Talk:Factory model school

Ideology?

Current ideology of some in education has resulted in this biased page. This page should be presented as explaining modern ideology and buzz words rather than relating actual history. The idea of a factory model school is more of a modern interpretation based on current ideology than actual characteristics of previous schools. Particularly suspect is the section on pedagogy. What exactly does "assembly line" instruction really mean? Clearly no assembly was done and no line existed. This label is merely political labeling to disparage past instruction in favor of an unspecified new model (i.e. "active" learning). Much of current education still relies on memorization and there is no support offered for the idea that this was the only objective addressed or that rote learning was the only method. The actual characteristics the original model stem from economic efficiency rather than modeling factories. (It is cheaper to teach a group of 30 students.)

Direct instruction includes information from a teacher, but does not require lecturing. Again, the authors of this page are just presenting a straw man to support their unstated ideology. The criticism section reveals the true purpose of this page and requires that the author present some sort of logic or evidence regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the common school (not factory school) model.

Associating school pedagogy with an architectural style is a big stretch and is not well supported. Why single out architecture or one style of architecture? It is expected that any school building supporting group instruction would include classrooms. Note that classrooms are not lecture halls found in universities, where the lecture ruled supreme for centuries. Wikipedia should present information, not proselytize. Robotczar (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is very timely, it seems. Please, Robotczar, indicate more clearly what in the article is supposedly biased, and how those things are not verified by reliable sources. Or are the sources wrong too? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Points of View

The article as written attempts to convey a neutral point of view about a subject that is widely accepted. It is not a hypothesis nor is it written as such. Factory model schools are real and so is the term. This is not proselytizing nor is it a political term. One can improve on neutrality without inserting terms and phrases into the article that try to make this into a hypothesis or biased article reflecting your own point of view. That does not contribute to a NPOV or conform to an encyclopedic approach. There is a Criticism section - that is a very valid place for including different points of view with valid sources. Your editorializing was removed as not a single source was cited. Other edits that seem to contribute to the content I left alone or used as a basis for further minor enhancements.

Active learning is a specified, valid and widely accepted model. One may not agree it is appropriate, effective, etc., but that opinion does not make it any less real.

The economics behind the origins of this model are described. Perhaps you'd care to expand or emphasize that in the article.

Associating architectural style as you describe it, but not as intended, with Factory Model schools is not a stretch. They are used almost interchangeably by educators and architects. However, the images used currently in the article do not properly show how different aesthetic styles (International, Beaux Arts, etc) of buildings can all be Factory Model. It is more the plan or layout of the rooms that is what truly makes them factory model.

I agree that classrooms are not lecture halls, but they function in much the same way - dozens of students sitting in rows listening/reading/watching the information being presented by the "Sage on the stage" in a direct instructional model - and this is presented in detail in the linked article (Direct instruction). If there is a better way to convey this in the article, have at it in the body or in the Criticism section (again, with sourced cited). Architect21c (talk)

Educational History Revisons

I did a major re-write of this page as the content before did not reflect a neutral perspective and included sources that did not reflect academic rigor. The article put forth a phrase that has its origins in school criticism, rather than education history. To that end, the piece was revised to better reflect the origin of the phrase, a frame of reference for its use by early 20th century educators, and common flaws. The revisions will hopefully provide the reader with a better sense of where the phrase came from and how it's used, rather than reflect one person's opinion on what the phrase means.

EdHistory101 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)EdHistory

I removed the addition of the architectural information as segments were historically inaccurate or the sources were misleading.

EdHistory101 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This sentence, "Factory model classrooms emerged in parallel with factory model education in the 19th century." is inaccurate. That is, "factory model education" is not a thing. The phrase is a rhetorical device. There are multiple misleading statements in your section that should be removed.

EdHistory101 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

—Architecture sections— Let’s work to improve an article or section not delete one of two major components in the article or rewrote it completely to suit your own POV. There is room for both educational and architectural as well as neutral POV. If you feel something is misleading or inaccurate, let’s discuss or simply make a revision with appropriate citations. The Wiki rules are very useful and I try to follow them, perhaps sometimes not perfectly. Architect21c (talk)

Thanks

Agreed! They are useful. The challenge is that it's not my POV, per se. What you have under "criticism", unfortunately, isn't supported by the historical record. That is, the sentence "Factory model schools have been criticized from an ideological perspective in several ways..." doesn't make sense as there is no such thing as "factory model schools" as previously explained in the article. There is valid criticism of the "bells and cells" architectural model in terms of safety, hygiene, etc. but again, there's really no such thing as "factory model" schools. I'm not sure how to reconcile that tension without removing your entire "criticism" section and the first paragraph of the previous section. Several of the sources, especially 26, are repeating inaccurate history. There's also tension in your second and third paragraph as long corridors, especially in west coast American schools, were often about giving every classroom an external door and lots of light - the opposite of what we think of when we think of a "factory" model. I completely get where you're coming from and want to honor your work and am eager to figure out how to do without reinforcing inaccurate history.

