Litereacy education for the 21st century: It's time to close the factor

7/29/2019 Litereacy education for the 21st century: It's time to close the factor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/litereacy-education-for-the-21st-century-its-time-to-close-the-factor 1/13

This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado atDenver]On: 24 February 2013, At: 20:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer

Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading & Writing

Quarterly: Overcoming

Learning DifficultiesPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscription

information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/

urwl20

LITERACY EDUCATION

FOR THE 21STCENTURY: IT'S TIME TO

CLOSE THE FACTORYChristine H. Leland & Wendy C. Kasten

Version of record first published: 07 Jan

2011.

To cite this article: Christine H. Leland & Wendy C. Kasten (2002):

LITERACY EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: IT'S TIME TO CLOSE THE

FACTORY, Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,

18:1, 5-15

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105735602753386315

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105735602753386315



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105735602753386315

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20



This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied

or make any representation that the contents will be completeor accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions,formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified withprimary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n

i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o a t

D e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3



LITERACYEDUCATION FORTHE 21ST CENTURY:

IT’S TIME TO CLOSE THE FACTORY

Christine H. Leland

Indiana University, Ind ianapolis, IN , U S A

Wendy C. Kasten

Kent S tate U niversity, Kent, OH, U S A

M uch of what is done in literacy education today reects the ph ilosophy of the

industrial (or factory) model of education, which evolved during the late

nineteenth and earl y twentieth centuries. This article examines the historical

and theoretical foundations of the factory model and contrasts it to the more

recentl y devel oped inquiry model. Vignettes provide gl impses of how each model pl ays out in a contemporary cl assroom. We argue that the factory mod el

of education is no longer useful since democracy in the twenty-rst century

requires citizen s who are ab le to th ink critical ly and use learning and language

exibl y to construct knowl edge in a number of ways and contexts.

While it sometimes seems that the raging national debate over education is

a phenomenon exclusively endemic to our time and culture, we should

remember that this is not the case. A similar national debate that took placein Japan in the 1880s determined that country’s educational thought and

political action for the next fty years (Bethel, 1973) . In that case, debate

centered on the goal of education—specically, whether education in Japan

should seek to build subjects or citizens. One group argued that a strong

Japan could be built only by citizens, ‘‘only by people educated to be in-

dependent and self-assured’’ ( p. 28). Another group, however, believedthat it was more important to have obedient and loyal subjects in Japan,

and that this should be the main goal of education. The latter group wonthe debate, and, at the risk of sounding trite, the rest was history.

Address correspondence to Christine Leland, 902 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN

4620275155. E-mail: [email protected]

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18: 5–15, 2002

Copyright # 2002 Taylor & Francis

1057-3569/02 $12.00 + .00

5

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n

i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o a t

D e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3



Having just crossed the threshold of the twenty-rst century, Amer-ican educators are at a similar juncture today. The major difference is that

the question has changed. While there is now general agreement in this

country that the goal of education is to help people become active and

informed citizens (as opposed to obedient subjects), the debate rages onabout how schools can best accomplish this goal. Some people believe that

maintaining traditional school practices is the best way to inculcate goodcitizenship. They argue that traditional ways worked for them and will work

for their children as well.

Others, like Gardner (1991) and Eisner (1994), believe that American

education is at a turning point. Gardner describes one tension as a move-

ment towards uniformity and conformity. He argues that this view is rooted

in a faulty understanding of human cognition that focuses on ‘‘basic com- petencies,’’ the ‘‘mastery of minimal standards,’’ and the identication of

‘‘essential core knowledge’’ ( p. 203). This view, Eisner notes, is often

‘‘embraced in the name of educational equity as if sameness and equity

were identical’’ ( p. 4). According to Eisner, this paradigm appeals to many politicians interested in school reform because it reinforces the theory that

all schools should be uniform. The problem is that once standardization has

been achieved, it is possible to rank schools and note that some have

achieved ‘‘excellence’’ while others have not. This ultimately leads to seeingeducation as a race or competition that does not serve all learners equitably

in a ‘‘tacit meritocracy’’ ( p. 4).The contrasting paradigm is that of education for individuality, the

