Progressive Education in an Era of Global Change 1

To cite this article, please refer to:

Greenwalt, K.A. & Edwards, L.A. (2015). The great commonwealth of successive generations: Progressive education in an era of global change. In M.Y. Eryaman & B.C. Bruce (Eds.), Handbook of Progressive Education (pp. 519-530). New York: Peter Lang.

The Great Commonwealth of Successive Generations:

Progressive Education in an Era of Global Change

Kyle Arvid Greenwalt & Laura A. Edwards

Michigan State University

Department of Teacher Education

Abstract

In this chapter, we wish to raise several questions about contemporary globalization discourses, particularly as they relate to education and social change. We will do this through an examination of previous work on national and global education, with the goal of facilitating a more intelligent discussion about the role of progressive education in an era of great global change. Ultimately, building upon a discussion of national and global education, we wish to raise questions about the future of progressive education, and its ability to facilitate continuity in an era where social identities, social practices, and social relationships all seem in flux.

In this era of globalization, we often hear that we are living through times of unprecedented social change and dislocation. In North America, we read about the outsourcing of jobs, the browning of the population, as well as the changes that social media and the information highway have brought to the ways in which young people approach everything from social relationships to civic engagementfrom dating to political revolution. As Time magazine (Foroohar, 2012) recently wrote, in a quote that should ring so familiarly as to be banal:

Were now in a new age of volatility, with new rules of the road. Bankers will become less important, manufacturers more so. Complex global supply chains will give way to a new kind of regional economic hub. Blue collar jobs will go high tech. Robots will replace Chinese workers. Private companies will become educators. And mayors will be the new economic power players. (para. 6)

One might well wonder how the average citizen could ever cope with this era of massive global change.

In this chapter, we wish to raise several questions of such contemporary globalization discourses, particularly as they relate to the questions of education and social change. We will do this through integrating aspects of our past writing and scholarship in order to facilitate what we hope is a more intelligent discussion about the role of progressive education in these times. In particular, we will review the academic literature on nineteenth-century nation-building in order to raise questions about the way in which past eras of schooling have been impacted by large-scale social change, and to question the claim that our current era is experiencing unprecedented change.

In this chapter, we also wish to review literature about global educationa tradition of educational thinking that emerged prior to the current waves of globalization discourses, and that, viewed from a certain light, shares many common assumptions with traditional, early-twentieth-century progressive education discourses. Finally, building upon a discussion of national and global education, we wish to raise questions about the future of progressive education, and its ability to facilitate continuity in an era where social identities, social practices, and social relationships all seem in flux.

The chapter is divided into four sections. In the first section, we review the literature on the role of public schooling as it relates to the question of social change in nineteenth-century nation-building projects, and thereby raise questions about the newness of our current era. Next, we locate the historical precedents of a globally focused progressive education as we analyze prior waves of research on global education and examine its essential contributions to progressive pedagogy during the Cold War era in North America. Next, we seek to complicate this work about education and social change as we critically engage the work of John Dewey in an attempt to reconstruct our own particular version of a location-specific, globally minded, progressive education practice that helps establish continuities with the past. We conclude the chapter with implications for future work in progressive education in a global context.

Education, Generational Renewal, and Nationalism

Nationalism, as defined in the academic literature (Anderson, 1983/1992; Bell, 2003; Gellner, 1983; Hechter, 2002; Hobsbawm, 1991; Marx, 2003; Weber, 1976), is best understood as an intentional projectone rooted in the full power of the modern bureaucratic statewhose goal is civic integration. This process of civic integration generally works by: (1) a vertical binding of elites to a variety of social groups through a common culture, and (2) either the complete elimination or severe restriction of competing modes of identification and social practicebe they religious, regional, racial, or socioeconomic. As David Bell (2003) has explained, more than a sentiment, nationalism is a political program which has its goal not merely to praise, or defend, or strengthen a nation, but actively to construct one, casting its human raw material into a fundamentally new form (p. 3).

