March 30 - 31, 2000
New Directions in the History of Education
Brian R. Sevier and Gregers K. Dubrow
On March 30 and 31, 2000, the Spencer Foundation, with the assistance of Marvin Lazerson (University of Pennsylvania) and Rubin Donato (University of Colorado, Boulder), convened a group of scholars to examine past, present, and future directions of research in the history of education as a field; and to explore new trends and bring new ways of thinking to the field. (Attachment A includes the agenda and the list of participants.) The first day included small group and panel discussions about the state of past and current research in the field. The second day consisted of a series of concurrent sessions that focused on questions and issues driving research on a number of important historical topics, along with discussions about the relationship between history of education and policy and practice and the future of the field. The conversations among participants mapped a range of issues and questions relating to the professionalism of historians of education; the influence of factors such as race/ethnicity and gender on research; and the implications of policy and practice for the field.
In order to reflect the range of issues and questions raised, this report is organized into five sections. The first summarizes the discussion of the participants' pre-conference statements. The second section summarizes the panel discussion during which senior scholars shared their thoughts about relevant scholarship that made significant contributions to the field. The third section focuses on issues involving research on gender, people of color, urban/social education, and higher education in the field. The fourth section focuses on the relationship between history of education research and policy and practice. The final section summarizes the comments of the next generation of scholars in the field.
Discussion of Pre-Conference Statements
Before the meeting, participants were asked to write and submit brief (one-page) statements about their assessment of research in the history of education and questions they believe are crucial to future research in the field. The statements served as an important foundation for the discussions that took place on Thursday afternoon before the opening session of the conference. Many of the participants' statements focused on past tensions, debates, and controversies in the field. Others centered on the current state of the history of education in terms of methodological concerns, discourse and relationships among scholars, and the field's vitality. Most of the participants' comments during the small group discussions focused on three themes: (1) history of education during the "golden age" and today, (2) the importance of voice and perspective, and (3) the audiences for history of education scholarship.
The Golden Age
Participants' discussion of the past scholarship in the field focused primarily on the "golden age," loosely defined as the mid-1960s to mid-1970s. Most agreed it was a time of great excitement and vitality in the field when critical or revised histories replaced promotional educational histories. Historical work in education was not only connected to work in other fields (e.g., history, economics, etc), but also to the larger social milieu that focused on analyzing the role of social and political institutions in perpetuating inequality and unequal distribution of resources and opportunities. For example, historians of education asked interesting and relevant questions about the public school's role in maintaining status quo. This scholarship was considered "cutting edge" and was part of the larger conversation. Specifically, revisionist historians of education examined class-based and racist ideology behind education reforms of the past and made connections between these decisions and the problems faced by schools in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., dropout rates, school failure, etc.). Others noted that research during the golden age, compared to contemporary research, lacked methodological diversity. Participants asserted that less than precise scholarship was produced during this period. Indeed, many conference participants identified the "golden age" as a time of great and heated debate within the field. Others noted that this contentious atmosphere contributed to the dynamism that defined the golden age. However, it was generally a time when historians of education were not particularly "nice" to one another. What some participants referred to as healthy and vigorous debate, others called "incivility."
While some scholars used "doldrums" to describe the current state of the field, many others maintained that the history of education, as a field, is in "good shape." History of education scholarship today is more complex, rich, and scholastically rigorous. Scholars have moved beyond the primary attention on schooling structures and institutions that characterized historical work in the past. Biographies, oral histories, and interdisciplinary inquiries are just a few of the research approaches that historians of education often use today. Moreover, the work of the field now receives higher scholarly accolades. The acceptance of such diverse approaches also represents greater respect among scholars in the field. Participants affirmed a stronger sense of collegiality.