recognition of diversity, and multiple ways of knowing. Gardner explains

that this movement is based on the premise that individuals have different

minds and educators need to respond to them in different ways. Tools for

lifelong learning are more critical and less dependent on standards and‘‘minimums’’ (Gardner, 1991). Both Eisner and Gardner see the need for

sweeping changes in the structure and milieu of schooling. They argue that

our educational system is built on a model that is no longer appropriate—a

model that is better suited for making subjects than citizens. This criticism

arises from the fact that much of what is done in education today reectsthe philosophy of the industrial model, which became popular during the

late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

EVOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL MODEL

A review of the literature dealing with the industrial model of education

is helpful in understanding how and why it evolved. Like now, schools

at the turn of the last century were expected to do many things. In addition

to providing students with basic skills of literacy and mathematics,

6 C. H. Leland and W. C. Kasten

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o a t D

e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



schools were seen as the nation’s rst defense against the great wavesof immigrants arriving during this time. ‘‘Education provided a vehicle for

the efforts of one class to civilize another and thereby ensure that

society would remain tolerable, orderly, and safe’’ (Katz, 1971, p. 9).

An emphasis on explicit rules and regimented behavior helped ‘‘to investthe poor with the values of compliance, punctuality, cleanliness, and

knowing one’s place in society’’ (Cuban, 1972, p. 8). In addition, a primarygoal of public education was to prepare young people for factory jobs

that required them to perform some relatively simple task over and over

again. Young people being prepared for such ‘‘cog’’ jobs ‘‘had to be trained

to comprehend and accept instructions, and then to implement them

conscientiously. Discipline and reliability were the core virtues’’ (Reich,

1989, p. 97).When public education tacitly accepted the tasks of civilizing the

immigrant masses and preparing future factory workers, it simultaneously

assumed the role of maintaining the status quo. Our present system of

public education ‘‘was not designed, as many of us were taught, to be thegreat social and economic equalizer and the promoter of our democratic

values. It was designed rst and foremost to be the Great American Aca-

demic and Social Sorting Factory’’ (Clinchy, 1993, p. 606). Although edu-

cational literature and spokespeople have claimed that schools are symbolsof opportunity, ‘‘their slitted or windowless walls say clearly what their

history would reveal as well: they were designed to reect and conrm thesocial structure that erected them’’ (Katz, 1971, p. xviii).

Systematizing Schools

As schools struggled to keep law and order and prepare an industrial

workforce, they were criticized for not doing the job efciently. One re-sponse to this criticism was that educators looked to science to improve

their image. ‘‘If one is under re, the appeal of scientically ‘proved’

methods for increasing productivity is great. By wrapping themselves in

the mantle of science, school administrators could protect themselves

from criticism and, at the same time, appear ‘up to date’ ’’ (Eisner, 1994,

p. 12) . A number of leading educators became convinced that there mustbe one best system of education for urban populations and made it their

lifework to identify and implement this system. Tyack (1974) reports that

some educators were impressed with the order and efciency of the new

technology and forms of organization they saw about them. ‘‘The division

of labor in the factory, the punctuality of the railroad, the chain of command and coordination in modern businesses—these aroused a sense

of wonder and excitement in men and women seeking to systematize the

schools’’ ( p. 28). These educators described their school systems as

Literary Education for th e 21st Century 7


e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



factories and called themselves superintendents, as in industry. Theystudied the hierarchy, the division of labor, and the intensive professional

supervision in the industrial model and worked to design similar struc-

tures and practices for schools. ‘‘If those methods worked in industries as

diverse as textiles and railroads, why would they not work in education’’(Katz, 1971, p. 68)?

THE CHILD AS PRODUCT

Reimagining the school as a factory led to reconceptualizing students as

products on the assembly line. In 1916, inuential educator E. Cubberly

wrote: ‘‘Our schools are, in a sense, factories in which the raw products(children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the var-

ious demands of life’’ (in Kliebard, 1971, p. 75). Students were initially

assessed to determine what they lacked, then were ‘‘drilled until skilled’’

(Fosnot, 1989, p. 5). Teachers—the production workers—had little dis-cretion over what they could do to each batch that passed through; ‘‘stu-

dents passively received whatever was doled out. Inspectors tried to weed

out the defects, sometimes returning them to an earlier step for reworking’’

(Reich, 1989, p. 100). Since the content of what an educated person shouldlearn was assumed to be universal, all learners received the same curri-

culum and were expected to achieve the same understanding. An em- powered learner in this model was ‘‘both unwanted and dangerous’’

(Fosnot, 1989, p. 5).

