The education system in the United States has undergone large-scale changes since the late nineteenth century. The most significant development came about in 1892 when Committee of Tens was formed (Mackenzie, 1894) that formulated the conventions of curriculum and student placement in high school and colleges of In America today, it’s frequently accepted at most high school graduates will apply and attend colleges or universities. Higher education institutions emerged during this time developed levels of philanthropic generosity, that universities kept track of and campus architecture began to make a mark.
Despite the revolutionary steps taken, some people view the development as historical accidents, described later in the paper, since it enforces students to study course material that may not help them in future or that they may not be familiar with it. Another contrasting viewpoint is that of the philosophy of education as some researchers do not recognize it as an educational discipline (Barnett, 2004). The paper also discusses the needs to introduce new college buildings and campuses.
Theme and Support
The author demonstrates what it takes to make a significant college in the nineteenth century. A financial base was substantial. Numerous donors with deep pockets secretly supplied colleges who consented to take their name like Rice University, Stanford University, or Tulane University. The author focal point was in the classroom building, dorm rooms and employee workplaces. Universities went on to build new buildings and campuses to incorporate new academic disciplines, research, increasing faculty and students, and to tackle environment issues (Lidsky, 2002).
Committee of Ten
Establishment of Committee of Ten (CoT) was to frame an education plan independent of Britain. The committee compiled subcommittees, with distinguished scientists and philosophers, for nine different high school subjects. Each subcommittee was obliged to formulate recommendations for high school curriculum (Sheppard & Robbins, 2002). CoT took a recommendation from each subcommittee and devised high school curriculum plan (Mackenzie, 1894).
The Committee was established to lay and consolidate the foundation of standards for higher education institutions so that students from different disciplines at high schools could be placed in appropriate fields of study in colleges. At times, students were also divided into ethnic grounds and working groups which proved later, to be a setback to CoT.
Article from Library Search
The purpose of this article is to explore the development in the education system since 1890, its consequences in general, and the impact on teachers in particular (Flynn, James, Mathien, Mitchell, & Whalen, 2017). According to the author, only a small proportion of students attended high school before 1900, but standardization of curriculum increased the number of students significantly. Besides local students, immigrant influx became a routine. As a result, sciences were weighed less in comparison to humanities and linguistics.
Despite high numbers of enrollment, the author expresses disappointment in that the education system has confined the role of teacher to the dissemination of knowledge. The author maintains that teacher should impart free thinking, critical analysis and encourage the creation of knowledge but it is not in practice even after over a century since CoT was formed. Furthermore, the issue of less emphasis paid to sciences, especially Physics, is highlighted (Sheppard & Robbins, 2002). The author labels current system of education as a historical accident because it lacks intentional design.
The efforts in the development of education system have proved fruitful which is evident from the state of the current world with sophisticated technology and comprehensive set of conventions to deal any issue. As explained in the paper, the period of 1890-1910 has seen the most remarkable endeavor that revolutionized education system and shaped the standards of education followed even today. Still, commentators have shown contrasting viewpoints in response to the major changes since 1892.
Barnett, R. (2004). The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia. London Review of Education, 2(1), 61-73.
Daley, B. J., & Cervero, R. M. (2016). Learning as the basis for continuing professional education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2016(151), 19-29.
Engerman, D. C. (2015). The Pedagogical Purposes of Interdisciplinary Social Science: A View from Area Studies in the United States. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 51(1), 78-92.
Flynn, J., James, R., Mathien, T., Mitchell, P., & Whalen, S. (2017). THE OVERLOOKED CONTEXT: Pedagogies for Engagement and Empowerment at the Community College. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 19.
Lidsky, A. J. (2002). A perspective on campus planning. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(119), 69-76.
Mackenzie, J. C. (1894). The report of the committee of ten. The School Review, 2(3), 146-155.
Sheppard, K., & Robbins, D. M. (2002). Lessons from the Committee of Ten. The Physics Teacher, 40(7), 426-431.
Stalcup, A. M. (2016). Some ruminations on graduate students. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 408(23), 6239-6243.
Table: Number of Articles
|Thelin’s Terminology||Search Terminology||Number of Articles|
|Presidential presence||University presidents||1|
|Professors as professional experts||University professors||1|
|Professional schools||Professional education||1|
|Professionalization of students||Graduate students||1|
|The dynamics of the academic enterprise||University management||0|