In the revised and expanded second edition of School and Society, authors Walter Feinberg and Jonas F. Soltis invite teachers and administrators to develop their ability to question basic aspects of the relation between school and society and to understand different approaches to educational research. They suggest that unless educators understand how social, economic, and political forces influence what happens in schools and what researchers investigate, they will not be empowered to assume responsibility for educational reform.
Read for a doctoral level class on leadership and scholarship. Presents interesting ideas, but ultimately doesn't look forward much to the future or go very in depth with the present. It just left me wanting.
I had to read this entire book for one of my undergrad classes, but I found a lot of it pretty interesting and useful to my future teaching. The three ideas around education’s function (functionalism, conflict theory, and interpretivism) were new concepts to me, and this did a good job explaining them.
For what the purpose of this text is, this book was good. It is a decent overview of some fundamental sociological theories that inform educational research. The book is not particularly engaging, but it is also not boring. It gives good fundamentals and the context and history of these theories is solid.
An book that offered functionalist, Marxist, and interpretivist lenses through which to see the bond between schools and society as theoretical frameworks in a way a birdbrain like me could actually understand.
I finally got through this book. It was difficult to understand, but I've always struggled with theory concepts and textbooks. I wish more explanations were connected to school topics instead of other analogies.
I had to read this book for class. For class purposes, it was informative and really made me think about education in a new way. If I were a teacher, I think this book may have had more worth for me.
Great intro text for doc programs. The chapters on functionalism and critical theory are excellent. I don't find the chapters on interpretivism quite as successful or compelling.