There was also a widely held belief at this time that operating schools

like factories would increase their efciency and lead to nancial savings.

Within grammar schools, the system of age-grading had begun in 1847. Ten years later, the superintendent of the Boston schools recommended that

each teacher take a different class each year rather than remain with the

same group of pupils throughout its entire school career. ‘‘Reformers ar-

gued that graded schools yielded enormous increases in educational ef-

ciency, and effectiveness, and their blueprints featured carefully designedsequences of schools of which a high school formed the apex’’ (Katz, 1971,

p. 35). The ‘‘platoon school’’ was another idea that resulted from the effort

to increase efciency and save money. According to this plan, savings re-sulted from departmentalizing classes and keeping the rooms in constant

use. Precision timing was accomplished through the use of a bell system as

children moved from class to class. The day was broken into two 90-minuteclasses of basic skills and six 30-minute classes of special subjects. At the

peak of its popularity in 1929, 1,000 schools in 41 states were operating on

this plan, although there was never any evidence that platoon schools had

any educational advantages over other schools (Callahan, 1962).



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



THE INDUSTRIAL MODEL TODAY

The ‘‘cult of efciency’’ is still alive in the contemporary controversy over

the issue of ‘‘accountability’’ (Oliver, 1976, p. 18). To reward or penalize

individual teachers on the basis of their students’ test scores is to judgetheir efciency in turning out a satisfactory product. It is no accident thatmodern schools are run like businesses and even employ many of the same

terms: ‘‘production performance, output gures, projected increased rates

of success, effectiveness of teachers, and student standardized test out-

comes’’ (Van Manen, 1991, p. 511). Another vestige of the industrial model

is the continued reliance on what Goodlad and Anderson refer to as‘‘grouping by litter,’’ the practice of assigning children of the same age to

the same grade (cited in Eisner, 1994) . Children who do not make therequired amount of progress during a specied amount of time are treated

much as ‘‘rejects’’ on the assembly line: they are pulled out and sent

through again. The industrial model also fosters a spirit of competition.

Much like competing business associates, children soon learn that there ismore to be gained from working alone than from sharing ideas. Finally, the

type of literacy required by the industrial model is still evident in the focus

of many teachers and instructional materials on decoding and analyzing the

smallest parts of language: According to Myers (1996) , one of the new

literacy demands that occurred during the early part of the twentiethcentury ‘‘was the treatment of language as an object to be analyzed into

objective parts . . . separate from the responses of readers and from the

intentions of the author’’ ( p. 89).

Vignette 1 shows what the industrial model looks like in a con-

temporary, racially diverse urban classroom:

Although it was very quiet when I entered Ms. Webb’s rst grade classroom,

it seemed that every head turned to look in my direction. Ms. Webb was

standing at the chalkboard, leading the class in the ‘‘Daily Oral Language’’

exercise. She pointed to a sentence on the board that contained a number of

errors and asked who would ‘‘be the rst’’ to identify what was incorrect. The

sentence read: mr and mrs brown will go to phoenix on tuesday After-

noon. Several children raised their hands immediately, and when the teacher

nodded in her direction, Kate said that ‘‘mr’’ and ‘‘mrs’’ both needed to start

with a capital letter. Another student added that ‘‘mr’’ and ‘‘mrs’’ also neededto have a period. As I looked around the room, I noticed a child (Kevin) who

was intently focused on removing a knot from one of his shoelaces. He looked

neither at the teacher nor the chalkboar d and appeared to be paying no

attention to the ‘‘Daily Oral Language’’ exercise. Ms. Webb must have seen me

watching him because she called on him to nd another error in the sen-

tence. Kevin glanced at the board and said that he had a Mr. and Mrs. Brown

in his neighborhood and one day their dog got loose and attacked the man



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



who lived in the big brick house on the corner. The teacher responded by

telling Kevin ‘‘now is not the time for stories’’ and asking if he could point out

another error in the sentence. When Kevin simply shrugged, she shook her

head and asked Brian to ‘‘help Kevin.’’ Brian gave Kevin a scornful look and

announced that of course the ‘‘b’’ in ‘‘brown’’ needed to be capitalized since‘‘brown’’ was a name in this sentence. When the teacher turned her gaze to

another part of the classroom, Kevin continued working on the shoelace.