However, scholars noted a distinct disadvantage to methodological complexity, variety of content, and scholarly meticulousness. Complexity and fragmentation within the field could potentially signify an unwillingness to engage each other and others in debate. Several participants suggested that historians of education have used diversity of methodologies and foci of educational research to retreat from the ideological battles of the past. In addition, the increased emphasis on scholarly rigor has led to the production of historical works that are "too cautious." That is, the conceptual "leaps" made by past historians are no longer found in history of education scholarship. Michael Katz's The Irony of Early School Reform was used as an example. While some scholars may have questioned its academic precision (e.g., its inattention to geography was cited), it challenged many historians to think seriously about educational history and the role of public schools. Some asserted that many historians of education play it "too close to the vest" today, sacrificing the "great leaps" and bold statements for precision and attention to detail.
Voice, Perspective, and Connections Across Experiences
The second theme that surfaced in the discussions of the pre-conference statements, consistent with increased tolerance and respect for methodological diversity, was the call for continued and future use of multiple forms of inquiry. Participants stated the need to recover underrepresented or unheard "voices" from the past, to present other perspectives on education beyond the institutional, and to explain the similarities and differences in educational experiences between disenfranchised populations. While research has examined the significance of race, class, and gender in public schooling, it has not focused on the effects of unequal distribution of power for people of color, women, and low-income people. Research on the schooling experiences and lives of people traditionally excluded from the decision-making process is still underrepresented in the field. Scholars agreed that writing educational histories from the perspectives of diverse and disempowered groups should be encouraged and continued. They emphasized the need for historians of education to explore biographical research, oral history, and other qualitative methodologies in order to move beyond the school curriculum to issues of pedagogy and classroom activities. Through these methods, historians of education might regain the voices of teachers, students, and parents, and achieve a more complete understanding of schooling. Such research could illuminate the experiences of those most affected by educational decisions and facilitate an understanding of the ways in which structural constraints were accommodated, resisted, or transcended.
Participants also noted the need for historians of education to initiate and explore comparative analyses cross-culturally and internationally. These analyses would increase and deepen our understanding of the similarities and differences of various racial/ethnic groups' experiences in this country and highlight the commonalities and distinctions in schooling across national and international borders. One participant offered the comparison of Black Americans' education with that of Chicanos'/Mexican Americans' as one example of this kind of work. Comparing these groups might shed light on the ways in which race, language, social class, and other factors influence and dictate the schooling of these two groups. In addition, scholars should collaborate on research that examines the evolution of their educational histories and the ways in which their educational experiences diverged from one another. Historians of education could also conduct this kind of analysis within groups, (e.g., comparing the schooling of Mexican Americans in two or more geographic areas). Others suggested that scholars create exciting avenues for research through cross-cultural analyses of women's educational experiences. One participant noted that historians could write interesting and compelling histories by comparing the experiences of Anglo teachers and Black women administrators.
Participants agreed that comparative international analyses could illuminate the connections between education and larger political decisions and social policies. For example, studying the evolution of the welfare state domestically and internationally could shed light on why education has assumed a central role in social policy in this country. By considering the significance, history, and development of schooling as it relates to global political and social developments, scholars could gain valuable information about American public education.
Educational History and Audience
While the two previous themes focused on the content of research in the field, another theme emerging from the discussions of pre-conference statements was the audience for educational history. One scholar asked a fundamental question: "Who do we really care about?" While participants differed in their responses to this question, they identified three distinct populations: pre-service teachers and undergraduate students, the general public, and policymakers and politicians.
Historians of education have a more immediate and insistent audience in pre-service teachers. Many teachers feel a tremendous responsibility to make the history of schooling relevant to the past, current, and future experiences of their students. Some participants noted, however, that this could become problematic when student teachers do not see the relevance of educational history to their lives. Scholars asserted that the history of education serves a distinct and definite purpose in the preparation of teachers; it is "useful" in providing a "liberal" education, and it imparts greater understanding of the work in which they are engaged. There was some consensus that pre-service teachers with a rich and developed sense of educational history are better equipped to understand the origins and evolution of reform movements, the social and political concerns that shape educational decisions, and the dominant ideologies of education. Moreover, participants suggested that the analytic skills and ways of thinking acquired through the study of educational history could provide teachers with "a set of tools with which to approach issues."
