Changing educational institutions can feel difficult (even when we know they are not working for everyone) because of the deeply entrenched structures, histories, and power dynamics that shape them (Capoccia, 2016). U.S. public education did not emerge as a clean state, it was shaped by early decisions that continue to influence possibilities for reform. According to Mahoney (2000), path dependency explains how contingent early choices can set a system on a trajectory that becomes difficult to reverse — even when better alternatives exist later. For example, public schools were initially created in the 1830s to form civic-minded citizens. BUT these “schools” excluded children of colors, girls, and the poor. This exclusion was not incidental, it was institutionalized. These early systems laid the tracks that education would follow, making reforms difficult to implement within those original logics.
Historical institutionalism, as outlined by Capoccia (2016), shows us that institutions tend to change through layering (adding new policies to old structures) rather than complete overhauls. This makes meaningful change hard, because reformers are working within systems not designed for the goals they are trying to achieve. The article discussed the example of ESEA and what changed through layering … and this made the change harder because schools were being held accountable for test outcomes without addressing root causes like poverty or inequities in funding or teacher quality (i.e. in other words, instead of building a new system designed for the 21st century equity and inclusion, we are still operating within an old framework just with more bureaucracy attached 🙂
Who gets to push change? those, who benefit from the status quo, often have the most power to resist or reshape reform. This is exactly what I shared last week, those in power often resist genuine improvements to the education system, because they fear an informed, empowered population — people who can question authority, advocate for justice, and drive meaningful change. Instead, they prefer to maintain a system that produces compliant labor, individuals who are conditioned to say “yes” or “no” without challenging the structures imposed on them. For example, Spring (2016) highlights how Native American children were forcibly assimilated through boarding schools designed to eliminate their languages and cultures, thus using education as a tool for de-culturalization (and I could go on forever about language and culture in Lebanon, and how English is the language of power and how you feel “obligated” to learn it, or else you lose opportunities).
Who was left out? and who is still left out? Children of color, immigrants, indigenous children, people with disabilities …
Patterns we still see? Decentralization of the U.S. education system, slow change, people are being left out, and inequitable funding.
Capoccia, G. (2016). When Do Institutions “Bite”? Historical Institutionalism and the Politics of Institutional Change. Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1095-1127.
Mahoney, J. (2000). Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.
Spring, J. H. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652368