After the sentence had been dissected to the teacher’s satisfaction, each

student was given a worksheet with similar examples to correct in-

dependently. Kevin looked at the paper briey and then turned his attention

back to the knot. Ten minutes later, when the teacher collected the work-

sheets and found that Kevin’s was still blank, she sighed and told him that he

would ‘‘have to miss recess again.’’

This vignette illustrates many important characteristics of the industrialmodel’s legacy to education. First, in terms of organization, this was a

graded classroom. Everybody was about the same age and was supposed to

be learning=doing the same thing. The expectations were the same for

everyone, and Kevin, the struggling learner, was allowed to fail. Literacyand curriculum, contextualized by the teacher as sets of predetermined

skills, were operationalized in this instance as conventions to be learned.

The sentence in the lesson was presented as a decontextualized piece of language that served no purpose other than a starting point for dissection.

Kevin’s attempt to personalize the grammar exercise by relating the sen-tence to the Mrs. and Mrs. Brown in his own life was seen by the teacher as

engaging in off-topic behavior. In factory terms, Kevin could not be al-

lowed to stray from the assembly line (Newkirk & McClure, 1996) . By

asking ‘‘who would be the rst’’ to answer her question, the teacher

stressed competition more than collaboration. This focus was later

reafrmed by the type of ‘‘help’’ she provided for a student who was

not meeting her criteria for success. Throughout the interaction, theteacher assumed the role of manager (or factory foreman) rather than

facilitator.

ALTERNATIVE TO THE FACTORY: SCHOOL AS VILLAGE,

STUDENT AS INQUIRER

Goodlad (1984) rejects the ‘‘relatively simplistic input7output factory

model’’ and argues that schools are better understood as ‘‘little villages in

which individuals interact on a part-time basis within a relatively con-

strained and conning environment’’ ( p. 113). In accordance with Good-

lad’s analogy, Reich (1989) argues that students (inhabitants of the village)

should learn how to ‘‘share their understandings and build on each other’s



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



insights’’ rather than being trained for a type of high-volume standardized production ( p. 102). Another point of connection between a classroom and

a village can be made in terms of how the people in the village conduct their

lives. Put in simple terms, they pursue what they nd interesting. A villager

might decide to sh for a living if s=he has a consuming desire to go shingevery day. Similarly, a villager might decide to become a cook if s=he loves

to mess around with ingredients and utensils and often comes up with tastyresults. Generally speaking, villagers have some degree of choice relating to

how they will spend their time. Dewey (1916) supported the same line of

thinking when he described school as primarily a social institution that

should represent real life. He viewed schools as institutions that functioned

best as authentic social communities (Archambault, 1964). This, then,

differs greatly from classrooms based on the factory model, where few realchoices are offered. Students like Kevin, who choose to spend their time in

ways that the teacher has not sanctioned, are seen as decient in terms of

both their behavior and their development of essential skills.

A classroom based on the inquiry model of education, however, ismore like a village, as Dewey also proposed. Because the teacher has not

predetermined the entire curriculum, students are invited to participate

in making decisions about how they and others in the class will spend

their time. In addition, classrooms based on the inquiry model exist not tosilence students but rather to provide opportunities for hearing their

voices (Harste, 1994) . This model evolved from constructivist learningtheory, which states that ‘‘humans construct knowledge for themselves,

drawing from their experiences, and with or without the guidance and

support of others’’ (Weaver, 1994, p. 341). Teachers in inquiry classrooms

see their role as facilitating students’ learning rather than directing it.

Copenhaver’s (1993) description of ‘‘Explorers Club’’ in a fth-gradeclassroom and Harste and Leland’s (1998) description of an inquiry-based

teacher education program are instances of this model in practice. These

examples support Eisner’s (1990) argument that while uniformity of

outcome was regarded as a major educational virtue in traditional models,

the ‘‘cultivation of productive differences’’ is an important goal in aninquiry model.