The audience for history of education research extends beyond teachers. Participants noted that many of the current national bestsellers are historical; the success of books about World War II, slavery in America, and Irish history are evidence of the ways in which historical writings can capture the imagination and attention of the general public. They asserted that the task for historians of education is to develop "an interpretive framework" that will allow them to create work that will appeal to mass audiences. One participant stated that scholars need to "distill" their scholarly work so that it reaches wider audiences. Others acknowledged that some are already engaged in this kind of work. Scholars' contributions to documentaries (e.g., the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) documentary on the history of public education in the U.S.) and opinion education (op ed.) pieces in major newspapers were cited as important activities. Recent articles about the history of vouchers and gender-segregated schools are examples of the public's interest in the history of education. Participants maintained that the reality of the tenure process inhibits scholars' involvement in writing works of general appeal. Tenured faculty members are more comfortable publishing in non-academic journals, while there are few incentives for junior or untenured faculty to do so.
Many participants also expressed that they feel obligated to shape or influence public policy. One scholar stated that his only goal as a historian of education is to influence policy decisions. Research in the field often involves dilemmas or problems faced by policymakers today. Scholars study events that align with contemporary education or provide a foundation for our current understanding of the educational system. Indeed, "flirting" with current issues is another way in which historians of education have set themselves apart from other historians. Studying the education of immigrants in California in light of Proposition 187 and a similar bill proposed in 1936 is an example of how history is relevant to current educational events. This gives historians of education an opportunity to influence policy. However, participants discussed the fact that policymakers and politicians operate on different timelines and with different agendas than scholars in the field. Historians of education who use their work to engage policymakers have to be willing to step outside of the discipline and their roles as historians. They are expected to provide linear and clear lessons from the past that policymakers and politicians "can take home and say to their staff, X, Y, Z."
Panel Discussion: Where Has the History of Education Been; Where is it Going? Personal and Professional Reflections of the Field
The first panel discussion was designed to frame the past and future of the history of education as a field. Four senior scholars were asked to share their personal and professional reflections about the field. Each panelist was asked to speak briefly about his/her sense of where the history of education has been and where it is going, as well as his/her personal and professional reflections as a scholar in the field. The panelists for the session were James Anderson (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Michael Katz (University of Pennsylvania), Ellen Condliffe Lagemann (New York University and incoming President of the Spencer Foundation), and David Tyack (Stanford University).
James Anderson began by asserting that the history of education as a field is underdeveloped, particularly when compared to other historical specialties. For example, he stated that he has an abundance of material to choose from on slavery (as a topic) but not as many quality sources for educational history. The "camps" that were most important to him early in his career were the educational history community, the larger community of American historians represented by the Organization of Black Historians, the Southern Historical Association, the American Historical Association, and the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History. In discussing the future of the field, Anderson asserted that promising areas of study include school desegregation, the meaning of being American, and the intersection of the history of education and the other social sciences that examine education. He maintained that the importance of studying desegregation lies in determining the extent to which educational institutions have purged themselves of the vestiges of segregation and discrimination. Concerning identity, Anderson noted that historians of education have a unique opportunity to describe how well educational institutions have done in helping to determine what it means to be American. Lastly, he asserted that because so much educational policy rests on assumptions of social and educational history, historians of education should connect with other social scientists to help shape policy debates.
Michael Katz noted that the most important development in the history of education is the legitimacy it has achieved within the history community. Factors responsible for this respect of the field include (1) a conscious attempt by schools of education to upgrade quality and break down insularity, (2) the national interest in education sparked by the Cold War and the space race, (3) the importance placed on education by reformers in the Civil Rights and war on poverty movements, and (4) the need for a history that explained how the current situation had come to be. In addition, the emergence of the social history movement during the 1960s helped turned the field's attention to everyday concerns such as education. Katz stated that the job market was essential to the field's vitality in that well-known historians could create scholarship as they wanted. However, he asserted that the dynamism and political centrality that the field created in the 1960s have dissipated. Given the current social conditions of growing income inequalities and school restructuring, Katz asserted that historians of education should have a greater voice in the debates as they did in the 1960s and 1970s. He declared the need to challenge received explanations of how things have come to be and called for more of the kind of "reinterpretation" that marked earlier scholarship. Katz identified the definition of public education, the move to a market model of education, and the merits of defending or attacking the state's handling of public education as current issues that should motivate scholars to ask new sets of questions.
