ED 200 Week Six Part 2 (Fall 2022)


Hi everyone,

Last day we looked into the language of factories. We gave some consideration as to how ideas from the industrial revolution as well as factory and business management in the early 20th century influenced the design of schooling. We could say that schools create factory-like bodies, or bodies in the image of factory metaphors.

Let’s continue our consideration of narratives. Let us consider the effects of scientific management, measurement, objectification, and efficiency on the school body. Scientific management, measurement, objectification, and efficiency create school narratives. These narratives affect the way with think of schools. Once these narratives are clearly in view, it will become increasingly evident where our schooling ideas of measurement, task management, and efficiency come from.

It should also become increasingly evident why we have schools with different management levels, from Superintendent down to district specialists, to building administrators, to teacher, to teacher assistants. Not only are these based on the language of business and industry, but they are also designed to function in the manner of business and industry.

It should become increasingly evident why we expect students and teachers to do particular tasks and activities.


I could go on, but let us examine more closely the narratives that follow. Let us reveal some more of the foundations of schooling.

Photography, Time, and Measurement

A snapshot of my student’s ability — snippets of experience

Have you ever heard the saying, “the test is only a snapshot of the student’s total ability”? It is interesting how we place so much value on a few snapshots. The fact that we even say something like this shows the extent to which we break our day up into time snippets. You probably remember a bit about this when you considered the influence of ‘time’ on our school practices.

Something else you might find interesting is just how the photographic snapshots played a role in the development of the idea of efficiency. And almost everything you do in schools now is related in one way or another to efficiency.

Anyway, let’s piece some of this together.


MAREY films XVI man

Notice the timer on the left of the screen (after the first 27 seconds into the clip).



Did you happen to notice the date? 1895.

It is important to imagine what these images meant at that time. We are so familiar with moving pictures (video) that we think nothing of it. But imagine you had never experienced imagery like this before. Think of how it would seem to reveal something significant about the world around us.

Let’s pull in an important figure here. His name is Eadweard Muybridge.

Eadweard Muybridge


Notice the screen (grid) behind the images



Why the grid?

Measure: Definition:

a : the dimensions, capacity, or amount of something ascertained by measuring

b (1) : a standard or unit of measurement — see weights and measures table

(2) : a system of standard units of measure

  • metric measure


Measurement is a foundation of schooling.

Why measure?

Let’s change the focus:

There is a phrase in schooling discourse that you will hear often when you become a teacher. It is “effective and efficient.” You will hear such phrases as “Our practices should be ‘effective and efficient’.” “Our research should lead to ‘effective and efficient’ practices.” “If we could make our schools more ‘efficient and effective’ our students would do better.”

Do you ever wonder where this drive to efficiency comes from? Not from children. They don’t go out to play in an “effective and efficient” manner. Not from people enjoying themselves. People don’t go and listen to a concert hoping it will be “effective and efficient.” People don’t go to a movie or read a book in hopes that it will be “effective and efficient.” And, as you have probably sensed from Frank Smith, “effective and efficient” doesn’t arise or out of, or support, the classic view of learning. Though interestingly, it seems to be quite prevalent within the official theory.


Let’s look at two historical pieces to our schooling puzzle.


The First: Gilbreth’s Efficiency and Time Motion Study

At the beginning of the lecture, I put a couple of clips showing something of two of the earliest photographic motion analysts. Let me share another with you here: Frank B. Gilbreth. The video clip is 30 minutes long so you will probably want to skim through parts of the video. But you will get a clearer understanding of the beginnings of time-motion study and the technologies that helped give shape to our schooling narratives.

Frank Bunker Gilbreth (1868-1924). Original Films (motion study)

So what do we have?


To analyze motion, you had to photograph a sequence of images, one after another, fractions of a second, and display them in a grid.



an eye toward efficiency


The Second: Winslow’s efficiency.



So what do we have here?

In the factory, many men would quit because they could not stand the fast pace.

Wheel making was broken down into a hundred steps, with different men working at different machines. Complete jobs were reduced into simple repetitive steps.

No need for a skilled craftsman.

Any job, if analyzed under the perspective of task orientation, can be done quickly and efficiently.

Management sets the pace.

High pay for hard work

Surveillance was the norm.

Discipline measures were regularly evoked.

No talking on the job.

Does any of this sound a bit familiar to our own schooling practices? Don’t many high school students work all day in school, then go home to work a second shift late into the evening, and then get up early to do it again the following day?


You know:



But where does this logic come from?

Isn’t discipline one of our commandments. Isn’t surveillance the norm? Aren’t students expected to get permission to go to the bathroom? Would it be fair to say that students are encouraged not to talk or to ask questions?


Efficiency: The American Buzz Word

What you might not know is that “efficiency” was an American buzzword in the early part of the century. Ladies’ Journals to the school board meeting rooms were abuzz with talk of “efficiency.” Churches were getting on the efficiency bandwagon. Homemakers were urged to make the kitchen more efficient. What we now take for granted (efficiency) at one time seemed like quite an innovation in thinking.

Here is a little snippet you might enjoy.

Efficiency and Scientific Management


The Easier Way (1946)


Ever wonder why educational researchers in universities spend their time trying to come up with “better” teaching methods? Every wonder how many educational researchers in universities spend their time trying to come up with “better” teaching methods? Motion studies of sorts. You find ways to turn out more work with the same effort.

Hey Dana, isn’t that ‘efficiency’?


Where did all of this ‘efficiency talk’ come from?

This is the big one — Don’t miss the following on Scientific Management!

Here is the important source, at least passages from it. It is from Frederick Winslow Taylor’s book The Principles of Scientific Management. This was an important book that outlined the scientific / task management that, you will come to see, had an enormous effect on how our schools were designed and run. It seems a bit crazy in hindsight, but it is true. Frederick Winslow Taylor developed and refined the idea of scientific management that lead to greater efficiency in the workplace. Before long it was the rage to think of making everything efficient. Schools were targeted.

