Product Description
A history of moral education in American schools. The author traces American traditions of moral education from the colonial era to the present, illuminating both debates about the subject and actual practices in public and private schools, colleges, and universities…. More >>
I loved this book. It is exceptionally well-written and covers tremendous ground. My concern is this — McClellan makes statements in the first chapter that are highly questionable in terms of what is generally known about early colonial education and evidence that is easily accessible on the Internet. For instance, M. states that schools played only a supporting role in early moral education – with this duty being entrusted to the family, particularly the catechism. However, the catechism was included in the New England Primer….so I question his interpretation.
He later states that there was a moderate tone in moral education during 1750 to 1820….though this seems to contradict the emergence of the “Great Awakening” revivalist movement. He mentions religious revivalism, but says that it was an exception. With little in the way of references—I wonder, should I take his word for it? Is this just his interpretation? Is he wrong?
I sincerely hope that McClellan is NOT wrong. Personally, I like his interpretation and it works well with the arguments that I am trying to forward myself.
I think he needed to do more here to support his points. Overall — a fascinating book
Rating: 4 / 5
I loved this book. It is exceptionally well-written and covers tremendous ground. My concern is this — McClellan makes statements in the first chapter that are highly questionable in terms of what is generally known about early colonial education and evidence that is easily accessible on the Internet. For instance, M. states that schools played only a supporting role in early moral education – with this duty being entrusted to the family, particularly the catechism. However, the catechism was included in the New England Primer….so I question his interpretation.
He later states that there was a moderate tone in moral education during 1750 to 1820….though this seems to contradict the emergence of the “Great Awakening” revivalist movement. He mentions religious revivalism, but says that it was an exception. With little in the way of references—I wonder, should I take his word for it? Is this just his interpretation? Is he wrong?
I sincerely hope that McClellan is NOT wrong. Personally, I like his interpretation and it works well with the arguments that I am trying to forward myself.
I think he needed to do more here to support his points. Overall — a fascinating book
Rating: 4 / 5