Ellen Condliffe Lagemann began her talk by declaring the late 1970s and early 1980s an "exciting period." She cited Michael Katz, Marvin Lazerson, and David Tyack's work as important in revising the received history of public schooling. She asserted that the political bent of their work and the questions they raised energized the field. Lagemann asserted that the emergence of women and minority scholars was an invigorating element that connected the history of education with larger social forces of the day. One of the by-products of the politically-charged atmosphere was that the History of Education Society meetings were not only exciting, as new developments were eagerly anticipated, but were filled with high drama and some incivility. She contrasted that era to the present and noted that the work of historians of education has lost its importance to audiences outside the field. Although scholars used to speak to a larger audience, she further asserted that the field is not doing a good job of engaging mainstream historians in debates around education. Lagemann cited Daniel Rogers' book, Atlantic Crossings, as an example of the problem. The book is a reinterpretation of progressivism, but includes no discussion of education. She said that it is possible that recent scholarship in the history of education has not been sufficiently engaging to command the attention of authors like Rogers. Lagemann asserted that historians of education should think more carefully about positioning their work and building audiences for it.
David Tyack initially asked the group what the conditions were that led to periods of enlightenment and excitement in the field. He then spoke briefly about his experiences in the field. Tyack talked about the campaign during the 1950s to "rescue the history of education from the educationists." This campaign was spurred largely by funds from the Ford Foundation, which subsidized the works of Arthur Schlessinger, Bernard Bailyn, and Richard Hofstedter among others. Tyack stated that, at that time, The History of Education Quarterly was "defensive and unhappy" and afraid of newer, more radical voices. For example, economic analyses, especially those from a Marxist perspective, were unheard of. Tyack characterized this period as being dominated by insiders who were writing "house histories." He asserted that Michael Katz, Lawrence Veysey, and he are examples of historians who broke ground by writing about systems and institutions as bureaucracies. He reiterated earlier comments about how the field was, in many ways, responding to the social movements of the times, which gave the history of education its energy. He identified synthesis research (to connect the many pieces) and, as James Anderson mentioned, historians' assistance in shaping how Americans view themselves as future needs of the field.
Small Group Discussions - I
On Friday morning, conference participants were involved in different small group sessions. The first set of concurrent, small group discussions focused on issues of gender, people of color, urban/social education, and higher education. For each topic, participants were asked to discuss one or more of the following questions or statements: Where has the research in this area been and where should it go? Given its past, articulate a direction for this area of the field. What are the major issues or questions driving research in this area? For the discussions on people of color and gender, scholars were asked to address several additional questions: How will the history of education be rewritten for these groups? How will their histories be integrated into mainstream educational history? What would the history of education look like if it were truly inclusive?
Gender
Participants in this group agreed that the status of gender studies in the history of education has increased over the past twenty years or so. However, they also noted that research that focuses on issues of gender is still marginalized. Scholars in the field often situate discussions around gender as peripheral to "larger" questions and issues of structures, institutions, and systems. Participants acknowledged that there is historical precedent for this marginal placement. For example, work and enthusiasm during the "golden age" centered on the connections between schooling practices and social class and the increase in educational bureaucracies, but not on the lives of women who worked in the schools. Research generally included women teachers only as they pertained to the system (e.g., as part of the problem). One participant asserted that "revisionist histories had nothing to say about teachers." The examination of gender in education and schools as work sites for women originated from the field of women's history, not the history of education.
Scholars in this group maintained that history of education courses and audiences for research on gender reflect the "segregated" status of such work. In seminars, for example, discussions of gender are "add-ons" to course content, while there is still strong emphasis on power and decision making at the administrative (i.e., White, male) level. In addition, scholars who actually conduct gender-based investigations are overwhelmingly female, as are the audiences for this research. Yet, participants in this group asserted that issues of gender have the potential to become a core, organizing agenda for historians of education. Scholars in the field can bring together concerns about class, bureaucracy, and gender by adopting a local view of schools that accounts for the work and lives of teachers as they relate to these structures and institutions. Participants concluded that research on gender should assume a more central position, which would allow historians of education to create a more "holistic" view of the field.