EdHistory101 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Architect! I removed the critique section as it's misleading. That is, your sentence "Factory model schools have been criticized from both pedagogical and design perspectives in several ways, including educational performance, student attendance, not preparing students for 21st century society..." is inaccurate from a historical perspective. There is no such thing as a "factory model school." More to the point, there are highly innovative practices that happen in "cells and bells" school and "inflexible, standardized classrooms" and buildings with beautiful designs that have high absentee rates and low graduation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdHistory101 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Architect! I'm going to restore my use of the word "author" in the introduction. It's important the reader understands that using the phrase "factory model education" is a rhetorical choice by the writer. Using it means they're setting up a strawman argument they can then challenge.

Thanks! EdHistory101 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

_____

I have put the neutrality template on the article as the lead section is still lacking NPOV. Threedotshk (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC) ___

Can you please say more about what you see as a neutrality issue? The phrase is a rhetorical device, I'm not sure how it can, or lack, neutrality. Thanks! EdHistory101 (talk) ____

I've removed the neutrality template as there has no been additional guidance regarding the reason for the tag. EdHistory101 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the neutrality template as there has no been guidance regarding the reason for the tag. EdHistory101 (talk)

I've removed the neutrality template as there has no been guidance regarding the reason for the tag. EdHistory101 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article as it's written is horribly inaccurate and places WP:UNDUE weight on the opinions of those who believe the model does not exist. I would encourage User:EdHistory101 to read this article by educator Chris McNutt, which summarizes the evidence for the model better than I can (with citations). Preparing students for "business" was an instrumental part of the formation of the modern educational model, acknowledged by Mann, contemporaneous superintendents and educators, contemporaneous critics of the model, and even the California Department of Education of 1877. To dismiss the terms as "ahistorical" ignores the nuances of their history. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thinking, BappleBusiness. I'm not sure what you're looking for here. As I wrote in the opening paragraph, the phrase is ahistorical, as affirmed by a number of educational historians in the cited sources. The blog post you linked likewise confirms it: "the factory model" is "not a “history of education” — it’s demonstrating a particular element of industrial-influenced, en masse compulsory schools, and therefore it intentionally excludes history at certain points." Meanwhile, the blog post does not reflect current scholarship on the effiency model (I'd recommend this piece [1] by Fallace and Fantozzi.) Finally, I would offer that in the blog you linked, the phrase "factory model" is used in a number of ways, only a few of which are related to history. If you have particular sections of this article you feel should be edited, I'm happy to discuss them EdHistory101 (talk)

The neutrality tag has been removed as there's been no further information regarding the tag nor what is needed to address the issue. EdHistory101 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am very sorry for the delayed response (I was dealing with the end of my school year, which has been hectic to say the least). My concern about the use of the word "ahistorical" in the lead sentence is that it may insinuate the terms are "incorrect". Even discounting the historical element for a moment, the terms can't be discounted as incorrect in many ways, as the article explores in the "As a metaphor" section. Of course, we should include that many educational historians say it is ahistorical, but we also shouldn't dismiss the numerous advocates of the terms by making broad generalizations.

The article you linked seems to provide a more nuanced position on the historical angle of the terms. In fact, the authors say that the introduction of the efficiency model was based in reality. They only say that the language used to describe the shifts needs to evolve: scholars need to develop more nuanced language for discussing the shift toward the mobilization of schools for international competition and cultivation of the workforce. The authors compare the term "social efficiency" in the early 20th century to the term "diversity" in the early 21st century, being so widespread that it was not a matter of whether or what reformers believed in social efficiency but rather how and why all reformers believed in some form of social efficiency.

The discussion is much more nuanced and lots of it is subjective (e.g., American education has remained static since the 19th century is a strawman, and the assertion that education has largely remained static is one that you can't necessarily say is correct or incorrect due to its subjectivity). As a start, I revised the lead in my sandbox; I encourage you to give me your thoughts. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope the end of the year went smoothly! I'm happy to talk this through and look forward to the back and forth.

I agree that the discussion is nuanced. The challenge is the use of the term "factory model" - when used by advocates of the phrase - obliterates that nuance. To put it bluntly, Chris McNutt is not a historian and in his article, he is using "factory model" in a way the historical record does not support in service to a rhetorical goal. In other words, he wrote - and you seem to endorse his argument - that there was a bright line between industry and the classroom. However, his evidence doesn't point to pedagogy (what teachers did) or assessment (evidence of what student learned) but what some men said or wrote. Meanwhile, just because a man in the early 20th century said or wrote something about schools, it does not mean it translated to what happened in classroom. One of the most common course in high school at the time many of the statements he quoted was Latin. It's difficult to see how coursework in Latin is related to industry. That said, and this is a critical distinction, "efficiency model" is not the same as the "factory model." As I explain in the metaphor section, Scientific Management did have a role in how schools operated, but not to the degree the phrase "factory model" suggests.

