Review

Donald and Jo Ann Parkerson write with a mission. They begin this social history of K-12 teaching in America with a touching anecdote about Mary Cunningham, an enthusiastic and idealistic young teacher who burned out in her first year and left a career she had dreamed of since childhood. "The ultimate source of [her] problems," the Parkersons conclude, "is American society's growing pessimism regarding the state of public education in this country" (p. xiii). Saddened by Mary's story, the authors want to use this study to help contemporary teachers buck up and weather the current storm of conservative criticism aimed at their competency. Donald, a Professor of History and Distinguished Professor of Teaching at East Carolina University, and Jo Ann, a Professor of Education at Methodist College, argue that understanding two past revolutions in the history of teaching in America can help today's teachers understand that they are not alone.	1
The first of these revolutions occurred in the early 19th century when a "market revolution" helped convince Americans that "only through education could their children make something of themselves" (p. 11). Such forces led to the rise of the common school and the nascent professionalization of teachers. The second revolution occurred around the end of the nineteenth century, when a combination of urbanization, a corporate revolution, and modernization led to substantial criticism of a common school curriculum and teaching methods that seemed out of date and impractical. Out of this ferment grew the graded school, so-called progressive education, more professional training for teachers, and the professionalization and bureaucratization of educational administration. The authors argue that we are in the midst of a third revolution, whose final contours cannot yet be sketched. This revolution will be marked by increased diversity, a growing reliance on technology (especially the world wide web), and national achievement standards mandated by the federal government. Out of all this, the Parkersons claim that teachers will "certainly gain greater autonomy through proprietorship of their schools" (p. 216). Unfortunately, the authors fail to explain this crucial point very well and offer little evidence of its occurrence. Indeed, the growing tyranny of standardized testing and accountability might just as well reduce teacher autonomy as principals and superintendents demand results which could lead to almost universal teaching to the test.	2
There are other problems with this work as well. The Parkersons are so committed to defending teachers that they sometimes gloss over real problems. For example, in their attack on the corporate model of school administration, they implicitly share teachers' unhappiness with the prospect of "degree requirements, examination-based promotions, [and] raising standards" for their students (pp. 179, 180). These are not intrinsically unfair expectations. The decision to organize topically also causes problems, especially if this work is intended as a text for undergraduate classes. The chronological thread often disappears, and there are more than the usual number of annoying reminders: "as you will recall," "as discussed in chapter 1,"and "as we have seen" (e.g. pp. 147, 149). Some factual errors also detract from the value of this study. The National Origins Act was not passed in 1927, but in 1924 (and strengthened in 1929) (p. 198). To describe the election of Ronald Reagan and George Bush pere as a victory for "conservative post-modernists" (p. 214) shows a fundamental misapprehension of the concept of postmodernism. However, there are some very good bits in this book that might make it an appropriate text in an undergraduate course on the history or foundations of education. The anecdotes about teachers' experiences are interesting and often poignant. The basic thesis about transitions holds water quite well. Mercifully, the authors avoid the kind of debilitating jargon that often infects contemporary scholarship. But a certain failure to explain, a confusing organization, factual errors, and a rather obvious bias in favor of teachers diminish the value of the study. If it is used in a class, the instructor will need to deal with these problems.	3
Ball State University Anthony O. Edmonds

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.