Popular rhetoric to the contrary, nation-states are neither old nor ancient, neither timeless nor eternal. For as the first author of this chapter has argued elsewhere (Greenwalt, 2012; Greenwalt & Holohan, 2011; Greenwalt & Leahy, 2011), the project of nationalism really only emerged in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In particular, in its relationship to compulsory public education, modern nationalism may be best understood through the case of France (Greenwalt, 2009). For among the primary tools employed by the nineteenth-century French state to homogenize its diverse population was the compulsory elementary schooland its key agents, the instituteurs (elementary school teachers). As Eugen Weber (1976) has noted, the French revolutionaries of 1789 had replaced old terms such as schoolmaster, regent, and rector, with instituteur, because the [elementary] teacher was intended to institute the nation (p. 332).

Advocates of state-based nationalism and compulsory public schooling were indeed revolutionaries, not only in the political sense, but also in the social sense. For the advocates of political revolution had to defend their projects not only by thinking through questions of how modern bureaucratic states establish, justify, and maintain their political sovereignty, but also by engaging in perhaps even broader questions of how a society is to manage continuity and change. In all of this, the question of the coming generation of young children and their upbringing was inevitably implicated.

This linkage between social change, education, and generational renewal is most famously illuminated in the debate between Edmund Burke (1790/1999) and Thomas Paine (1791/2008) about the significance of the French Revolution. In particular, we can locate the zenith of these debates in Thomas Jeffersons theory of the sovereign generation (Lowenthal, 2006; Peterson, 1976). In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson (1789/1984) gave an exact statement of his thinking on the topic:

We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another . . . it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please . . . . Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. (pp. 962963)

In this way, we can see that public schooling was not only a benevolent institution handed down by well-meaning elites, but also a key strategy for managing the new sense of time that emerged with those other accoutrements of the nation-state: common (national) markets, common (national) languages, and common (national) currencies (Anderson, 1983/1992).

Jeffersons arguments for the absolute right of the living generation stands in remarkable contrast to those put forward by the father of the United States Common School Movement, Horace Mann (1957). In his Tenth Annual Report to the Massachusetts Board of Education, Mann argued strenuously for free and compulsory public education by engaging in this same generational discourse. Claiming that it makes no more sense to deny the coming generation the moral and civic sustenance they need to come into their republican inheritance than it does to deny them food and shelter, Mann, putting forward an argument that links every individual to past ancestors, present citizens, and future descendents, wrote:

All have derived benefits from their ancestors, and all are bound, as by an oath, to transmit those benefits, even in an improved condition, to posterity. We may as well attempt to escape from our own personal identity, as to shake off the three-fold relation which we bear to others,the relationship of an associate with our contemporaries; of a beneficiary of our ancestors; of a guardian to those who, in the sublime order of Providence, are to follow us. Out of these relations, manifest duties are evolved. The society of which we necessarily constitute a part, must be preserved; and, in order to preserve it, we must not look merely to what one individual or family needs, but to what the whole community needs; not merely to what one generation needs, but to the wants of a succession of generations. (p. 71)

While both Jefferson and Mann were suspicious of the impact of concentrated wealth and industrial capitalism on the social order (Hogan, 1990), they diverged in how they approached the question of schooling and the generational debt.

This said, what is clear is that the changes introduced by nation-building projects and industrial capitalism struck at the heart of a society built on family authority, divine right, and limited social mobility. Indeed, if there is one thing that centers much of the debates about generations, continuity, and change, it is the approaching horizon of a world where children had choices that surpassed those on offer to their parents. Eugen Weber (1976), again writing about the case of France, noted:

Gradually, the family could be seen to have lost its protective rolein matters of public security, in health, in clothing, education, and social training. Its educational functions were preempted by schools. Medical care, remedies, and cures, all once locally provided or homemade like clothing, came ever more from the outside. Above all, means of escaping the clans constricting grip became more numerous, to the point where it took only a little initiative to get away from homeand, having done so, to survive. (p. 188)

The era of nineteenth-century nation-building, then, can be read as a historical moment wherein the centralized bureaucratic state came to control many of the matters of daily lifeeven while at the same time seeming to offer the individual more choice regarding how life might be lived out. Compulsory public schooling was one essential part of this great wave of social change that took place around the globe.

