Judging Reform “Success” and “Failure”: The Gary, Indiana Case

In previous posts about the label “failure” attached to school reform, I laid out an argument that making such a judgment is tricky. Who makes the judgment and what clock they listen to matters in judging “failure” or “success.” In this post I look at a K-8 school reform from a century ago and ask you whether it was a “failure.”

In 1906 in a town built by U.S. Steel on the shores of Lake Michigan, a new superintendent introduced an educational innovation that hundreds of school districts adopted in the next decade. Visitors traveled thousands of miles to meet Superintendent William Wirt, sit in classrooms of cheerfully decorated schools, and marvel at how children of immigrants learned during the day while their non-English speaking parents attended classes at night. Even though U.S. Steel owned the property and employees largely ran the town, the educational experiment converged with company interests in providing what observers called a productive education for both white-collar and blue-collar employees.

Progressives of the day, imbued with the revolutionary ideas of John Dewey and Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, wrote articles and books praising the combination of work and play, of school and community, of efficiency and civic-mindedness, that put the name of Gary, Indiana on the early twentieth century map of school reform.

The Platoon School (or Gary Plan) was introduced in a remodeled elementary school holding children from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. Administrators divided the student body into two groups or “platoons.” One platoon would be in the classrooms or auditorium while the other would be in the basement where there were woodworking, printing, and other shops; upstairs in music, art, and play rooms; or outside on the playground. During the day, each platoon would change places, giving each child academic, practical, recreational, and aesthetic experiences while using the entire facility. Most urban elementary school children in 1906 stayed the entire 6-8 hour school day in a self-contained classroom with one teacher; Gary pupils worked with many teachers during an eight-hour day, even receiving released time for religious instruction.

Moreover, because Superintendent William Wirt believed in tying the city of Gary to schools, adults (many of whom were recent immigrants working in the steel mills) would attend evening classes to learn English, hear lectures, and use various shops to learn industrial skills. Such a work-study-play-community school arrangement—a revolutionary shift in school organization and curriculum—made it possible to have many more students attend school since the schedule permitted all available space to be used by students during the day and adults at night. The Gary innovation spread swiftly across the nation. Educational pundits of the day applauded its success.

In 1918, however, two educational experts completed a study of the Gary schools. It praised some aspects of the platoon plan but raised serious questions about the quality of academic work and weak student performance on achievement tests. Soon after, national interest in the Gary Plan ebbed considerably. By the mid-1920s, the innovation had receded and virtually disappeared from the national scene. In Gary, it lasted in some form or another into the 1940s (see here and here)

Today Platoon Schools are largely forgotten. Yet the ideas of using buildings fully, offering a diversified curriculum combining academic subjects, practical tasks, and play in which students move to various parts of the school building, and having the school as an educational, social, and recreational center for adults have become mainstream features of elementary schooling. The Platoon School foreshadowed the modern elementary school.

Was the Platoon School a success, then, because it became popular in the media and spread swiftly to hundreds of school districts? Or was it successful because it lasted for over four decades in Gary and evolved into the modern elementary school? Or was the reform a failure? After all, the Gary Plan soared in popularity, matured, and then vanished from the national scene. Few present-day school reformers would recognize the name or remember the program. The Gary story suggests the puzzling ambiguity of, if not confusion in, determining the “success” and “failure” of school reforms.

I argue that most highly touted school reforms today (e.g., charters, pay-4-performance, KIPP schools) are like the Platoon School. They are adopted and, as they are implemented, undergo changes that transform them in ways that few of the designers of the original reform could predict, or even claim ownership.

Because schools change reforms as much as reforms change schools, judging an innovation’s success or failure is no easy task. Such doubts, however, have hardly prevented policy elites (then and now) from rushing to judgment in employing their standards of judging success. Media amplify elite opinions, often framing the reforms as winners and losers. As a result, some promising reforms that evolve too slowly for impatient policymakers and media pundits are aborted while others that are earmarked as winners by opinion-setters in the horserace for public attention often fade and disappear. I argued that the judgment of “failure” is anchored in the time-scale each group uses–their “clocks” (see here and here)

The crucial piece to evaluating school reforms is asking : What standards are used to make judgments? Whose standards are they?  In subsequent posts I answer these questions.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Judging Reform “Success” and “Failure”: The Gary, Indiana Case

  1. Louise Kowitch

    Larry, Thanks as always for a thought provoking series. Until I read this blog, I hadn’t thought how we historicize metrics of “success” or “failure” in any cogent manner. Once again, you extend how one can understand school reform to the “temper of the times” . In the age of Facebook, I have often thought one measure of students’ “performance”: when I learn what they are doing with their lives 5-20 years out of high school from their Facebook posts, and whether they attribute any of their successes to their high school experiences.

    • larrycuban

      Nice idea about using Facebook to gather info on what high school grads are doing decades later and whether they make any attribution to their school experiences. As always, Louise, thanks for taking the time to comment.

  2. Thanks for the information on this ‘Gary Plan’ — if I had heard about it before, I certainly forot it. I think an idea like this one has real promise, though I’m generally suspicious of Taylorism and the anti0-union attitude of corporations like US Steel.
    Getting in touch somehow with former pupils of various schools in a systematic and proportional manner is also a good idea, but a self-selected sample can only be prone to bias.
    OTOH, nobody I know wants to fill out surveys – myself included.

    • larrycuban

      Thanks for the comments and your interest in the Gary Plan. Ronald Cohen’s Children of the Mill documents the disillusion with Gary Plan in New York City and elsewhere.

  3. The current metrics that are being used to determine the labgel of ‘success’ or ‘failure’ — namely, scores on Reading and Math tests — are both gamable and perverse. They are perverse in that enormous fractions of the school year are being turned over to test preparation, Michelle Rhee in Baltimore and her acolytes in DC (such as Wayne Ryan at Noyes EC), showed us various ways to how to game or ‘fix’ the scores and win themselves large monetary rewards. We also know that children of wealthier and more educated parents do much better on these tests than children of the poor and less-educated. So, in a perverse attack on the real education of the poorest kids among us, the scores are used to close down the schools of the poor and brown and turn them over to almost completely untrained newbie teachers with no experience to speak of,in the craft of teaching, rather thanhaving trained, experienced professionals in athletics, welding, chemistry, music, art, literature, history, and so on.

  4. It would be nice to see more details about the disillusionment with the Gary system.

  5. Pingback: Who judges whether a reform is a success or not in education? | GFBrandenburg's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s