People of Color
Like participants in the discussion about gender, participants in this group noted the increase in educational histories about people of color and the growing representation of people of color in the field itself. However, they maintained that problems still exist. An initial question spurring discussion among participants was, "Who will write the educational histories of people of color?" The resulting conversation revealed a more complex issue, described by some as "scholarly imperialism" in the field. Participants asked how long would Anglo scholars and authors continue to dominate in telling the histories of minority groups. They maintained that Anglo scholars have been privileged in research and scholarly endeavors and that, historically, comparatively few people of color have achieved positions in the academy that would enable them to write about their own educational histories. Participants then focused the discussion on ways in which scholars of color could increase their representation in the field and thereby influence future research. They stated, however, that Anglo researchers should not be excluded from writing the histories of people of color, and that this kind of research needs the perspective of both outsiders (Anglos) and insiders (people of color). The insiders' perspective is what most scholarship still lacks. In addition to representation, participants also identified the need for cross-cultural analyses of different groups. Many mentioned the absence of historical scholarship that examines the intersections of schooling histories of people of color, as much of the research tends to focus on one population. Participants offered textbooks as an example, which usually contain discrete and separate chapters on Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and other groups. In addition, they noted that examinations of the relationships of race, gender, and social class in public school students experiences are rare. Participants suggested that the structure and culture of the academy encourage scholars to work in isolation. They asserted the need to move beyond this culture so that historians of education could better understand the commonalties of experience and how dominant (White, middle class) ideologies and beliefs have informed historical educational decisions about various populations of color.
Scholars in this group also noted the absence of discussions of people of color framed outside a Black/White context, particularly in history of education courses. Typical classroom discussions and course readings involving people of color revolve around the experiences of Black Americans. Moreover, schooling experiences are often examined in comparison to Black and Anglo-American experiences. Participants agreed that the experiences of other groups of color are often neglected in classroom discussions and that readings dismiss the similarities and differences that exist in the schooling of diverse populations of people of color in America. They stated that future historians of education need better training; they need to know how to select and structure course material to allow students opportunities to consider the experiences of Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and other groups.
Urban/Social
Participants in this group raised similar issues about comparative analyses in future historical research. They emphasized the importance of this kind of work and collaboration among scholars. Collaborative and comparative investigations involving interdisciplinary research, policy studies, urban studies, and macro and micro analyses were deemed as significant. Scholars argued that interdisciplinary work would give historians an opportunity to improve and enrich their own work as well as the work of scholars in other fields. Historians of education would gain from collaborating with and paying closer attention to the work of anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and scholars in other disciplines. Participants acknowledged, however, that many scholars in the field already work, at some level, with or within the concepts, ideologies, and/or theories embodied by such diverse disciplines. They asserted that there is a foundation that could enhance collaboration across disciplines, particularly for the next generation of scholars.
A second theme emanating from this group was the use of the data collected in policy studies to inform historical scholarship. Participants discussed the abundance of information gathered, and virtually disregarded, by those in policy studies. Such data could provide historians of education with a wealth of knowledge. Scholars expressed interest in using these data in multiple ways (i.e., beyond the original reasons for data collection). Furthermore, they maintained that historians of education should become more actively involved in policy studies.
Another venue for future research is the comparison and combination of micro and macro analyses of schooling. Participants suggested that rather than focusing on the structures of urban schooling or the existence of urban schools and the people in them, scholars could do both. That is, historians of education should synthesize macro and micro level analyses to create a more complete and complex depiction of urban educational history. Scholars interested in urban schools/education could establish networks of association with scholars interested in urban and suburban studies. They could then use small-town or urban studies to inform their research, which might facilitate a picture of urban education that mitigates some of the fragmentation in the field with respect to issues of race, gender, and social class.