As I said, these are only some selections from Taylor’s book.

After reading through this we will enjoy the video clip Frederick Taylor — The Biggest Bastard Ever. But first the Principles of Scientific Management.

The Principles of Scientific Management

The remedy for the country’s inefficiency, “lies in systematic management” . . . Furthermore, “the fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations” — “to the management of our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our tradesmen, large and small; of our churches, our philanthropic institutions, our universities, and our governmental departments.

“The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employ(é).”

“No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest property can exist only when that individual has reached his highest state of efficiency; that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output.”

“That in a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. p. 12

“Why is it, then, in the face of the self-evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible day’s work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most cases far from efficient?” p. 15

“in order to have any hope of obtaining the initiative of his workmen the manager must give some special incentive to his men beyond that which is given to the average trade. This incentive can be given in several different ways, as, for example, the hope of rapid promotion or advancement; higher wages, either in the form of generous piece-work prices or of a premium or bonus of some kind for good and rapid work; shorter hours of labor; better surroundings and working conditions than are ordinarily given, etc., and, above all, this special incentive should be accompanied by that personal consideration for, and friendly contact with, his workmen which comes only from a genuine and kindly interest in the welfare of those under him. It is only by giving a special inducement or “incentive” of this kind that the employer can hope even approximately to get the “initiative” of his workmen. p. 34

Broadly speaking, then, the best type of management in ordinary use may be defined as management in which the workmen give their best initiative and in return receive some special incentive from their employers. This type of management will be referred to as the management of “initiative and incentive” in contradistinction to scientific management, or task management, with which it is to be compared. pp. 34-35

The task which the writer has before him, then, is the difficult one of trying to prove in a thoroughly convincing way that there is another type of management which is not only better but overwhelmingly better than the management of “initiative and incentive.”

Under scientific management the “initiative” of the workmen (that is their hard work, their good-will, and their ingenuity) is obtained with absolute uniformity and to a greater extent than is possible under the old system; and in addition to this improvement on the part of the men, the managers assume new burdens, new duties, and responsibilities never dreamed of in the past. The managers assume, for instance, the burden of gathering together all of the traditional knowledge which in the past has been possessed by the workmen and then of classifying, tabulating, and reducing this knowledge to rules, laws, and formulae which are immensely helpful to the workmen in doing their daily work. . . . They scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself the best he could. . . . They heartily cooperate with the men so as to insure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. p. 36

The development of a science . . . involves the establishment of many rules, laws, and formulae which replace the judgment of the individual workman and which can be effectively used only after having been systematically recorded, indexed, etc. pp. 37-38

Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management is the task idea. The work of every workman is fully planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work. . . . This task specifies not only what is to be done but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it. And whenever the workman succeeds in doing his task right, and within the time limit specified, he receives an addition of from 30 percent to 100 percent to his ordinary wages. p. 39

The first illustration is that of handling pig iron, and this work is chosen because it is typical of perhaps the crudest and most elementary form of labor which is performed by man. This work is done by men with no other implements than their hands. The pig-iron handler stoops down, picks up a pig weighing about 92 pounds, walks for a few feet or yards and then drops it onto the ground or upon a pile. This work is so crude and elementary in its nature that the writer firmly believes that it would be possible to train an intelligent, gorilla so as to become a more efficient pig-iron handler than any man can be. Yet it will be shown that the science of handling pig iron is so great and amounts to so much that it is impossible for the man who is best suited to this type of work to understand the principles of this science, or even to work in accordance with these principles without the aid of a man better educated than he is. And the further illustrations to be given will make it clear that in almost all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each workman’s act is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited actually to do the work is incapable (either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity) of understanding this science. This is announced as a general principle, the truth of which will become apparent as one illustration after another is given. After showing these four elements in the handling of pig iron, several illustrations will be given of their application to different kinds of work in the field of the mechanic arts, at intervals in a rising scale, beginning with the simplest and ending with the more intricate forms of labor.

The writer has given above a brief description of three of the four elements which constitute the essence of scientific management: first, the careful selection of the workman, and, second and third, the method of first inducing and then training and helping the workman to work according to the scientific method. Nothing has as yet been said about the science of handling pig iron. The writer trusts, however, that before leaving this illustration the reader will be thoroughly convinced that there is a science of handling pig iron, and further that this science amounts to so much that the man who is suited to handle pig iron cannot possibly understand it, nor even work in accordance with the laws of this science, without the help of those who are over him.