I'm comfortable saying the phrase is incorrect and ahistorical (as the historians I cited did) for the same reason I'm comfortable saying the idiom, "it's raining cats and dogs" is scientifically improbable. It's *possible* cats and dogs could fall from the sky. It's not likely. It's possible there were school leaders who ran their school based on the needs of a particular industry, or were otherwise informed by factories, but it wasn't the norm in the way the phrase implies. In other words, ahistorical is needed as a marker to make it plain to the reader that when someone is using the phrase, they are misrepresenting the historical record in order to advocate for a particular reform they support. The key difference is that most laypeople know cats and dogs don't fall from the sky. Most people are not familiar with the history of American education.

I appreciate your proposal revision in the sandbox. The first tension I see is your use of the phrase, "Some educational historians..." I have not once, in all of my reading on topic, come across a historian who uses the phrase "factory model" unless it's to critique it. And again, "efficiency model" and "scientific management" are not the same as "factory model." I would be open to "some historians..." if there is evidence of anyone in the field defending the phrase or using it in their work. I'm not sure what makes it subjective, other than some people - who are not educational historians - believe it is true or believe the phrase summarizes the historical record. Second, subjects emerged in the 1800s when factories looked very different than how a modern reader will likely interpret the phrase. Third, what does "developing students into workers" mean, practically speaking? That is, is there particular evidence you have in mind that suggests teachers - as a profession - changed their teaching with the goal of preparing students to be workers? EdHistory101 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try to address all your points here, but it might not be super organized so let me know if you need clarification of what I mean. The terms don't obliterate nuance on their own, since the terms aren't used in a homogeneous way (though I do agree that some education reformists have unnuanced views here). We can't dismiss the whole concept as ahistorical, because there is some truth to the claim that there was a movement influenced by Taylorism in how schools were operated, as well as a shift in what kinds of subjects were taught and a similar shift in the purported purposes of schooling.

"American education has largely remained static since the 19th century" is mostly a subjective statement because “largely remaining static” depends on the characteristics being discussed and what change means to the speaker. In terms of developing students into workers, I meant this to mean the choice to center pragmatic subjects covered to create a competent workforce rather than enlightenment ideals of self-fulfillment. It would be directors of curricula, not teachers, who would have shifted their goals. We could change the wording of this if it needs to be clarified. You say that subjects when factories emerged look very different than subjects today: this is obviously true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they changed in a way antithetical to "factory model education". In other words, although there are new technologies and knowledge that are being taught, the new teaching could similarly align with the "factory model", whatever that means to the speaker.

I say "some historians" because although there are critics, there are a number of academics that use the phrase and defend it. My apologies for not putting citations in the sandbox. See:

• Das Human-Kapital: A Theory of the Demise of the Class Structure by economists Oded Galor and Omer Moav
• Literacy Education for the 21st Century: It's Time to Close the Factory by professors of language education Christine Leland and Wendy Kasten
• Multicultural Education vs Factory Model Schooling by Christine Sleeter
• Postformal Education: A Philosophy for Complex Futures (specifically Chapter 4) by futurist Jennifer Gidley
• The Struggle for the American Curriculum by Herbert Kliebard
• The Gifts of Athena by Joel Mokyr

I think we may have to separate in the article the usage to refer to educational history, because there certainly was a shift or movement at least to some extent (the extent is under debate), to the current day usage as a tool for educational reform, where the assertion that the effects of this shift are still present is much more debatable. We also need to specify more clearly the differences in meanings (e.g. "schools were modeled after factory design", "students were/are trained to become docile members of the workforce"), which do overlap but are distinct, perhaps as a paragraph or section of the lead. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 01:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I need clarification on your points as much as I need a better understanding of what we're trying to accomplish here. I think it's best if we take this one point at a time and focus on just one point at a time. So, taking it from the top. I maintain that the phrase "factory model" is an ahistorical rhetorical device and nothing you've presented challenges that. Among the sources you cite, only Kliebard is an education historian; all of the others are examples of people using "factory model schools" exactly as I describe it (I summarized the problems with the other sources here). I pulled Kliebard's book off my shelf and this is what I see:

• On page 68, he is referencing Dewey's use of the "factory system" as a metaphor, a rhetorical device.
• On page 84, he references Bobbitt's thinking around the same metaphor and quotes him writing, "Applied to education this means: Educate the individual according to his capabilities. This requires that the materials of the curriculum be sufficiently various to meet the needs of every class of individuals in the community; and that the course of training and study be sufficiently flexible that the individual can be given just the things that he needs."(Bobbitt, 1912, p. 269)
• Page 88 again explicitly mentions factory as a metaphor.
• Page 96 makes an aside reference to Taylor's vision and how it was likely characterized.
• Page 114, Du Bois used the factory metaphor to argue against industrial education for Black students.
• Page 119, a reference to the German model where students actually worked in factories as part of their education (something that did not happen in the US).
• Even his index includes no mention of "factory model" education. Instead, it reads: Factory (-based instruction, 119; labor, 6; metaphor, appeal of, 88; system, 68, 114)

Where are you seeing him "use the phrase and defend it"? EdHistory101 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for giving feedback on these sources. I apologize for my delays; I'm trying to do my diligence and not just cherry-pick quotes. Firstly, I think you're defining "educational historian" too strictly. These academics are practicing educational history and so they become educational historians. Experts in other fields, notably economic history, also have a unique interest in this area and it is unfair to discount their perspectives, especially as many of the works in question are posted in reputable journals (of course, this does not make them immune to further criticism, which you gave).

I used Kliebard as both a proponent of the historical prevalence of the metaphorical usage of the term, but also his description of the integration of vocational principles into the mainstream common curriculum (see chapter 5-vi, pages 126-129; chapter 6-i, pages 130-133; last paragraph of page 184/first of p. 185). However, he does mention the social efficiency doctrine throughout some of these passages, but you said earlier that there is a distinction between the social efficiency model and the factory model - could you help me understand what that difference is? Also, do you think that the efficiency movement of the 20th century didn't impact U.S. school curricula? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear ya with regards to "education historian." I may be too strict about its usage but it's an important point. I would push back against your claim someone is practicing education history simply because they write about education in the past. And even if they are, they should be citing education historians.

Truthfully, I'm still not convinced Kliebard is a proponent of the metaphorical usage of the term as much as he's describing how others used the term. Even if he is, it's difficult to say how his usage is compelling evidence when situated against the multiple education historians who have said, basically, it's a misleading phrase and should not be used.

The biggest difference I would offer is that the "social efficiency model" or "scientific management" (writing an American schools section for this page is on my to-do list - it's not going to be very long) is a phrase used by education historians to describe a particular approach to schooling in particular contexts, especially as it relates to labor management and maximizing tax dollars. The "factory model" is a rhetorical phrase that's used by people who want to point to history as a precursor for their advocacy. Basically, it's not about explaining education history, it's about convincing the reader or listener that their idea for change is a good one. It's about creating a rhetorical springboard, not explaining.

To bring together vocational principles and your last question, efforts related to vocational education and social efficiency did impact schools but it's not a bright line and it looked different in different places. Take for example, the Homemaking or Home Economic courses that were developed in places like New York State at the same time as drafting and designing, auto mechanics, etc. courses. The classes were very much NOT about working in a factory and were not necessarily taught in a way that reflected scientific management - girls were not treated like widgets. They were about teaching girls to attend to - or subvert - heterosexual, white, middle class norms related to marriage, family, and the home. EdHistory101 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I have the time or energy to engage meaningfully with this, but I just wanted to note that the current version of the article comes across as heavily opinionated. Oolong (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is about a rhetorical device; it's difficult to offer a neutral take on them. If there is a text you think I should review that challenges any of the claims in the article, I'm happy to take a look! EdHistory101 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that it is a rhetorical device is what comes across as heavily opinionated and leads the reader to believe that schools designs could never be based on goals of what occupations might be for the future adults who live in those societies. I agree with Oolong that I may not have time to engage meaningfully but upon reading this it seems that the page should be focused on the origin of the term, arguments that are made by those to support the term, historians who agree, possibly with a counterbalance of the opinions of those historians who disagree with that assertion. All knowledge and history is contextual and potentially biased, to claim that this is a rhetorical device and proceed to simply make that argument instead of explaining from the perspective of those who originated the term feels like you are trying to control the narrative (using wikipedia as a rhetorical device perhaps?). This is a place where we should be able to come and learn the history of what people have said and think without being told that it is wrong or right in the first sentences we read. That is objective information, this article is very subjective in its orientation. History, institutions, and events can be interpreted in many ways. 99.21.252.17 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you change you're looking for. The term is ahistorical - that is, it is not historically accurate to say that schools were based on factories or were about training factory-workers. There are no historians, as far as I know, who support the theory that they were. While it's true history and institutions can be interpreted in many ways, I am not aware of any evidence in the historical record that supports an alternate use of the phrase. If you are aware of any, I'm happy to incorporate them.

EdHistory101 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)