Higher Education
Participants in this group began by talking about their current projects. Issues of knowledge, research, teaching and learning, religion, professional education, and research about specific institutions or groups and types of institutions emerged as the most common topics. Scholars noted the need for substantive research about professional training at the postsecondary level. Professional education seemed to link the various strands of research; it was directly or indirectly a part of most participants' recent research endeavors. Their projects ranged from a complete review of academic preparation for the professions, which the Carnegie Corporation is undertaking, to the historical link between teacher education and historically black colleges and universities. The connection between issues of knowledge and professional education arose in one scholar's work, particularly the preparation of researchers in various disciplines and the low self-image that some have about the quality of research they produce. Another participant spoke of a project that examines the nature of graduate programs in schools of education, especially doctoral programs in teacher education, and the difficulty in asking practitioners to shift from a normative practice to an analytical practice. Religion, institutional type, and professional education were important elements in the work of another scholar who noted that in the nineteenth-century, the appearance of theological seminaries removed, by and large, the function of ministerial education from mainstream colleges, placing it in the realm of mission-oriented institutions.
Small Group Discussions - II
The second set of concurrent sessions evolved throughout the planning of the conference. Three distinct discussions were organized around the following central questions: (1) Am I a Professor of Education or of History? (2) How Do I Integrate Research and Teaching? and (3) How Do I Relate the History of Education to Public Audiences? While the first question emanated during a planning meeting, participants recommended the latter two, by popular demand, as common issues that they wanted to discuss.
Am I a Professor of Education or of History?
This topic was designed to address the day-to-day dilemmas of historians in schools or departments of education and the implications of this juxtaposition for the training of teachers and researchers in the history of education. The discussion among participants in this group centered on the tensions of being a historian in a school or department of education. One source of tension evolved from what could be seen as academic freedom; many agreed that scholars in history departments had more liberty regarding their research, as long as they fulfilled their course obligations. Lack of respect for some disciplines in schools of education was an overarching theme, but the group concluded that this was a recent phenomenon. One explanation for the relative lack of importance placed upon history, and other disciplines such as philosophy and sociology, was that schools/departments of education, in their quests to be seen as relevant and important, have had to align themselves more closely with the policy arena than with traditional modes of scholarship. Thus, in the past 15 years or so, many schools have gradually removed philosophy and history of education courses from the list of required courses and have replaced them with social foundations and policy courses. One participant said that although he was trained as a historian, he was not invited to replace the retiring historian of education because he was "too pure" a historian and not closely aligned with current policy research.
In addition, participants noted that non-historian faculty are increasingly taking on academic responsibilities for which they are not specifically suited. For example, some cited being asked to teach sociology and philosophy courses for which they had no training. Others also recalled instances in which their colleagues taught history courses and sat on committees for historically-oriented dissertations although they do not have requisite training. Scholars also cited isolation and dual loyalties as major issues in their attempts to remain loyal historians of education in schools of education. Several said that they are often the only faculty members in the school who know history or are among a small number of professors who maintain a strong disciplinary approach to studying education. One participant asserted that the key to successfully carrying out the dual role is to reach out to other departments and schools (e.g., using history to explain the economics or sociology of education).
How Do I Integrate Research and Teaching?
This topic emerged as a common interest among scholars, as evidenced by participants' suggestions about important topics to discuss. Integration emerged as a primary theme among scholars in this group. Several identified the disconnection between the courses they had to teach and their research as a major challenge. Participants noted that given the low student demand and the low administrative priority placed on the field in schools of education, it is difficult for historians of education to integrate their scholarly work into the courses they are assigned to teach. Another challenge in integrating teaching and research is the sensitivity of assigning one's own books and/or articles. However, some scholars noted that this provides a basis for discussing the process with graduate students. One participant stated that he allows students to review his work as one way of educating them about research.
Another challenge emerging from this small group discussion was incorporating a representative sample of new scholarship into survey courses. Scholars noted that although much of the new research focuses on underrepresented groups, the attention given to those groups in history of education survey courses might be insufficient. Some also commented on students' resistance to reading "too much" history about minority groups. They concluded that there are challenges in developing pedagogical approaches that integrate this material in appropriate proportions.
How Do I Relate the History of Education to Public Audiences?