We can see, then, that our current moment of globalized social change is certainly not unprecedented. If anything, our current moment was well anticipated by the great waves of economic and social integration brought on by prior waves of nationalismand the compulsory school movements that rose alongside of them (if not in direct support of them). We can see, too, that compulsory public schoolinga social practice that was often justified using the language of progressive social change while at the same time embracing a set of practices that led to increasingly centralized social controlwas implicated in that moment of great social upheaval.

What, then, does the future hold for socially aware progressive schooling in this era of unprecedented global change? To answer that question, we next turn to an examination of one version of progressive global schoolingthe progressive North American educational movement known as global education.

A Global Education

Global education emerged as a reform movement in the 1960s in the United States. Not unlike the larger waves of educational reform put into place in response to the launch of the Sputnik satellite (Kliebard, 1986/1995), seminal scholars whose work shaped the field of global education wrote from the perspective of political scientists rather than school-based curriculum workers, and included such stalwarts in the field as Lee Anderson (1968, 1979), James Becker (1968, 1982), Robert E. Freeman (1986), and Robert Hanvey (1975). These scholars were all united by their insightful descriptions of the deepening of global interconnectedness, the rise of global systems, and the increased importance of non-state actors in these various processes, across the second half of the twentieth century.

As noted above, the early work in global education was primarily driven by political scientists with substantive expertise in international relationsscholars who had, it would seem, relatively little prior contact with schools and teachers. The U.S. federal government, in particular, funded some of the work through Part N of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Much of the early seminal work in global education was long on substanceboth in terms of rationales for why global education is needed and in terms of the key content that should be taught. By comparison, it was relatively short on the process whereby curriculum materials developed by experts are best transformed into learning experiences for children.

A review of the early global education literature shows the centrality of Soviet-U.S. tensions for the development of the field. Indeed, the threat of nuclear holocaust is ubiquitous in global education writing, and in ways that powerfully remind one of how fraught the 1960s were with the lived tension of the possibility of instant global annihilation. That said, other themes are also clearly present in this body of work: liberation struggles in the formerly colonized areas of the world, technological revolution, and ecological crises (population growth, pesticide use, and even global climate change). The world of competing Cold War superpowers is commented upon, but as only one important theme among many other pressing issues. Rather than its sole focus, then, the Cold War should be seen as an insistent background for the development of a U.S.-based, global education literature.

While turn-of-the-twentieth-century progressive education can be seen as a global movement, with much sharing of ideas and techniques across national borders, it also seems safe to claim that each nation developed something of an indigenous progressive education tradition. One clear limitation of Deweyan progressive education, we argue, was its tendency to equate the world of the child with a decidedly localdare we say provincial?one. In this sense, the global education developed by U.S. political scientists during the era of the Cold War was a helpful corrective. No longer could people in other parts of the contemporary world be implicitly ignored by Deweys notion of a curriculum, nor, we might even say, implicitly excluded from his search for a Great Community.

Clearly, with the looming threat of nuclear destruction, there is a strong temporal focus in the writing of mid-century global educators. While Mann (1957) recognized that the strongest rationale for compulsory public schooling involved conceptualizing the successive generation of men as one great Commonwealth, there was, for him, no sense that the very future itself might be at stake in the debates about compulsory public education and social change. In this way, mid-century global educatorswith their insistent focus on the global interconnectedness and the very threats to the planet itselfprovide a helpful corrective to the school reformers that preceded them, from Horace Mann to John Dewey.

We would argue that U.S.-based global education reached its peak when it started to re-integrate previous themes from the history of progressive educationboth in the U.S., but even more so, internationallyinto the Cold-War eras prior focus on world systems, global interdependence, and non-state global actors. This reintegration spoke most clearly to the themes of schools as embryonic, socially just communities, where the growth of children and teachers is put front and center and sought through conjoint academic study and service to local, national, and global communities. Two monographs in particular represent, in our opinion, the best of this work: Graham Pike and David Selbys (1988) Global Teacher, Global Learner, and Barbara and Kenneth Tyes (1992) Global Education: A Study of School Change. In combination, these two works spoke clearly to the potential role of the school in effecting both individual growth and positive social change, all on a global level.

