Excerpted from: Journal of Technology Education Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring 1992
Social Reconstruction Curriculum and Technology Education
Karen F. Zuga

See full article at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v3n2/pdf/zuga.pdf


Social Reconstruction
In response to social conditions of the day, Progressive educators during the early half of the century were advocating a restructuring of education in this country. Many of the Progressives believed that, due to school practices, schools and society were caught in a dualistic relationship which separated the school from mainstream society and created an isolation of the schools. They believed that what happened under the auspices of the schools was not real or reflective of the problems in society (Bode, 1933; Counts, 1932; Cremin, 1977; Dewey, 1916; Dewey and Childs, 1933). Furthermore, the Progressives argued that the artificial environment of the schools was miseducative in that the youth of the country were not prepared to see and understand the values and issues which would confront them as they became adults (Dewey and Childs, 1933).

As a result of these beliefs, some Progressives proposed that the schools create a new social order (Counts, 1932).

Definition
Creating a new environment in the schools, ‘reconstructing’ the existing environment, was the Progressive agenda, but how that was to be accomplished was not universally agreed upon (Cremin, 1976). As with any other idea, a range of opinions were held with Counts proffering, perhaps, the most radical opinion. Counts (1932) envisioned a restructuring of American society and economy as he said,

‘The times are literally crying for a new vision of American destiny. The teaching profession, or at least its progressive elements, should eagerly grasp the opportunity which the fates have placed in their hands.’ (p. 50)

Others were less radical in their suggestions for reform, but did believe that social reconstruction was the central aim of a good education and was necessary in schools, if not, society at large.

Citing that many members of society were far too concerned with individual needs, that the fervent nationalism of the times inhibited international cooperation, and that the economic depression was signalling problems with the existing society and economic structure (Dewey and Childs, 1933) mainstream Progressives believed that the schools could be structured in a new way, and, in turn, encourage students as future citizens to reconstruct society. The focus of mainstream Progressives was on the restructuring of schools; an effort which many hoped would lead to eventual changes in society. For schools and students, mainstream Progressive educators had several goals which included:

Mainstream Progressive educators differed with Counts in that they saw a future for the existing democracy. About the social reconstruction of the mainstream Progressives, Dewey and Childs (1933) said:

Our continued democracy of life will depend upon our own power of character and intelligence in using the resources at hand for a society which is not so much planned as planning --- a society in which the constructive use of experimental method is completely naturalized. In such a national life, society itself would be a function of education, and the actual educative effect of all institutions would be in harmony with the professed aims of the special educational institution. (Dewey and Childs, 1933, p. 65)

Interestingly, the Progressives based their interpretation of social reconstruction in experimentalism, science, and technology. Experimentalism and faith in science and technology are fundamental to the philosophy of pragmatism.

As a leading pragmatic philosopher, Dewey conceived of pragmatism as a uniquely American philosophy which dealt with the concepts of the instrumentalism of technology and the experimentalism of science as inquiry (Hickman, 1990; Smith, 1980). It is no wonder, then, that Dewey advocated experimentation in schools for both the students via the curriculum and for administrators as they determined the structure of schools. Moreover, Dewey and Childs (1933) spoke of the use of instrumentalism as a technology of education which would influence society:

‘An identity, an equation, exists between the urgent social need of the present and that of education. Society, in order to solve its own problems and remedy its own ills, needs to employ science and technology for social instead of merely private ends.’ (p.64)

Make no mistake about it, though, the purpose of the use of science and technology was to be a social purpose, not an individual purpose and not a business purpose. Individual and business values and actions were clearly criticized by the Progressives who linked these values and actions to the evident ills within society during the first half of the century (Bode, 1933; Counts, 1932; Dewey and Childs, 1933).

Implementation
A number of experimental or laboratory schools were set up during the Progressive Era in education. It is from these schools that examples of what social reconstruction would look like in education can be drawn. Bode (1933) explains social reconstruction as a ‘continuous reconstruction of experience’ (p. 19) in daily school practice with the following examples:

This reconstruction of experience, if it is to have any significance, must take the form of actual living and doing. Consequently the school must be transformed into a place where pupils go, not primarily to acquire knowledge, but to carry on a way of life. That is, the school is to be regarded as, first of all, an ideal community in which pupils get practice in cooperation, in self-government, and in the application of intelligence to difficulties or problems as they may arise. In such a community there is no antecedent compartmentalization of values.

There are a number of important points here about social reconstruction. Social reconstruction involves active participation through ‘doing.’ However, this is not mindless drill, skill development, or even the completion of personally chosen projects, because the Progressives clearly intended a social purpose to all activity. They viewed the school as a community in which values and habits
useful in the greater community would be instilled through practice. This was not to be an activity such as job training or skill development which fit students into preconceived notions of what adults believed they should become. That is why there was an emphasis on self-government by students and that is why Bode (1933, pp. 19-20) continued:

‘Shopwork, for example, is not dominated by the idea of personal profit, but becomes a medium for the expression of esthetic values and social aims. The quest for knowledge is not ruled by the standards of research, but is brought into immediate relation with human ends. Judgements of conduct are not based upon abstract rules, but on considerations of group welfare.’

The message is clearly one of social purpose as the guiding force for the reconstruction of experience within the school. Social purpose
also guided the selection of content and activities which formed the curriculum. The social purpose is documented in an overview of the science and technology curriculum at The Ohio State University Elementary School and Kindergarten in 1935:

‘In evaluating our results, we asked ourselves thoughtfully: ‘Does the educational experience we are setting up provide for real participation by each student in each of these functions of living?’’ (Publications Committee, 1935,p. 121)

The curriculum of the laboratory school included a core of study about the preparation of materials which was specified to take place in the science, all of the arts, and the home economics laboratories. Industry, distribution, and control were some of the topics to be studied in this core.

The Ohio State University laboratory school was organized about the concept of social reconstruction and was often cited as an exemplar of social reconstruction curriculum in action. The secondary school operated on the same guiding principles. The effectiveness of the secondary program was documented, uniquely, by the first graduating class who took it upon themselves to write and publish a book about their perceptions of the social reconstruction program they had followed (Class of 1938, 1938).

In their extensive work the students explained how they created their school environment with teachers who served as friends and advisors. In the early years, much of the work that was done under the auspices of industrial arts involved modifying their own
school environment by refurbishing the school building.

In the experimental schools of the Progressive Era social reconstruction curriculum involved student self government, the evolution of a community consciousness on the part of students, and group project work which focussed on the school, local, national, and international communities.

The Legacy
Very little evidence of the social reconstruction curriculum remains today. Vestiges of practices initiated in the experimental schools can be seen in efforts to operate student councils, attempts to provide students some free choice in projects, and endeavors to maintain school laboratories in technology and consumer science education. What happened?

Dewey and Childs 1933 critique of the failure to adopt social reconstruction educational practices during that era has an all too familiar ring today:

Why, even when the social concepts were retained in theory, were they treated in a way which left them mainly only a nominal force, their transforming effect on practice being evaded? Why were they so often used merely to justify and to supply a terminology for traditional practices? The reason which lies on the surface is that an abstract and formal conception of society was substituted for the earlier formal concept of the individual. General ideas like the transmission and critical remaking of social values, reconstruction of experience, receive acceptance in words, but are often merely plastered on to existing practices, being used to provide a new vocabulary for old practices and a new means for justifying them. (p. 33)

Essentially, Dewey and Childs are critiquing the failure to move from the academic rationalist curriculum of the Greek tradition and the personal needs curriculum of the Herbartian tradition. Educators are still struggling with these, and other curriculum orientations today.