The law which was developed is as follows: The law is confined to that class of work in which the limit of a man’s capacity is reached because he is tired out. It is the law of heavy laboring, corresponding to the work of the cart horse, rather than that of the trotter. Practically all such work consists of a heavy pull or a push on the man’s arms, that is, the man’s strength is exerted by either lifting or pushing something which he grasps in his hands. And the law is that for each given pull or push on the man’s arms it is possible for the workman to be under load for only a definite percentage of the day. For example, when pig iron is being handled (each pig weighing 92 pounds), a first-class workman can only be under load 43 percent of the day. He must be entirely free from load during 57 percent of the day. And as the load becomes lighter, the percentage of the day under which the man can remain under load increases. So that, if the workman is handling a half-pig, weighing 46 pounds, he can then be under load 58 percent of the day, and only has to rest during 42 percent. As the weight grows lighter the man can remain under load during a larger and larger percentage of the day, until finally a load is reached which he can carry in his hands all day long without being tired out. When that point has been arrived at this law ceases to be useful as a guide to a laborer’s endurance, and some other law must be found which indicates the man’s capacity for work. When a laborer is carrying a piece of pig iron weighing 92 pounds in his hands, it tires him about as much to stand still under the load as it does to walk with it, since his arm muscles are under the same severe tension whether he is moving or not. A man, however, who stands still under a load is exerting no horse-power whatever, and this accounts for the fact that no constant relation could be traced in various kinds of heavy laboring work between the foot-pounds of energy exerted and the tiring effect of the work on the man. It will also be clear that in all work of this kind it is necessary for the arms of the workman to be completely free from load (that is, for the workman to rest) at frequent intervals. Throughout the time that the man is under a heavy load the tissues of his arm muscles are in process of degeneration, and frequent periods of rest are required in order that the blood may have a chance to restore these tissues to their normal condition. To return now to our pig-iron handlers at the Bethlehem Steel Company. If Schmidt had been allowed to attack the pile of 47 tons of pig iron without the guidance or direction of a man who understood the art, or science, of handling pig iron, in his desire to earn his high wages he would probably have tired himself out by 11 or 12 o’clock in the day. He would have kept so steadily at work that his muscles would not have had the proper periods of rest absolutely needed for recuperation, and he would have been completely exhausted early in the day. By having a man, however, who understood this law, stand over him and direct his work, day after day, until he acquired the habit of resting at proper intervals, he was able to work at an even gait all day long without unduly tiring himself. Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. He is so stupid that the word “percentage” has no meaning to him, and he must consequently be trained by a man more intelligent than himself into the habit of working in accordance with the laws of this science before he can be successful. The writer trusts that it is now clear that even in the case of the most elementary form of labor that is known, there is a science, and that when the man best suited to this class of work has been carefully selected, when the science of doing the work has been developed, and when the carefully selected man has been trained to work in accordance with this science, the results obtained must of necessity be overwhelmingly greater than those which are possible under the plan of “initiative and incentive.”

Although the reader may be convinced that there is a certain science back of the handling of pig iron, still it is more than likely that he is still skeptical as to the existence of a science for doing other kinds of laboring. One of the important objects of this paper is to convince its readers that every single act of every workman can be reduced to a science. With the hope of fully convincing the reader of this fact, therefore, the writer proposes to give several more simple illustrations from among the thousands which are at hand.

For example, the average man would question whether there is much of any science in the work of shoveling. Yet there is but little doubt, if any intelligent reader of this paper were deliberately to set out to find what may be called the foundation of the science of shoveling, that with perhaps 15 to 20 hours of thought and analysis he would be almost sure to have arrived at the essence of this science. On the other hand, so completely are the rule-of-thumb ideas still dominant that the writer has never met a single shovel contractor to whom it had ever even occurred that there was such a thing as the science of shoveling. This science is so elementary as to be almost self-evident.

For a first-class shoveler there is a given shovel load at which he will do his biggest day’s work. What is this shovel load? Will a first-class man do more work per day with a shovel load of 5 pounds, 10 pounds, 15 pounds, 20, 25, 30, or 40 pounds? Now this is a question which can be answered only through carefully made experiments. By first selecting two or three first-class shovelers, and paying them extra wages for doing trustworthy work, and then gradually varying the shovel load and having all the conditions accompanying the work carefully observed for several weeks by men who were used to experimenting, it was found that a first-class man would do his biggest day’s work with a shovel load of about 21 pounds. For instance, that this man would shovel a larger tonnage per day with a 21-pound load than with a 24-pound load or than with an 18-pound load on his shovel. It is, of course, evident that no shoveler can always take a load of exactly 21 pounds on his shovel, but nevertheless, although his load may vary 3 or 4 pounds one way or the other, either below or above the 21 pounds, he will do his biggest day’s work when his average for the day is about 21 pounds. The writer does not wish it to be understood that this is the whole of the art or science of shoveling. There are many other elements, which together go to make up this science. But he wishes to indicate the important effect which this one piece of scientific knowledge has upon the work of shoveling.

At the works of the Bethlehem Steel Company, for example, as a result of this law, instead of allowing each shoveler to select and own his own shovel, it became necessary to provide some 8 to 10 different kinds of shovels, etc., each one appropriate to handling a given type of material not only so as to enable the men to handle an average load of 21 pounds, but also to adapt the shovel to several other requirements which become perfectly evident when this work is studied as a science. A large shovel tool room was built, in which were stored not only shovels but carefully designed and standardized labor implements of all kinds, such as picks, crowbars, etc. This made it possible to issue to each workman a shovel which would hold a load of 21 pounds of whatever class of material they were to handle: a small shovel for ore, say, or a large one for ashes. Iron ore is one of the heavy materials which are handled in a works of this kind, and rice coal, owing to the fact that it is so slippery on the shovel, is one of the lightest materials. And it was found on studying the rule-of-thumb plan at the Bethlehem Steel Company, where each shoveler owned his own shovel, that he would frequently go from shoveling ore, with a load of about 30 pounds per shovel, to handling rice coal, with a load on the same shovel of less than 4 pounds. In the one case, he was so overloaded that it was impossible for him to do a full day’s work, and in the other case he was so ridiculously underloaded that it was manifestly impossible to even approximate a day’s work.

Briefly to illustrate some of the other elements which go to make up the science of shoveling, thousands of stop-watch observations were made to study just how quickly a laborer, provided in each case with the proper type of shovel, can push his shovel into the pile of materials and then draw it out properly loaded. These observations were made first when pushing the shovel into the body of the pile. Next when shoveling on a dirt bottom, that is, at the outside edge of the pile, and next with a wooden bottom, and finally with an iron bottom. Again a similar accurate time study was made of the time required to swing the shovel backward and then throw the load for a given horizontal distance, accompanied by a given height. This time study was made for various combinations of distance and height. With data of this sort before him, coupled with the law of endurance described in the case of the pig-iron handlers, it is evident that the man who is directing shovelers can first teach them the exact methods which should be employed to use their strength to the very best advantage, and can then assign them daily tasks which are so just that the workman can each day be sure of earning the large bonus which is paid whenever he successfully performs this task.