The irony here is that the high-water mark of a North American progressive global education predates current talk about the unprecedented change of contemporary globalization. From Horace Mann to John Dewey, from Robert Hanvey to Graham Pikewe have all been here before, and with insights that would benefit both the critics and the champions of contemporary globalization processes. What is needed, though, is a thread of continuity that helps us think through the challenges of public education in a world where: (1) the global interrelatedness and dependency of both state and non-state actors is a given; (2) the responsibility of the present generation to past and future ones is given clear prominence in any discussion of the relationship of the school to society; and (3) educational reform can only be undertaken by treating teachers and students as co-equals in intentionally formed embryonic communities focused on global social justice and self realization for all.

Working Through the Ambiguities of Progressive Educations Relationship to National and Global Education

In this section, we wish to turn to the work of John Dewey, who remains a touchstone for our own vision of progressive education. Throughout the section, we revisit the questions raised in the prior two sections by asking: How does a Deweyan vision of progressive education engage with the forces of social and generational change that drive historic processes such as nationalism and globalization?

We know that Deweys Laboratory School made use of what we would today call global cultures in the curriculum (Mayhew & Edwards, 1965/2007; Tanner, 1997). Before developing his theory of a curriculum based on social occupations, Deweys curriculum had a civilizational focus, and included study of the lives of primitives and cave dwellers, as well as Greek and Roman history, early modern English village life, among many other peoples and topics. The point here, however, is not that certain topics were or were not covered; rather, we would say, it is the underlying sense that there was no animating desire towards communicating to students an understanding of the shared human quest for dignity as it played out not only in industrial Chicago, but also in the early townships of South Africa, or on the tea and rubber plantations of Southeast Asia. That is, there seemed no underlying faith that the lives of people in these places mattered to the lives that students led in Chicago, that the quest for a Great Community embraced the entire globe.

Similarly, we know that Dewey travelled the globe lecturingspending time observing schools and interacting with educational reformers in China, the Soviet Union, Turkey, Mexico, among many other places. Reading through some of Deweys (1929/1964) impressions about his trips abroad, it is striking the degree to which Dewey sought empathetic understanding of that which he observed. He rarely made pronouncements to local teachers and policy-makers about what should be done; instead, he generally called attention to the ways in which local educational reforms might help those in the U.S. better understand the role their own schools might play in the creation of a more just, more humane, and more democratic society. Deweys humility and intelligence both come throughthough, as Cornel West (1989) correctly noted, so does a certain naivety in terms of how Dewey thought about the world that was emerging.

Nationalists like to imagine nation-states as the natural container in which history comes packaged (Bender, 2000, 2002, 2006). Greek history, Roman history, English history, and Australian history are taught; other imaginative variations, using other alternative frames for narrating the pastecosystems, social classes, and everyday social practices as frames for historical narrationsgenerally are not. Dewey seemed to imagine a world of interacting nation-states, each with its own local history, struggling toward social democracy. He did not, it would seem, imagine a world of cross-cutting social forces that renders notions of domestic and foreign dubious; a world in which both state and non-state actors dialectically inform and impact the struggles of all peoples, all over the globe. Indeed, as West (1989) has claimed, what Dewey most willfully ignored, and what might have most keenly aided his thinking, was the intellectual heritage of Marx, and its impact on world events.

Surveying Deweys many international travels, Thomas Popkewitz (2005) has creatively imagined Dewey as a travelling salesman for modernity and all it implies: rational planning, human agency, and the cooperative regulation of social change. While such an interpretation does some violence to both Deweys international hosts (reducing the considerable latitude with which Dewey was interpreted and received by local elites) and to Dewey himself (by treating him as a mere cipher for a supposedly unitary network of practices that we now deem modernity), Popkewitz nonetheless skillfully invokes a world of interacting local spheres being drawn into an ever-more-intense global dialogue about the meaning of social change. Dewey was certainly part of this intensification of global relations. Yet both its social significance and its pedagogical relevance seemed to have escaped him. The task of reconstructing a progressive global education is one that is on-going, always being and becoming new in each context.

