Response to "Battleground Schools"

I still see jokes now and then on social media about new math. The scenario involves people finding bizarre notation and symbols out in the real world, taking a photo, and commenting something along the lines of “I should have learned new math”. Never underestimate the ability of a small group of French people to change the world. I found the argument that new math was neither strictly progressive nor conservative interesting and convincing, and a reminder that many reformers and reactionaries don’t fit neatly in one ideological category.

I appreciated the long history of modern education, showing how different traditions respond to new entrants that aim to displace or reform them. Motivation for changes in education policies and curricula has historically often been due to perceived threats, especially external threats. Dewey and progressive reforms worried about training workers for the increasingly complex industrial revolution economies and democracies, and the rivalry with the Soviet Union led to the space race and massive increases in educational spending and attendance. I believe the Babylonians fit this mold, as much of their advances in math were aimed to further their knowledge of astronomy, and in turn, astrology. So, in a sense, they were still responding to a “threat”, but in this case it was the menace of vengeful or unpredictable deities. 

The prospects of educational reform are dependent on capacity. Societies may lack enough trained teachers and related resources to accomplish progressive or other goals. How do societies develop the human, physical, and financial capital required to accomplish ambitious changes? Many times, the trickiest part is getting the process started. I can imagine a scenario where once a society has reached some critical level of investment, these reforms create a virtuous cycle: investments in current students produce highly educated and capable workers who then are available to become future teachers themselves.