Vignette 2 shows how the inquiry model plays out in a contemporary

racially diverse urban classroom:

My rst observation upon entering Ms. Hill’s multiage classroom was that

nobody looked up or paid the slightest attention to my arrival. The room was

not quiet as children were working in groups and talking about the research

for their chosen inquiry projects. I joined a group that included two eight-

year-old boys (Sam and Joe) and a six-year-old girl (Holly). These children

were working together because they were all interested in learning more



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



about the brain. As I pulled up a chair, the boys were taking turns reading

from a reference book and Holly was listening and sketching a diagram of the

brain from a different book. The technical text was challenging for Joe, but

with Sam’s help, he was able to gure most of it out. Every few minutes, the

reading stopped and all three children discussed a point that had been madeor a question that they had. Although their conversations sometimes strayed

from the topic (as when Sam said that his uncle liked to eat cow’s brains and

he thought that was really gross but wondered what they tasted like), none of

the children seemed to think this was a problem, and eventually the group got

itself back on track.

After a while, Holly said that she wanted a turn reading and Joe assumed

the role of helper for her. Sam moved over and leafed through another re-

ference as he listened and made occasional comments. When Ms. Hill stopped

by to check their progress, all three children chimed in with what they hadlearned about the brain that day. The teacher took notes as they talked and

didn’t interrupt when Joe’s observations about parts of the brain were

somewhat confused. Instead, she suggested that they might want to construct

a model of the brain next time and asked them to gure out what materials

would be best for doing this. As the time for cleaning up and going to lunch

approached, the three collaborators decided that ‘‘Play Doh’’ would work for

the model, and that each of them would take a book home that afternoon to

continue ‘‘nding out stuff’’ about the brain.

This vignette illustrates many components of the inquiry model. Instead

of showing a graded classroom where children are grouped by age, this

classroom shows the learning that can occur when older and younger children work together. Curriculum in this instance is built around the

interests and inquiry questions of the learners, and choices have been

provided for them. Literacy in this classroom is contextualized as a way

to explore topics of personal interest while building and negotiating

meaning with others. In terms of individual difference, there are differ-ent expectations for each child and struggling learners are supported.

Instead of competing with each other, the learners engage in a form of

collaboration that benets all of them. The teacher in this classroom

serves as a facilitator, not a manager. Her major role of interaction is to

provide the means for enabling the students ‘‘to learn from engaging in

activities that pose problems to be solved’’ (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1996, p. 158) .

The two vignettes highlight the major differences between the factory

model and the inquiry model of education. These differences are sum-

marized in Table 1.

What remains to be determined is the potential long- and short-termeffects of each of the two models. One result that seems clear is that many

children, especially struggling readers and writers, are left behind in the

factory model. While a case can be made for the efcacy of providing



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



outside help for struggling learners like Kevin, the fact remains that this

help must be molded to t the demands of the classroom. As long as theclassroom experience is unengaging and unconnected for Kevin, he most

likely will not look like a successful learner. Replacing the factory model

with the inquiry model, on the other hand, provides more opportunities for

all children to succeed.

WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT?

As early as 1904, people like Margaret Haley were already well aware of the problems that would inevitably result from the movement to make

schools more like factories. Almost a century later, her words are still ir-

onically relevant:

Two ideals are struggling for supremacy in American life today: one the in-

dustrial ideal, dominating through the supremacy of commercialism, which

subordinates the worker to the product and the machine; the other, the ideal

of democracy, the ideal of the educators, which places humanity above all

machines, and demands that all activity shall be the expression of life. (cited

in Myers, 1996, p. 85)

TABLE 1 Characteristics of Factory and Inquiry Models

Industrial Model Inquiry Model

Purpose of education ° Conformity, obedience ° Critical thinking, creativity

° Prepare learner for factory job

° Prepare learner for information=technology

Learning model ° Behaviorism ° Social constructivism

S tructure ° Classes graded by age ° Multiage classes

° Homogeneous groups ° Heterogeneous groups

Curriculum ° 3 R’s, narrow, fact-based ° Multi-faceted, problem

solving

Instruction ° Text-based, transmission ° Multiple sources,

transaction Assessment ° Uniform, standardized ° Authentic, diverse

Role of Learner ° Passive, receive knowledge ° Active, construct

knowledge

Role of Teacher ° Foreman, clerk ° Co-learner, facilitator

Role of Parents ° Follow dictates of school ° Partner in decision-making

Role of Administrator ° Supervisor, manager ° Instructional leader,

co-learner

Type of literacy required ° Decoding, defining, analyzing ° Translation, critical