There were about 600 shovelers and laborers of this general class in the yard of the Bethlehem Steel Company at this time. These men were scattered in their work over a yard which was, roughly, about two miles long and half a mile wide. In order that each workman should be given his proper implement and his proper instructions for doing each new job, it was necessary to establish a detailed system for directing men in their work, in place of the old plan of handling them in large groups, or gangs, under a few yard foremen. As each workman came into the works in the morning, he took out of his own special pigeonhole, with his number on the outside, two pieces of paper, one of which stated just what implements he was to get from the tool room and where he was to start to work, and the second of which gave the history of his previous day’s work; that is, a statement of the work which he had done, how much he had earned the day before, etc. Many of these men were foreigners and unable to read and write, but they all knew at a glance the essence of this report, because yellow paper showed the man that he had failed to do his full task the day before, and informed him that he had not earned as much as $1.85 a day, and that none but high-priced men would be allowed to stay permanently with this gang. The hope was further expressed that he would earn his full wages on the following day. So that whenever the men received white slips they knew that everything was all right, and whenever they received yellow slips they realized that they must do better or they would be shifted to some other class of work.

Dealing with every workman as a separate individual in this way involved the building of a labor office for the superintendent and clerks who were in charge of this section of the work. In this office every laborer’s work was planned out well in advance, and the workmen were all moved from place to place by the clerks with elaborate diagrams or maps of the yard before them, very much as chessmen are moved on a chess-board, a telephone and messenger system having been installed for this purpose. In this way a large amount of the time lost through having too many men in one place and too few in another, and through waiting between jobs, was entirely eliminated. Under the old system the workmen were kept day after day in comparatively large gangs, each under a single foreman, and the gang was apt to remain of pretty nearly the same size whether there was much or little of the particular kind of work on hand which this foreman had under

Bricklaying is one of the oldest of our trades.

For hundreds of years there has been little or no improvement made in the implements and materials used in this trade, nor in fact in the method of laying bricks. In spite of the millions of men who have practiced this trade, no great improvement has been evolved for many generations. Here, then, at least one would expect to find but little gain possible through scientific analysis and study. Mr. Frank B. Gilbreth, a member of our Society, who had himself studied bricklaying in his youth, became interested in the principles of scientific management, and decided to apply them to the art of bricklaying. He made an intensely interesting analysis and study of each movement of the bricklayer, and one after another eliminated all unnecessary movements and substituted fast for slow motions. He experimented with every minute element which in any way affects the speed and the tiring of the bricklayer.

He developed the exact position which each of the feet of the bricklayer should occupy with relation to the wall, the mortar box, and the pile of bricks, and so made it unnecessary for him to take a step or two toward the pile of bricks and back again each time a brick is laid. He studied the best height for the mortar box and brick pile, and then designed a scaffold, with a table on it, upon which all of the materials are placed, so as to keep the bricks, the mortar, the man, and the wall in their proper relative positions. These scaffolds are adjusted, as the wall grows in height, for all of the bricklayers by a laborer especially detailed for this purpose, and by this means the bricklayer is saved the exertion of stooping down to the level of his feet for each brick and each trowel full of mortar and then straightening up again. Think of the waste of effort that has gone on through all these years, with each bricklayer lowering his body, weighing, say, 150 pounds, down two feet and raising it up again every time a brick (weighing about 5 pounds) is laid in the wall! And this each bricklayer did about one thousand times a day.

As a result of further study, after the bricks are unloaded from the cars, and before bringing them to the bricklayer, they are carefully sorted by a laborer, and placed with their best edge upon a simple wooden frame, constructed so as to enable him to take hold of each brick in the quickest time and in the most advantageous position. In this way the bricklayer avoids either having to turn the brick over or end for end to examine it before laying it, and he saves, also, the time taken in deciding which is the best edge and end to place on the outside of the wall. In most cases, also, he saves the time taken in disentangling the brick from a disorderly pile on the scaffold. This “pack” of bricks (as Mr. Gilbreth calls his loaded wooden frames) is placed by the helper in its proper position on the adjustable scaffold close to the mortar box.

We have all been used to seeing bricklayers tap each brick after it is placed on its bed of mortar several times with the end of the handle of the trowel so as to secure the right thickness for the joint. Mr. Gilbreth found that by tempering the mortar just right, the bricks could be readily bedded to the proper depth by a downward pressure of the hand with which they are laid. He insisted that his mortar mixers should give special attention to tempering the mortar, and so save the time consumed in tapping the brick. Through all of this minute study of the motions to be made by the bricklayer in laying bricks under standard conditions, Mr. Gilbreth has reduced his movements from eighteen motions per brick to five, and even in one case to as low as two motions per brick. He has given all of the details of this analysis to the profession in the chapter headed “Motion Study,” of his book entitled “Bricklaying System,” published by Myron C. Clerk Publishing Company, New York and Chicago; E. F. N. Spon, of London. An analysis of the expedients used by Mr. Gilbreth in reducing the motions of his bricklayers from eighteen to five shows that this improvement has been made in three different ways: First. He has entirely dispensed with certain movements which the bricklayers in the past believed were necessary, but which a careful study and trial on his part have shown to be useless. Second. He has introduced simple apparatus, such as his adjustable scaffold and his packets for holding the bricks, by means of which, with a very small amount of cooperation from a cheap laborer, he entirely eliminates a lot of tiresome and time-consuming motions which are necessary for the brick-layer who lacks the scaffold and the packet. Third. He teaches his bricklayers to make simple motions with both hands at the same time, where before they completed a motion with the right hand and followed it later with one from the left hand.

For example, Mr. Gilbreth teaches his brick-layer to pick up a brick in the left hand at the same instant that he takes a trowel full of mortar with the right hand. This work with two hands at the same time is, of course, made possible by substituting a deep mortar box for the old mortar board (on which the mortar spread out so thin that a step or two had to be taken to reach it) and then placing the mortar box and the brick pile close together, and at the proper height on his new scaffold. These three kinds of improvements are typical of the ways in which needless motions can be entirely eliminated and quicker types of movements substituted for slow movements when scientific motion study, as Mr. Gilbreth calls his analysis, time study, as the writer has called similar work, are, applied in any trade.