As with the previous discussion, participants identified public audiences as one of the more prevalent issues facing scholars and the field in general today. Central concerns emerging from the discussion were the public's interest in historical scholarship, obstacles facing historians of education who try to connect with the public, and existing models of popular academic work. Participants in this group talked at length about the term "public audience" but did not reach consensus about what it means (teachers, policymakers, and the larger population outside the academy were named). Participants agreed on both the size of these general audiences and their interest in historical research. The History Channel, Ken Burns' Civil War and Baseball documentaries, and history book clubs are "proof" of the public's "thirst" for historical information. One participant noted that the "largest book club in the country" is the History Book Club. This large public audience bodes well for historians of education, although they have not fully tapped into this market. One participant commented that the problem is not one of demand; with a little creativity, historians of education could establish a public audience for their work.
However, scholars identified some obstacles in relating to wider audiences, chief among them being the tenure process. Historians of education are acknowledged and rewarded for their publications in refereed journals, though few people may actually read them, and publishing outside of this realm, while personally rewarding, has little or no positive bearing on tenure decisions. Thus, the nature of the process is such that tenured scholars have the comfort of writing outside mainstream publications. One participant noted the ramifications of this trend. History of education publications exclude popular magazines such as Seventeen, for example, which often contain articles on education and reach over 100,000 readers. This is a real dilemma for scholars who want more people to read their work. However, some warned about overstating the "dangers" associated with popular publications; that is, scholars may avoid publishing in the mainstream media not because of any real danger to their academic careers, but because of perceived danger. Yet, most agreed that the reward structure discourages publishing for non-academic audiences.
The media's expectations of historians of education is another problem scholars face in reaching out to broader audiences. Participants noted that many reporters and journalists seek them out for comments on contemporary educational issues, but that they are primarily interested in quick, yes or no responses. Furthermore, journalists tend to reduce scholars' research findings to short, quotable sound bites. However, participants asserted that models for meaningful research geared toward the general public exist: Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities and David Tyack and Larry Cuban's Tinkering Toward Utopia were noted as exemplars. The popular success of these works underscores the potential that exists for historians of education to reach audiences beyond the academy.
Small Group Discussion on The Relationship Between History of Education Research and Policy and Practice
This topic emerged from two central questions: Should historians of education be trained to study policy and educational practices, and who will constitute the primary audience for the history of education? As these are both significant and timely issues, the consensus was to merge the two questions into a discussion about the relationship between history of education research and policy and practice. There were two group discussions on this topic. Two concerns emerging from both groups were policymakers' attitudes towards scholars' work and the uses of scholarship in the policy arena. Participants were wary of demagogues and the policies enacted during their administrations. Many noted that policymakers' concerns were contemporaneous, with no regard for history. The work of historians generally covers a longer period of time, making it difficult to link the intersection of interests among policymakers and historians of education. Participants noted that policymakers often want a thirty-second synopsis of an issue, while scholars are averse to condensing historical issues into such small pieces. Another frustration for historians is that policymakers often ask for advice to justify their decisions, rather than making it a central part of their decision-making processes.
This dichotomy of interests among conference participants led to two questions about the role of historians of education in the policymaking process: (1) In being asked to prepare reports that ultimately go unused in addressing related problems, are historians compromised at the outset? and (2) Should historians be involved in policy making? If so, where do you insert authentic historical input into the process? Some scholars asserted that while historians cannot do policy analysis, they can provide an important perspective to policy questions. The challenge is to get policymakers to understand the value of historical thinking in their decisions. Some participants expressed discomfort with the role of a historian as a commissioned policy analyst and suggested that maybe scholars should only worry about writing history, knowing that those who need it will use it. Historians of education may influence policy in a de facto manner by just doing their jobs; that is, letting solid historical scholarship speak for itself in the policy arena. The downside is that good history can also be used in ways other than intended and that researchers have no control over this.
Although much of the discussion focused on the use of history in policymaking, there were some examples in which historians are asked to help with issues of practice. While these experiences appear more productive than those in the policy arena, issues of conflicting agendas remain. Like policymakers, practitioners needs are often immediate. Another challenge is getting practitioners to understand the past when making current decisions.