The Future of Global Education: Some Suggestions

The threat of nuclear holocaust remains, but has to a certain degree been displaced by the threat of human-driven climate change as a force that may destroy the planet. A future of depleted natural resources; industrial food production that does irreparable harm to water, soil, and air as well as flora, fauna, and the human body itself; rising oceans, decreasing polar ice sheets; and ever-increasingly severe droughts and storms; as humanity contemplates all of this, it is easy to imagine Horace Manns great commonwealth of successive generations as nearing its collapse.

Of course, to do so may also be to engage in the same hyperbole of unprecedented change that has marked our current era. It is not at all clear that the eighteenth-century peasant in the Vaucluse, informed of the new calendrier rpublicain franais, would have experienced his moment of historic change any less severely than those human beings most touched by the social dislocations of today.

Indeed, if anything, a driving purpose of this article has been to assert continuity with the past, particularly as it relates to the ways in which educational reformers have imagined the schools role in managing social and generational change. As stated above, we do so as a means to help us think through the on-going challenges of sustaining progressive education in a world where, as mentioned above, but worth repeating: (1) the global interrelatedness and dependency of both state and non-state actors is a given; 2) the responsibility of the present generation to past and future ones is given clear prominence in any discussion of the relationship of the school to society; and (3) educational reform can only be undertaken by treating teachers and students as co-equals in intentionally formed embryonic communities focused on global social justice and self transformation for all.

Where does this leave us?

We take it for granted that progressive educators must continue to study the everyday lives of individual children in order to draw the raw materials that go into building a meaningful school curriculum. We also take it for granted that progressive educators must continue to make use of the past in order to make sense of the present and work towards a more inclusive and just future. Butand here is where we would begin to insert the implications of our own workthis must be done within a context where collective social memory is under increasing threat: where the intensification of consumer capitalism means many people around the globe have lost or are in the process of losing both the skills and the confidence to make basic everyday decisions about what to eat and how to raise their childrenmuch less how to engage in conjoint social action.

Most of all, then, we would assert that progressive educators must work more strenuously to build a sense of shared global interest that creates the form of conjoint social intelligence that can protect and sustain the entire planetand all of the life forms it containswhich Dewey says is the hallmark of social democracy.

How can progressive educators do this?

As John Dewey concluded his book on the public and its problemsa book which seems as timely as ever, as we search out new opportunities to find transnational publicsDewey asked us to consider the possibilities of art as among the best ways to promote the types of conjoint social experiences that lead to the formation of intelligent publics. In one of the most poetic passages Dewey (1927/1954) ever wrote, he claimed:

Common things, a flower, a gleam of moonlight, the song of a bird, not things rare and remote, are means with which the deeper levels of life are touched so that they spring up as desire and thought. This process is art . . . .Artists have always been the real purveyors of news, for it is not the outward happening in itself which is new, but the kindling by it of emotion, perception and appreciation. (p. 184)

Viewed in this way, a politics that seeks to address global inequities is a politics that requires the cultivation of our deepest human sensitivities. Like Maxine Greene (1973), we draw inspiration in this regard from the widest range of human meaning-making: from the perfectly placed stone bench in the Japanese garden (one that cultivates a sense of intense attention to the present moment) to the novels of Jane Austen or Gabriel Garca Mrquez (works that help us attend to the many gradations and conceits of human love).

Engagement with such works of art is a type of politics, global in its scope and in its mode, because it calls upon our full range of capacities as we seek to connect out from the inner dimensions of our own personal journeys so as to support and sustain all living creatures on the planet. And, of course, the very planet itself. This, in our view, is a progressive education worth pursuing.

Like Dewey and the global educators we so admire, we therefore end this chapter by assertingno doubt naively so for somethat art and individual acts of loving creation are the best hope we have for supporting a planet where justice reigns for all. In our view, Dewey was wrong on neither process nor substance. His shortcoming was a large one, however: he seemingly ignored a good share of humanity as he thought and wrote. It is the task for a reconstructed progressive global education to come to terms with his oversight as we look to the future.

References

Anderson, B. (1992). Imagined communities: Reflections of the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). London, England: Verso (Original work published 1983)

Anderson, L. (1968). An examination of the structure and objectives of international education. Social Education, 32(7), 639647.