For nearly thirty years past, time-study men connected with the management of machine-shops have been devoting their whole time to a scientific motion study, followed by accurate time study, with a stop-watch, of all of the elements connected with the machinist’s work. When, therefore, the teachers, who form one section of the management, and who are cooperating with the working men, are in possession both of the science of cutting metals and of the equally elaborate motion-study and time-study science connected with this work, it is not difficult to appreciate why even the highest class mechanic is unable to do his best work without constant daily assistance from his teachers. And if this fact has been made clear to the reader, one of the important objects in writing this paper will have been realized.

It is hoped that the illustrations which have been given make it apparent why scientific management must inevitably in all cases produce overwhelmingly greater results, both for the company and its employees, than can be obtained with the management of “initiative and incentive.” And it should also be clear that these results have been attained, not through a marked superiority in the mechanism of one type of management over the

The necessity for systematically teaching workmen how to work to the best advantage has been several times referred to. It seems desirable, therefore, to explain in rather more detail how this teaching is done. In the case of a machine-shop which is managed under the modern system, detailed written instructions as to the best way of doing each piece of work are prepared in advance, by men in the planning department. These instructions represent the combined work of several men in the planning room, each of whom has his own specialty, or function. One of them, for instance, is a specialist on the proper speeds and cutting tools to be used. He uses the slide-rules which have been above described as an aid, to guide him in obtaining proper speeds, etc. Another man analyzes the best and quickest motions to be made by the workman in setting the work up in the machine and removing it, etc. Still a third, through the time-study records which have been accumulated, makes out a timetable giving the proper speed for doing each element of the work. The directions of all of these men, however, are written on a single instruction card, or sheet. These men of necessity spend most of their time in the planning department, because they must be close to the records and data which they continually use in their work, and because this work requires the use of a desk and freedom from interruption. Human nature is such, however, that many of the workmen, if left to themselves, would pay but little attention to their written instructions. It is necessary, therefore, to provide teachers (called functional foremen) to see that the workmen both understand and carry out these written instructions. Under functional management, the old-fashioned single foreman is superseded by eight different men, each one of whom has his own special duties, and these men, acting as the agents for the planning department (see paragraph 234 to 245 of the paper entitled “Shop Management”), are the expert teachers, who are at all times in the shop, helping, and directing the workmen. Being each one chosen for his knowledge and personal skill in his specialty, they are able not only to tell the workman what he should do, but in case of necessity they do the work themselves in the presence of the workman, so as to show him not only the best but also the quickest methods. One of these teachers (called the inspector) sees to it that he understands the drawings and instructions for doing the work. He teaches him how to do work of the right quality; how to make it fine and exact where it should be fine, and rough and quick where accuracy is not required,—the one being just as important for success as the other. The second teacher (the gang boss) shows him how to set up the job in his machine, and teaches him to make all of his personal motions in the quickest and best way. The third (the speed boss) sees that the machine is run at the best speed and that the proper tool is used in the particular way which will enable the machine to finish its product in the shortest possible time. In addition to the assistance given by these teachers, the workman receives orders and help from four other men; from the “repair boss” as to the adjustment, cleanliness, and general care of his machine, belting, etc.; from the “time clerk,” as to everything relating to his pay and to proper written reports and returns; from the “route clerk,” as to the order in which he does his work and as to the movement of the work from one part of the shop to another; and, in case a workman gets into any trouble with any of his various bosses, the “disciplinarian” interviews him.

It must be understood, of course, that all workmen engaged on the same kind of work do not require the same amount of individual teaching and attention from the functional foremen. The men who are new at a given operation naturally require far more teaching and watching than those who have been a long time at the same kind of jobs. Now, when through all of this teaching and this minute instruction the work is apparently made so smooth and easy for the workman, the first impression is that this all tends to make him a mere automaton, a wooden man. As the workmen frequently say when they first come under this system, “Why, I am not allowed to think or move without some one interfering or doing it for me!” The same criticism and objection, however, can be raised against all other modern subdivision of labor. It does not follow, for example, that the modern surgeon is any more narrow or wooden a man than the early settler of this country. The frontiersman, however, had to be not only a surgeon, but also an architect, house-builder, lumberman, farmer, soldier, and doctor, and he had to settle his law cases with a gun. You would hardly say that the life of the modern surgeon is any more narrowing, or that he is more of a wooden man than the frontiersman. The many problems to be met and solved by the surgeon are just as intricate and difficult and as developing and broadening in their way as were those of the frontiersman. And it should be remembered that the training of the surgeon has been almost identical in type with the teaching and training which is given to the workman under scientific management. The surgeon, all through his early years, is under the closest supervision of more experienced men, who show him in the minutest way how each element of his work is best done. They provide him with the finest implements, each one of which has been the subject of special study and development, and then insist upon his using each of these implements in the very best way. All of this teaching, however, in no way narrows him. On the contrary he is quickly given the very best knowledge of his predecessors; and, provided (as he is, right from the start) with standard implements and methods which represent the best knowledge of the world up to date, he is able to use his own originality and ingenuity to make real additions to the world’s knowledge, instead of reinventing things which are old. In a similar way the workman who is cooperating with his many teachers under scientific management has an opportunity to develop which is at least as good as and generally better than that which he had when the whole problem was “up to him” and he did his work entirely unaided.


Do you see some of the connections between what we do in schools and the principles laid down by Taylor? Do you see some of the connections between what we do in schools and the bricks laid down by brick layers? How about:


Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management is the task idea. The work of every workman is fully planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work. . . . This task specifies not only what is to be done but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it.


Sounds a bit like a lesson plan, the associated activities, and administrative management.

Now that you have read some of Taylor’s own words, let’s take a look at another summary.


Frederick Taylor – The biggest bastard ever PT 1



Frederick Taylor – The biggest bastard ever PT 2



So there we have it. Frederick Winslow Taylor–our history lesson for the week.