Future Contributions to the History of Education: The Next Generation of Scholars Speak
The final session was designed to frame the future of the history of education. This forward-looking panel discussion was central in concluding the conversations that took place and in stimulating ideas for future research in the field. The panelists for this session were Julie Reuben (Harvard University), Kate Rousmaniere (Miami University), and Jonathan Zimmerman (New York University). Each was asked to share his/her vision for the field and his/her own and others' potential contributions to the history of education.
Julie Reuben began by talking about the research gaps in the history of education. She mentioned, for example, the lack of material on the Depression, state systems of higher education, non-elite schools, and historically Black colleges. She then proceeded to talk about the ways in which research agendas reveal themselves to researchers and used herself as an example. Reuben explained how a walk in San Francisco during baseball season prompted her to think about people's loyalty to impersonal and intangible events and institutions. This, in turn, led her to consider the state's need to garner the loyalty of its citizens. This line of thinking eventually prompted her to write and teach a class about the history of citizenship. Reuben explained that what began as a completely subjective experience led to a synthesis of ideas involving education and citizenship. She then used this experience to talk about the community of historians of education. Reuben asserted that when scholars share their subjective experiences and start talking with one another, they will find that others share their interests and thoughts about research topics. She concluded that the field will continue to grow and develop as long as historians of education challenge and interact with each other and the larger community.
Kate Rousmaniere (Miami University) focused on new ways of thinking about theory, research methods, and future directions for research. Rousmaniere contended that historians of education are becoming increasingly interested in "closed studies" of schooling. That is, they are looking at social relations inside the classroom (classroom dynamics and practices). This closed focus requires new kinds of theoretical frameworks such as postmodern theories of social identity, gender identity, social capital theory, social constructivist theories of race relations, and sociological theories of labor relations. She stated that these theories could help uncover and analyze the complicated human interactions and behaviors that typify public school classrooms. She discussed a variety of new methodological approaches that she believes have great potential for historical inquiry, such as image-based research that focuses on photographic and cinematic images of schools and schooling. She also mentioned rhetorical and textual analyses of school fiction and textbooks as other promising methodologies. She suggested that historians combine both quantitative and qualitative sources and offered a synthesis of census data and oral history as an example. She asserted that this kind of analysis could provide fresh and illuminating perspectives and/or interpretations of educational history. Rousmaniere concluded with a discussion of the work of "younger" historians of education, citing works on the histories of women math teachers, gay and lesbian teachers, women superintendents, women in higher education, and refugee children in England. She echoed the sentiments of Julie Reuben by stating that historians of education need to stay engaged with the world and in contact with each other.
Jonathan Zimmerman (New York University) began by noting that his research differs from most of the conference participants. He studies popular debates over the content of schooling, particularly among citizens and citizen groups that argue about the content and purpose of schooling. Zimmerman mentioned his first book on alcohol education and the arguments around it as an example of his work. He then talked about his current project that looks at the ways in which people have argued about school curricula, particularly as it relates to patriotism, nationalism, and sex and health. He intends to use these battles over school curriculum to demonstrate the fluidity and constantly changing nature and configurations of these agendas. Zimmerman stated that popular arguments over religion and sex education in schools reveal that history does not support static perceptions of liberal and conservative "views." For example, at different times, and for different reasons, both conservatives and liberals have supported and denounced the inclusion of religion and sex education in schools. Zimmerman used these situations to reveal the power of historical scholarship. "History can test our assumptions and make us less sure of what we think." He ended by suggesting that some of the myth shattering of revisionist (golden age) histories may be recaptured by historians of education who write histories that "challenge our own beliefs."
A Note from The Spencer Foundation
The Spencer Foundation sponsors occasional conferences to stimulate research on important issues in education. We thank Marvin Lazerson and Rubin Donato for helping organize this conference, Brian Sevier and Greg Dubrow for their roles in preparing this report, and the individuals who participated (see attached listing) for their good work and contributions. We hope that interested researchers will find the theoretical, methodological, and topical issues raised at the conference thought-provoking. The Spencer Foundation welcomes well-designed research proposals on the issues and ideas discussed in this report.