Experience and Educationis the best concise statement on education ever published by John Dewey, the man acknowledged to be the pre-eminent educational theorist of the twentieth century. Written more than two decades after Democracy and Education(Dewey's most comprehensive statement of his position in educational philosophy), this book demonstrates how Dewey reformulated his ideas as a result of his intervening experience with the progressive schools and in the light of the criticisms his theories had received. Analysing both "traditional" and "progressive" education, Dr. Dewey here insists that neither the old nor the new education is adequate and that each is miseducative because neither of them applies the principles of a carefully developed philosophy of experience. Many pages of this volume illustrate Dr. Dewey's ideas for a philosophy of experience and its relation to education. He particularly urges that all teachers and educators looking for a new movement in education should think in terms of the deeped and larger issues of education rather than in terms of some divisive "ism" about education, even such an "ism" as "progressivism." His philosophy, here expressed in its most essential, most readable form, predicates an American educational system that respects all sources of experience, on that offers a true learning situation that is both historical and social, both orderly and dynamic.

经验与教育 = Experience and education

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

Series Editor's Preface. Introduction by John Breuilly. Acknowledgements. 1. Definitions. State and nation. The nation. 2. Culture in Agrarian Society. Power and culture in the agro-literature society. The varieties of agrarian rulers. 3. Industrial Society. The society of perpetual growth. Social genetics. The age of universal high culture. 4. The Transition to an Age of Nationalism. A note on the weakness of nationalism. Wild and garden culture. 5. What is a Nation. The course of true nationalism never did run smooth. 6. Social Entropy and Equality in Industrial Society. Obstacles to entropy. Fissures and barriers. A diversity of focus. 7. A Typology of Nationalisms. The varieties of nationalist experience. Diaspora nationalism. 8. The Future of Nationalism. Industrial culture - one or many?. 9. Nationalism and Ideology. Who is for Nuremberg?. One nation, one state. 10. Conclusion. What is not being said. Summary. Select bibliography. Bilbliography of Ernest Gellner's writing: Ian Jarvie. Index

Nations and Nationalism

cal dimension: the UK, the EU and the US. The profound recent changes in the industrial relations framework in the UK are described by John Addison and Stanley Siebert. They describe anti-union legislation enacted during the period 19801993 and relate it to the recent decline of unionism. The authors further examine the accession of ‘New Labour’ and its related reform agenda. They also discuss the prospect of new legislation seeking to regulate the employment relation from the level of the European Union and its impact on relevant British legislation.

Growing public - social spending and economic growth since the eighteenth century

Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France 1870–1914: Eugene Weber, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1976. Pp. xv + 615. $20·00)

Public-sector unions are generally thought to increase the size of government through collective bargaining. This article challenges this idea for the case of teacher unions in the United States and argues that while collective bargaining institutions sometimes lead to increased education spending, this is not the norm. Using a new longitudinal data set spanning all states before and after they granted collective bargaining rights to teachers, the article shows that although states that mandate districts to bargain with teachers have higher education expenditures than states that do not, the differences precede collective bargaining. Difference-in-differences analyses find no evidence that introducing collective bargaining rights led to average increases in the level of resources devoted to education. Although existing theories cannot explain these null findings, the article shows one reason behind them is that most laws granting collective bargaining rights to teachers were not unambiguously prolabor, but included both proand anti-union provisions. Replication Materials: The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available on the American Journal of Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: http://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WGWMAV. A long theoretical tradition in political economy holds that organized bureaucrats exert pressure from inside the government to expand its size, and that collective bargaining is a key mechanism by which they attain this (e.g., Anzia and Moe 2015; Downs 1964; Freeman 1984; Levi 1977; Moe 2006; Niskanen 1971; Peterson 1976; Shefter 1985; Swenson 1991b). The argument that collective bargaining weakens politicians—who cannot afford to endure strikes and public service disruptions1—and empowers unions to extract sizable material benefits, such as more jobs, better job protections, and higher compensation, lies at the heart of existing theories of what public-sector unions do and where their power stems from. It shapes how we think about interest groups, policymaking, education politics, and bureaucracies; and informs the debate on how to Agustina S. Paglayan is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California San Diego, Social Sciences Building 301, 9500 Gilman Drive #0521, La Jolla, CA 92093–0521 (apaglayan@ucsd.edu). An earlier version of this article received the 2016 Doris Day Award for the best Labor Politics paper presented at the 2015 American Political Science Association meeting. This project was funded by the Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship. I thank Susanna Loeb, Terry Moe, and Ken Scheve for helpful conversations and comments on previous drafts; the staff at the Stanford and UC Berkeley Libraries for facilitating access to historical sources; Claudia Goldin for sharing some of the data used for Supplementary Tables A1 and A2; Ran Abramitzky, John Ahlquist, Darin Christensen, Sarah Cormack-Patton, Gary Cox, Thad Dunning, Nick Eubank, James Fearon, Vicky Fouka, Francisco Garfias, Justin Grimmer, Andy Hall, Martin Huici, David Laitin, Margaret Levi, Clayton Nall, Sean Reardon, Jonathan Rodden, Justin Sandefur, and Jeremy Weinstein; seminar participants at Stanford, Berkeley, Universidad de San Andres, APSA, APPAM, and MPSA; the AJPS Editorial Team; and three anonymous referees for useful feedback on earlier versions of this article. See Wellington and Winter (1969, 1125), Levi (1977, 11), Swenson (1991b), and Anzia and Moe (2015, 116: “public sector unions . . . exercise power . . . through collective bargaining: formal negotiations with management, backed by implicit threats of strike”). Freeman (1984) provides a comprehensive literature review. regulate these unions’ legal rights. In the United States, conservatives have argued that cutting public employees’ collective bargaining rights should help reduce fiscal deficits—think of Scott Walker in Wisconsin—whereas liberals have argued that maintaining these rights enables public employees to obtain fair compensation. Surprisingly, whether collective bargaining enables public employees to increase the size of government remains an open empirical question. Dozens of crosssectional studies comparing U.S. governments at a single point in time demonstrate that those that have collective bargaining institutions employ more workers, pay higher salaries, and spend more than those that do not.2 However, as emphasized by Moe (2011, 211), we cannot rely on these studies to make causal claims because they do not account for the role of unobservable factors American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 2019, Pp. 21–36 C ©2018, Midwest Political Science Association DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12388