It might seem a bit more obvious now why we have such an emphasis on ‘work books’, tasks, and task completion in schools. Even educational research portrays ‘the task’ as all-important. I have an article sitting on my desk now–“Selecting and Creating Mathematical Tasks: From Research to Practice. Tasks don’t ensure understanding, do they? How many tasks have we all successfully completed with little resulting understanding?


Response Question 

What is the connection between the Gilbreth’s work and Eadweard Muybridge’s photography?

What were the Gilbreths trying to figure out?

Imagine you are talking to a fifth-grade student. Explain scientific management? 

What do you believe could be five of the most important direct influences on schools from what Frederick Taylor wrote in  Principles of Scientific Management or from what you watched in the two preceding video clips on Frederick Taylor?

How has your own schooling experienced been influenced by Muybridge, the Gilbreths, and Frederick Winslow Taylor?


Efficiency Can we connect these ideas of industry and efficiency to schooling? If we had time I would have selected a book called The Cult of Educational Efficiency for our class reading–something worth reading if you have an interest in deepening your understanding of how the concept of efficiency has shaped our schooling practices. Even though we aren’t reading that text for class, let me at least point to some aspects of how efficiency has historically impacted our thinking. Let me share with you a part of a paper written by Howard Lee. This is from his paper called Outcomes-based Education and the Cult of Educational Efficiency: Using curriculum and assessment reforms to drive educational policy and practice. He writes: The social efficiency movement

Recent attempts to reform state education systems alone the lines of identifying and describing in considerable detail the expected outcomes of schooling, and then holding teachers and administrators accountable for the quality of students’ work, mirror closely the efficiency movement ideals of the early twentieth century. The brainchild of Frederick Winslow Taylor, these ideals originated in the United States of America in 1911 and flourished until the early 1930s, only to be reborn in the United Kingdom and Australia in the late 1980s, and in New Zealand in the early 1990s.

Outlining his views on industrial efficiency in his seminal work, Principles of Scientific Management (1911), Taylor immediately became a highly sought after management consultant to numerous American industrialists who were struggling to find ways in which to extract maximum efficiency (profit) from their factories and workers. The key to understanding scientific management, he concluded, lay in adopting a rigorous time-and-motion analysis of every movement of expert workers, breaking complex tasks down into their most elementary components, describing the exact specifications of each task to be performed, and then ordering the precise elements of those tasks so as to bring all employers’ levels of performance up to the required standard by eliminating wasted motion (Taylor, 1911).

Not surprisingly, educators were quick to recognize parallels between Taylor’s industrial management principles and their application to the governance of American public schools. Moreover, Taylor’s fondness of certainty, high-level specificity, precision, sequence and regulation in American industrial reform provided school administrators with an ostensibly scientific method for introducing much needed efficiencies into schools. Political and educational conservatives soon embraced the metaphors, procedures, and performance standards drawn from the scientific management movement as the principal means by which to bureaucratese American education (Tyack, 1974).

Educational efficiency and the ‘scientific’ curriculum

At the forefront of the doctrine of educational efficiency in America were three leading figures: Joseph Rice, Franklin Bobbitt, and Ellwood Cubberly. Rice, formerly a medical doctor, became highly regarded for his pioneering survey-based research into students’ reading and arithmetic achievements throughout the 1890s (Engelhart & Thomas, 1966). Having become increasingly disillusioned with the lack of rigor and the absence of standards and efficiency in the school curriculum Rice published a scathing critique of American education in 1912 entitled, significantly, Scientific Management in Education, in which he claimed that young people need only to know what was immediately useful in order to prepare them specifically and directly for their future occupational roles in society.

Turning his attention to the education system, Rice claimed that American schooling was in an abysmal state because administrators knew little about what was happening in the nations’ classrooms and because the quality and performance of its teachers was poor. Rice’s solution was simple and unequivocal: introduce a ‘scientific system of pedagogical management’ (Rice, 1912, p. xiv) wherein classroom achievement standards were specified in advance and teacher competence (efficiency) measured in relation to the number of students who met those clearly defined standards (pp. xiv, xvi). The results of one school could then be compared with others in order to establish an index of relative school efficiency.

It is interesting to think that some guy who was particularly concerned about waste and efficiency had such an impact on how we think of things now.

Writing at about the same time as Rice, Franklin Bobbitt, from the Department of Education at the University of Chicago, was similarly attracted to the newly emerging educational efficiency movement and its concomitant goal of settling social turmoil, cementing social division, and promoting greater cohesion and stability in America. Bobbitt soon came to be recognized at the key spokesperson for the new breed of efficiency-minded educator when he identified curricular reform as the most potent instrument for achieving the requisite social (and economic) efficiency. Outlining his factory-school metaphor in “The Elimination of Waste in Education,” published in 1912, Bobbitt declared that the schools’ task was to ‘work up the raw material into that finished product . . . [by] educating the individual according to his capabilities’ (Bobbitt, 1912, p. 269). Educational inefficiency and wastage, he concluded, would be eliminated through a carefully selected and differentiated curriculum . . . .

Again, someone in a position to make judgements on others, a man with an eye to efficiency, shapes our thinking. Of course it helps when you can get the industrial elite to buy into the idea.

The attractiveness of Bobbitt’s utilitarian curriculum was not lost on leading American industrialists who believed that it would better prepare school leavers to enter the workforce while at the same time addressing the serious shortage of skilled labour caused by the onset of involvement in World War 1 and the halting of immigration between 1915 and 1920 (Callahan, 1962, Cremin, 1962, Katz, 1968). From this point on, American schools were inextricably positioned as the incubators for major economic, industrial occupational and social transformation.

Incubators for economic, industrial and social transformation?

Yes, Incubators for economic, industrial and social transformation.

Now, right before our eyes, let’s see how curriculum was designed, broken down into discrete bits and pieces.

