, modifications in educational institutions were viewed almost entirely to be an ever-developing "isomorphism" process of educational systems made to conform to the values, technical lore, and norms institutionalized by professions and the State.

Adaptation to Globalization/Institution Changes

A few highly significant shifts have been perceived in the direction of corporatization in non-formal and formal education. During the eighties and early parts of the nineties, this was primarily carried over by managerialism's growth in numerous educational systems of the West. Individuals in positions of authority were urged and coached to view themselves as leaders, and reframe educational issues as activities in delivering appropriate results (Globalization and the incorporation of education, n.d). Management disposition and language also rapidly entered schoolrooms through programs like the United Kingdom's national curriculum. Additionally, there has been an extensive market strengthening in numerous educational systems. Schools vie for students to expand and sustain funding. This implies that they need to develop their 'brands' and market school activities. Schools need to sell certain qualities they possess as well as the 'learning experience'. For bringing this about, educational institutions need to reduce values to sound bites and complex processes to easily recognized packages; children and parents are viewed as 'consumers'.