# Talk:Compulsory Miseducation

{{Did you know nominations/Compulsory Miseducation}} czar ⨹ 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference two, ""Compulsory Mis-education". Bowker Books in Print.", links to a different book than this. Seattle (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Seattle, fixed—thanks! – czar 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Compulsory Miseducation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 06:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
Preliminary observations
@Czar: this is a great start, and you clearly put some work into this, but looking at the scope and the references, I do see a small red flag.  Your references range only for a period of about a decade out from when the book was originally published.  Because of this narrow range, you've missed out on the wider, historical context that this book fits into, which has come to be known as the free school movement.  The influence this book had on the movement and the interchange of ideas that arose out of its contribution to this body of thought is covered in many reliable sources published since that time.  In other words, you're missing out on the wider influence and legacy that this book fits into.  Personally, I would categorize this absence  under criterion 3a (Broad coverage).  You really wouldn't have to add very much to address this, perhaps two large paragraphs at the most, in either a "Legacy" or "Influence" section of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious how you're substantiating those claims that CM had any influence on the FSM. What sources do you have in mind? – czar 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Czar, there's an enormous amount of literature on this subject, particularly after the 1970s, when this movement faded. The sources used to write this article come from its heyday.  When you start to use sources from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, the legacy and influence will emerge.  There's a general overview you can look at from 2002, called Free Schools, Free People: Education and Democracy after the 1960s that makes the case, but more importantly, places the author and his work in the proper context of the FSM. Although there is a lot there, you can get a basic sense of the depth of the subject by starting on page 46 and reading for several pages.  Academic Joel Spring referred to Goodman as "a leader in the free-school movement in the 1960s and 1970s" and as a "freeschool advocate".[2] My concern isn't so much with the specifics, but with the lack of a general background, historical context, influence, and legacy in the article.  Also, I note that many of the sources refer back to Growing Up Absurd as a supporting work, so perhaps this article should also mention the connection between both works. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I generally appreciate your thorough style of review, but your tone comes off as presumptuous. I would appreciate trying to work with me rather than telling me how it is. I'm very familiar with the free school movement. I wrote its WP article. I asked what I did because I've read almost all the extant literature on the FSM (which is scattered and definitely not "enormous"), including Miller's book, and know there is no connection between CM's specific legacy and the FSM apart from it being a book that adherents might have read. Secondary sources purely use CM as a statement of his ideology or philosophy on education. That's how it's quoted in the Miller book you suggested. While it was one of his more popular books, its influence pales in comparison to Growing Up Absurd, his breakthrough, which made him a countercultural icon (as social critic, radical romantic) to FSM people. So if anything, Goodman's oeuvre after GUA influenced the FSM but hardly the specific ideas in CM. If any secondary source spoke about CM's wider influence, I would have included it.  It's completely normal for a book's reception to clump around its release date—that's what most books do. It has not garnered much interest since the 70s (similar to Goodman's own legacy), apart from what I just described. CM has no real Legacy to warrant an arbitrary two-paragraph section, and anything worth extracting about its relation to the FSM fits better on PG's page (which I have in draft). Now, I would have entertained a suggestion to try to build a "Legacy" section—which is a fair request—had you just taken the kinder route of asking a question rather than making a demand, but it is irresponsible and so far outside the scope of this GA review to assert some kind of authority to send me (or anyone else for that matter) on a wild goose chase after nonexistent connections. I would have replied that the FSM was largely peripheral to Goodman, and the secondary sources, including the passage of the Miller book you mentioned, refer to his work as a whole rather than singling out CM. I can add a brief blurb on Legacy based on a retrospective source, even though I find it unnecessary, but I would never have threatened this review (or one like it) with failing in breadth without being damn sure that the claims I were making were substantiated. I hope you will be more generous in your future interactions and reviews. – czar 19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way.  I haven't written anything presumptuous or threatening here, nor is my tone the problem, however, I think you should examine your replies up above for the problems you describe in others.  I stand by everything I've said, and much more, as my claims are fully substantiated by sources stating directly that the book influenced the FSM (De Leon, 1994).  It's really strange that you would argue over such minor points and respond with such hosility and aggression.  I think you must have misread or misinterpreted what I wrote in some way. It is an uncontested statement of fact that Goodman and the book in question influenced the FSM.  Yet, there is nothing about this in the article.  Instead of acknowledging this simple point, you have objected to it quite strenuously, contrary to the sources.  More to the point, there is a wider context that the book fits into, a broader historical context that the current article fails to note.  Secondary sources close to the time of the event tend to become primary, so we really need sources published within the last 40 years that can inform us on both the framing of the book in the aforementioned context, as well as it's subsequent influence and legacy.  This is how we write about non-fiction books on Wikipedia.  If this constructive criticism upsets you, then I apologize in advance, but I stand by everything I've said in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Summarizing missing elements
This book does not exist in a vacuum:

Background to school reform movement in the 1960s
"Free schools also were grounded in the left’s critique of bureaucracy that marked the 1960s."
"When student activists like Berkeley’s Mario Savio proclaimed that “we have come up against what may emerge as the greatest problem of our nation—depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy,” he captured a sentiment that was at the core of the free school philosophy. Many free schoolers were heavily influenced by educator Paul Goodman..."[3]
Note, other sources discuss how Savio was influenced by previous works by Goodman.  The quote up above was spoken during the famous sit-in December 1964 at Sproul Plaza.
Goodman was one of the leaders (and one of the earliest) calling for reform, along with other notables such as John Holt, Charles E. Silberman, and Ivan Illich
Already notable for his earlier work Growing Up Absurd (1960) before Compulsory Miseducation. (Skinner, 2005)
Ravitch notes Compulsory Miseducation followed in the footsteps of A.S. Neill's popular Summerhill (1960), and that Goodman admired Neill. (Ravitch 1985).
Development of the material he used to criticize education was based on Goodman's visits to NYC public schools for the school board. (Skinner, 2005)
Reasons and concerns for writing the book ("His concern at the time of writing...is to enable people to feel at home in the new technological era and so to diminish the sense of alienation...advocates...science education". As cited in Barrow 1978)
The book is dedicated to Mabel Chrystie, founder of the First Street School, who would later marry George Dennison, both of whom were active in the free-school movement.  Goodman's daughter would also teach there. (Stoehr, 2013)
The book is loosely referred to in the sources as a "sequel" of sorts to Growing Up Absurd (1960), with the sources noting their scope, themes, similarities, and differences.  In addition to Miller, several sources tie the two books together; the most recent are by Andrew Hartman of Illinois State University.[4][5] The last part of the book about college education draws on his previous work, The Community of Scholars (1962).  In other words, there is a continuity between the three works, perhaps even an "extended argument", if you will.  For example, the meaning and historical resonance of the title  (Kridel, 2010) and what it refers to (compulsory education) is previously discussed in depth in Growing Up Absurd (1960). According to Kaminsky (2006), the book was one of four that criticized U.S. education: Growing Up Absurd, Compulsory Miseducation, The Community of Scholars, and The New Reformation.
There are many political influences and traditions at work.  In hindsight, one may refer to them by many different names, even if they may contradict each other: philosophy of education, criticism of education, social criticism, liberalism, anarchism, paleolibertarianism, etc.
The book influenced many movements, from the counterculture of the 1960s (Kaminsky, 2006) to the New Left, to the free schools movement (De Leon, 1994), etc.
Sections of the book were previously published (The Paul Goodman Reader, 2011) and the book itself appeared in several different editions and title variations. One notable edition that is widely cited, is a volume that includes two separate works:  Compulsory Mis-Education and the Community of Scholars.  Publication date says 1964, but several other sources lend credence to 1962.  For example, there are  OCLC entries that indicate an earlier date of 1962.[6][7]  One possible explanation for this, is that the entry is confusing the date with The Community of Scholars, which was published in 1962, and published as a double book.  The counterargument to this idea is that  Compulsory Miseducation was originally published in England in 1962.[8] The correct answer is not clear, but I do note that many scholarly publications use the 1962 date. If there was a scanned copy of the first few pages, it would be easy to confirm or deny. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Goodman's criticism of education in the book is similar to John Dewey's (Hursh, 2003)
Legacy and influence is covered in many secondary sources, for example Friedenberg (1994) and Kaminsky (2006)
Influence of the book on Chomsky[9]
Skinner notes that Goodman, as a "1960s antibureaucratic liberal", was an early advocate for school vouchers and against teachers unions in Compulsory Miseducation, anticipating the positions of antibureaucratic conservatives in later decades. (Skinner, 2005).  Earlier, Thomas R. Berg explored this idea in "Paul Goodman's Progressive Conservatism" (1981), noting that Goodman's ideas are equally attractive to conservatives, liberals, and radicals.
Essentially, I'm looking for the same type of material you added to the "Background" and "Legacy" sections in the Summerhill book article. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead
This is not bad, but I feel that it doesn't necessarily summarize Goodman's argument very well.  For example, many significant points are made in the summary section but not in the lead.  This is one reason that at least referring to current secondary (and by way of passing tertiary) sources is so important.  We want to get the framing right. I'll have more to say about this in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Background
Missing, but clearly communicated by Goodman in the "Preface" of the book and in some of the more current secondary sources.  I suspect that many of the older sources cited in this article also support this material.  It's a bit strange that it's not in the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Summary
The summary section is good, but there is an unusual reliance on quoting things that are better summarized and paraphrased.  The general rule of thumb is to only quote directly when necessary, otherwise summarize and paraphrase.  When it's necessary to quote depends on several different things, usually corresponding to the exact language of a concept or idea under discussion by Goodman.  While you do very well summarizing and paraphrasing, many of your quotations are unnecessary because you are quoting common words and phrases that are not essential to Goodman's thesis. I'll provide examples of this later, but I wanted to point this out. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Goodman does not expect these reforms to be adopted.
That's quite different than what the cited source says.  Keats writes: "Mr. Goodman suffers no delu­sions that his suggestions will be immediately embraced. “My purpose,” he says, “is to get people at least to begin to think in another direction, to look for an organization of edu­cation less wasteful of human."  I think there's a big difference between "does not expect these reforms to be adopted" and "Mr. Goodman suffers no delu­sions that his suggestions will be immediately embraced." Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


### Additional notes