Capitalizing upon America’s infatuation with curriculum theory as the guarantor of social efficiency, Bobbitt published his state-of-the-art text, The Curriculum, in 1918. The appeal of Bobbitt’s theory lay in its simplicity for it likened curriculum planning to a series of discrete steps, each of which entailed specifying ‘numerous, definite, and particularised’ curricular objectives and outcomes (Bobbitt, 1918, p. 42). In keeping with Taylor’s scientific description of the efficient factory worker, Bobbitt was adamant that scientific analysis alone would reveal what society required of its schools. Such analysis would allow schools to abandon useless (symbolic0 curriculum activities in favour of what was directly relevant to the needs of modern American industry.

Now, it always helps if you can find an ally in a university. How about a dean of education? Perhaps one who has been doing cost-benefit analyses. Especially one who has really adopted the factory metaphor when thinking about educating children.

Rice and Bobbitt found a strong ally in Elwood Cubberly, Stanford University’s Foundation Dean of Education. Having been hired by numerous school boards to undertake cost-benefit analyses to ascertain the overall quality of education, Cubberly was unswerving in his view that American Schools were:

factories in which raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet various demands in life. The specifications for manufacturing come from the demands of the twentieth century civilization, and it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down. This demands good tools, specialized machinery, continuous measurement of production to see if it is according to specifications, the elimination of waste in manufacture, and a large variety of outputs (Cubberly, 1916, pp. 337 – 338, quoted in Callahan, 1962, p. 97)

Embedded in Cubberly’s summary of social efficiency theory was the central cannon of the scientific curriculum-makers — specificity and predictability in curriculum construction and delivery. By specifying precise and definitive curricular objectives in advance of actual classroom instruction, and then requiring the nation’s teachers to deliver that curriculum to all children, a standardized teacher-proof curriculum was born.

We should repeat that last sentence, just so that we can high-light some of the key language elements that shape thinking: “By specifying precise and definitive curricular objectives in advance of actual classroom instruction, and then requiring the nation’s teachers to deliver that curriculum to all children, a standardized teacher-proof curriculum was born.”

This mechanization, I am sure, would be appealing to some. But why?

Such mechanized and regulated teaching and learning had obvious appeal to school administrators who had long sought unequivocal evidence of the efficiency of American teachers.

Ah, yes, evidence of efficiency. What else?

The great advantage of scientific curriculum reform, Bobbitt had body claimed in 1913, was that by insisting upon definitive outputs (standards) for teachers, administrators could then ‘tell at a glance which teachers are strong and which ones are weak . . . (and) enable the management to instantly overcome one of its most troublesome problems in schools — that of getting rid of inefficient teachers’ (Callahan, 1962, p. 79).

What does this do to teachers?

Teachers were now cast in the mold of being rule-bound, results-driven technicians. With scientific curriculum making so hegemonically embedded in contemporary educational theory, no thought had been given to inviting teachers as co-participants to assist in framing and revising the very curriculum that they were charged with implementing. Administrators, it seems, were not yet willing to concede that the classroom experiences of professional teachers needed to be factored into ongoing curriculum planning and reform.

That’s gives us some more understanding of why we do the things we do in schools based on ideas of scientific management and efficiency. We will continue our explorations next time.


We have now seen some of the contextual effects of efficiency as these ‘efficiency-based’ aspects have played out in the creation and working of the factory. We have also seen how the belief in efficiency made its way into people’s everyday life.

Let me give you just a few more examples of how this belief in, and adherence to, efficiency made its way into teaching and schooling practices.

From Factory to Teacher Training Institutions

There was a time, in the late 1800s and the early 1900s when teacher training schools were emerging. In fact, Western Oregon University formally became a Normal School — that is a teacher training institution — in 1882. Of course, teacher training institutions used textbooks. And the textbooks were written by authors and so-called educational experts who were living in a context that was being influenced by aspects of efficiency as well as business. Let me pull out a few passages from a very influential textbook of the time. It is called Classroom Management: Its Principles and Technique, by William Chandler Bagley. These passages will provide you with a taste of the efficiency/business discourse that was rife at the time.

Imagine for a moment that you are a student being trained to become a teacher in a teacher training school. You read in your textbook: 

The “business” concept on of the school must be viewed in this perspective of means and ends. The school resembles a factory in that its duty lies in turning a certain raw material into a certain desired product. It differs from a factory in that it deals with living and active, not with dead and inert, materials. Because of this vital factor, the material with which the school deals is influenced by all the forces of the environment, and not alone by those that are consciously designed to mold it to the desired form. Some of these forces — those of the home and of the street, for example — are largely beyond the pale of the school’s influence. There are, however, certain activities of the school itself which exert a profound influence over the pupils life, and yet which are not generally recognized by teachers as vital elements in the educative process. School studies are supposed to “educate”; the personality of the teacher is recognized as an influencing factor; and the notion is slowly growing that the physical surroundings of the pupil — the buildings, the walls of the rooms, the hallways, the yards — exert a formative influence that cannot be neglected. But even those who will agree with all of this sometimes fail to appreciate the fact that, in such details as passing books and writing materials, passing to and from the blackboard, getting wraps, preserving silence and good order, an educative influence is being exerted that may equal in value the influence of lessons and recitations. This, then, is the factor that makes school management so different from the management of other business institutions. The very norms that school management adopts to make the lessons and the recitations effective are, in themselves, vital factors in the educative process. pp. 4-5

Another instance : Punctuality and regularity of attendance are essential if the school is to be operated with a minimum of waste. From the narrow point of view, classroom management fulfills its function in this regard when all pupils attend regularly and punctually upon all the sessions of the school. From the narrow point of view, such a result would represent the acme of efficiency for classroom management; p. 6