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ajps.12388

Public‐Sector Unions and the Size of Government

Because primary education is often conceptualized as a pro-poor redistributive policy, a common argument is that democratization increases its provision. But primary education can also serve the goals of autocrats, including redistribution, promoting loyalty, nation-building, and/or industrialization. To examine the relationship between democratization and education provision empirically, I leverage new datasets covering 109 countries and 200 years. Difference-in-differences and interrupted time series estimates find that, on average, democratization had no or little impact on primary school enrollment rates. When unpacking this average null result, I find that, consistent with median voter theories, democratization can lead to an expansion of primary schooling, but the key condition under which it does—when a majority lacked access to primary schooling before democratization—rarely holds. Around the world, state-controlled primary schooling emerged a century before democratization, and in three-fourths of countries that democratized, a majority already had access to primary education before democratization.

/pdf/the-non-democratic-roots-of-mass-education-evidence-from-200-42bgql9fn8.pdf

The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years

Historically, the early childhood care and education (ECCE) workforce has been characterized as a low-education, low-compensation, low-stability workforce. In recent years, considerable in...

The Early Childhood Care and Education Workforce from 1990 through 2010: Changing Dynamics and Persistent Concerns

Over the past decade, both developed and developing countries have become growingly concerned with how to raise the effectiveness of teachers. The growing focus on the need to strengthen the teaching profession to ensure better education results has encountered the problem that evidence on the policies that raise teaching quality is scattered, incomplete and, in some cases, presents contradictory findings. This paper provides a framework for analyzing teacher policies in education systems around the world in order to support informed education policy decisions. It provides a lens through which governments, World Bank staff, and other interested parties can focus the attention on what the relevant dimensions regarding teacher policies are, what teacher policies seem to matter most to improve student learning, and how to think about prioritization among competing policy options for teacher policy reform. The systems approach for better education results (SABER) - teachers initiative aims to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate comprehensive information on teacher policies across countries around the world. The focus of the paper is the description of the conceptual framework to analyze and assess teacher policies, as well as a review of the evidence base that supports it. The document is organized as follows: section one provides an overview of the general approach, main components, and objectives of the framework, as well as an explanation of the evidence base that supported its development. Section two focuses on the first component of the framework, and describes the categories that are relevant to produce a comprehensive descriptive account of the teacher policies that are in place in a given education system. Section three focuses on policy guidance. Section four concludes presenting an account of how the framework is expected to evolve as new evidence on teacher policies becomes available.

What matters most for teacher policies : a framework paper

https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/aefp_ecce workforce.pdf

Agustina S. Paglayan

Papers

Public‐Sector Unions and the Size of Government

The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years

The Early Childhood Care and Education Workforce from 1990 through 2010: Changing Dynamics and Persistent Concerns

What matters most for teacher policies : a framework paper

The early childhood care and education workforce in the United States: Understanding changes from 1990 through 2010