Anderson, L. (1979). Schooling and citizenship in a global age: An exploration of the meaning and significance of global education. Bloomington, IN: Social Studies Development Center/Indiana University.

Becker, J. (1968). Introduction. International education for the twenty-first century. Social Education, 32(7), 637638.

Becker, J. (1982). Improving international understanding in elementary and secondary schools: A study of six projects. Bloomington, IN: Social Studies Development Center/Indiana University.

Bell, D. A. (2003). The cult of the nation in France: Inventing nationalism, 16801800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bender, T. (2000). The LaPietra report: A report to the profession. Retrieved from http://www.oah.org/about/reports/reports-statements/the-lapietra-report-a-report-to-the-profession/

Bender, T. (Ed.). (2002). Rethinking American history in a global age. Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Bender, T. (2006). A nation among nations: Americas place in world history. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.

Burke, E. (1999). Reflections on the revolution in France. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press (Original work published 1790)

Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press (Original work published in 1927)

Dewey, J. (1964). John Deweys impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world: Mexico-China-Turkey. Columbia, NY: Teachers College (Original work published 1929)

Foroohar, R. (2012, August 9). Understanding a new global economy. Time. Retrieved from http://business.time.com/2012/08/09/understanding-a-new-global-economy/

Freeman, R. E. (Ed.). (1986). Promising practices in global education: A handbook with case studies. New York, NY: National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies.

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Greenwalt, K. A. (2009). Discourse, narrative and national identity: The case of France. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 494519.

Greenwalt, K. A. (2012). John Dewey in Mexico: Nation-Building, schooling, and the state. Inter-American Journal of Philosophy, 3(2), 8597. Available from http://ijp.tamu.edu/journal/sites/default/files/papers/Greenwalt_0.pdf

Greenwalt, K. A., & Holohan, K. J. (2011). Performing the nation: Pedagogical embodiment as civic text. Phenomenology & Practice, 5(1), 5983. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/pandpr/article/view/19836/15354

Greenwalt, K. A., & Leahy, P. N. (2011). Situating the nation: History pedagogy for the 21st century. In W. Russell (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (pp. 335356). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Hanvey, R. (1975). An attainable global perspective. New York, NY: Center for War/Peace Studies.

Hechter, M. (2002). Containing nationalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hobsbawm, E. J. (1991). Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, and reality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hogan, D. (1990). Modes of discipline: Affective individualism and pedagogical reform in New England, 18201850. American Journal of Education, 99(1), 156.

Jefferson, T. (1984). In M. D. Peterson (Ed.), Thomas Jefferson: Writings: Autobiography/Notes on the state of Virginia/Public and private papers/Addresses/Letters. New York, NY: Library Classics of the United States (Original work published 1789)

Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum, 18931958 (Second ed.). New York, NY: Routledge (Original work published 1986)

Lowenthal, D. (2006). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mann, H. (1957). Tenth annual report to the Massachusetts Board of Education. In L.A. Cremin (Ed.), The republic and the school: Horace Mann on the education of free men (pp. 5977). New York, NY: Teachers College Press (Original work published 1846)

Marx, A. W. (2003). Faith in nation: Exclusionary origins of nationalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mayhew, K. C., & Edwards, A. C. (2007). The Dewey school: The laboratory school of the University of Chicago 19961903. New Brunswick, NJ; London, England: Aldine Transaction (Original work published 1965)

Paine, T. (2008) The rights of man. In M. Phillips (Ed.), Rights of man, common sense and other political writings (pp. 83331). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press (Original work published 1791)

Peterson, M. D. (1976, Summer). Mr. Jeffersons sovereignty of the living generation. Virginia Quarterly Review, 437447.

Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.

Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed.). (2005). Inventing the modern self and John Dewey: Modernities and the traveling of pragmatism in education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tanner, L. N. (1997). Deweys laboratory school: Lesson for today. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Tye, B. B., & Tye, K. A. (1999). Global education: A study of school change. Orange, CA: Interdependence Press.

Weber, E. J. (1976). Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France, 18701914. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.