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



Perhaps the ideal of democracy is where our conversations and plans allneed to begin. It seems safe to assume that the future holds many chal-

lenges and that citizens of the twenty-rst century will have to work to-

gether to meet these challenges. In addition, it became increasingly clear

during the waning years of the twentieth century that memorizing factsdoesn’t solve problems, and that people need to be able to use knowledge

exibly in different contexts. If this is true, then the factory model hasoutlived its purpose and cannot provide what we now need. As Clinchy

(1993) notes, asking an educational system based on that old model to take

on the task of preparing our children for twenty-rst century life ‘‘is like

asking a Model T Ford to compete in the Indianapolis 500’’ ( p. 608). None

of us wants to drive a car that was engineered with technology from 100

years ago; none of us wants to have surgery based on medical knowledgefrom 100 years ago. As educators, we know that the industrial model has

been and still is the source of myriad problems both for us and our stu-

dents. It is time to reinvent the factories that charade as schools—and the

schools that charade as factories.What do we want for our children—all of our children? Can we serve

all our children with an archaic model that was intended for manufacturing

merchandise? How can we provide a setting designed to nurture the

growth, development, and education of human beings? These are some of the questions that are addressed in this issue. The answers lie in how

successful we are in removing factory-type expectations from schools andreplacing them with expectations to teach, assess, and value children as

individuals. As educators who are dedicated to all of our students, this is

something we must do.

REFERENCES

Archambault, R. D. (1964) . John Dewey on education: Selected writings. New York: The

Modern Library.

Bethel, D. M. (1973). Makiguchi: The value creator . New York: Weatherhill.

Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efciency. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Clinchy, E. ( 1993) . Needed: A Clinton crusade for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 74,

6057612.

Copenhaver, J. (1993). Instances of inquiry. Primary Voices K 7

6, 1, 67

12.Cuban L. (1972). Th e managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in school s.

Albany, NY: SUNY.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: McMillan.

Eisner, E. (1990). Implications of artistic intelligences for education. In W. J. Moody (Ed.),

Artistic intel ligences: Impl ications for Ed ucation ( pp. 31742). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school

programs. New York: Macmillan.



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3



Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Gardner, H. (1991) . The school of the future. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Ways of Knowing

(2017217). New York: Prentice-Hall.

Goodland, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-

Hill.Harste, J. C. (1994). Literacy as curricular conversations about knowledge, inquiry, and

morality. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes

of Reading ( pp. 122071242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harste, J. C., & Leland, C. H. (1998). No quick x: Education as inquiry. Reading Research

and Instructions, 37 (3), 1917206.

Katz, M. B. (1971) . Cl ass, bureaucracy, and schools: The il lusion of educational change in

America. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Kliebard, H. (1971). Bureaucracy and curriculum theory. In V. Haubrich (Ed.), Bureaucracy

and schooling ( pp. 747

93). Washington, DC: ASCD.Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Newkirk, T., & McClure, P. (1996) . Telling stories. In B. Power & R. Hubbard (Eds.), Language

development: A reader for teachers ( pp. 1327138). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Oliver, D. W. (1976). Education and community. Berkeley, CA: McCuthan Publishing Corp.

Reich, R. B. (1989). The resurgent liberal (and other unfashionable prophecies). New York:

Random House.

Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van Manen, M. (1991) . Reectivity and the pedagogical moment: The normativity of peda-

gogica1 thinking and acting. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(6), 5077536.

Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole

language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. (1996) . The literate potential of collaborative talk. In B. Power &

R. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development: A reader for teachers ( pp. 1557167).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.



e n v e r ] a t 2 0 : 1 6 2 4 F e b

r u a r y 2 0 1 3

Litereacy education for the 21st century: It's time to close the factor

Documents

Transcript of Litereacy education for the 21st century: It's time to close the factor