In general, the aim of the school may be formulated as social efficiency. Whatever the school undertakes to accomplish must be judged in the light of this standard. Not only must the materials of instruction be subjected to this test, but the methods of instruction must not exert an unsocial influence; and, what is especially important in the present connection, the schemes and devices of

classroom management must meet satisfactorily the same requirements.  The test of the ultimate aim must be applied at every point; otherwise the work of the school will lack system and harmony, and adequate results will be secured only through the operation of the law of chance. pp. 7-8

Regarding Routine and Habit

System and organization are the universal solvents of the problem of waste. p. 10

Regarding Automatization:

One begins a process with every intent to persevere, but the desire for change and variety, the instinctive dislike for continuous effort, frequently prevents attentive repetition in sufficient amount to insure the functioning of the process as habit. Unless the process reaches the stage of automatism, all of the initial repetitions represent time and energy practically thrown away. That is, if one starts out valiantly to establish a habit, carrying on the repetitions for some time, but becoming discouraged before automatism is reached, practically all of the effort that has been given to the preliminary stages is absolutely wasted. The stages preceding the final repetition which induces automatism are necessary, it is true, but, taken alone, they are quite without value. In school work, a vast amount of time is wasted by leaving processes at the “halfway house” between focalization and automatism. This is true both in the work of instruction (the mechanics of reading and spelling, the automatization of the addition and multiplication tables, etc.) and in details of school management. p. 18

Regarding efficiency of movement:

The Passing of Lines. For the expert observer, there is probably no detail of school management that indicates more clearly the efficiency or inefficiency of the teacher than the manner in which the lines pass to and from the room. Are the pupils quiet and orderly in line? Do they move energetically (even though slowly) or do they “shuffle” along and crowd and stumble? Whether pupils should be required to “keep step” is a mooted question, but no very cogent arguments are advanced against this procedure, and it adds much to the ease and facility with which the lines pass. In a “first-class” school the lines should pass quietly and in an orderly manner when they are not supervised ; but orderly lines that are supervised are greatly to be preferred over disorderly lines that are unsupervised. p. 37

Regarding training:

Neatness of Written Work and of Blackboard Work. One of the most accurate indices of a teacher’s efficiency is the character of the papers and of the blackboard work that his pupils produce. These matters  may not appear, at first thought, to be of profound importance, and it is true that their significance  may in certain instances be overestimated. Nevertheless scientific investigation indicates that accuracy in handwriting varies directly as general school intelligence; in general, the better the handwriting— that is, the more accurate — the higher the mental attainments of the pupils. In any case, the ability to train pupils to produce accurate written work is a fairly good index of the teacher’s general capacity in habit-building. p. 47

Regarding ‘time’ and scheduling:

To secure a maximal degree of efficiency in its work the school must make the most effective use of the time at its disposal. This is a complex problem, involving the adjustment of several determining factors. Among these the following require detailed consideration: (a) the length of the school year, (b) the length of the school day, (c) the time devoted to recesses and intermissions, (d) the subjects required, (e) the relative importance of these subjects at different levels of the child’s development, (f) the relation of different types, of subject-matter to fatigue, (g) the general factors of fatigue, and the significance of these factors to recesses, rest-periods, etc., (h) the time devoted to general exercises of all kinds, (i) the number of pupils and the number of separate classes for which each teacher must be responsible. As in the preceding discussions, these factors will be treated in their relation to the classroom teacher rather than in their broader significance to the duties of the principal, the superintendent, or the school board, p. 50

Regarding punctuality:

Aside from those delinquencies in punctuality that are due to conditions in the child’s home, and which should be treated as similar delinquencies in attendance are treated, the greatest trouble arises from the “naturally” dilatory child. In young children this is often due to an inadequate “time sense” (more properly “time judgment”). This is usually a result of arrested development. The judgment of time intervals is not a native gift, but an acquisition, and the only way for the young child to acquire it is through the pleasure-pain economy. For the habitually tardy pupil there is probably no remedy so effective in stimulating time judgment as a judicious use of corporal punishment, provided, of course, that the tardiness is due entirely to the pupil’s carelessness.

Regarding the influence of the business world:

Habits of punctuality  may be fortified and generalized by concrete instruction on their practical value in the social and business world. The time allotted to instruction in “morals and manners” or “ethics” (which is so commonly given to something else) might profitably be used in part for this purpose. This is a field in which a little “preaching”  may perhaps be more than commonly effective, for the alert, competent, “hustling” business man is the popular hero of the day, and punctuality is one of his chief virtues. Anecdotes drawn from business life, backed up by rigorous insistence on punctuality in school life, will do  much toward building up an active and effective ideal of punctuality among the pupils. p. 78

Regarding corporeal punishment:

The Fundamental Principles.  . . . it is clear that the efficiency of a penalty in securing the repression of undesirable activities will depend upon three factors: (i) the degree of pain, discomfort, or disagreeableness which the penalty involves; a penalty from which the “sting” has been carefully extracted has lost thereby its chief virtue as a penalty ; (2) the closeness with which it is associated with the undesirable impulse; a penalty that is not associated explicitly and directly with an undesirable act may, by chance, become associated with a desirable response : thus if the pain of chastisement, for example, is associated with school life in general instead of with some forbidden activity, school will become distasteful and will be avoided whenever possible; (3) its freedom from painful consequences in excess of those needed to inhibit the undesirable impulse ; a penalty that is not sufficiently severe is unjust to the mass; a penalty which is unnecessarily severe is unjust to the individual ; a penalty which is effective in a given instance and yet which lingers and rankles in the pupil’s mind may, in the last analysis, work more injury than good. pp. 113-14

Regarding grades:

In whatever class these incentives are to be placed, however, every teacher (and every pupil) will testify as to their efficiency in stimulating effort.

Regarding praise:

The efficiency of praise and commendation in stimulating effort cannot be doubted. Through all stages of education these incentives are probably among the most potent. Their maximal efficiency is, however, strictly conditioned by some very important principles, p. 181

Regarding effectiveness:

The important principle in school practice is this: Effective ideals derive the greater part of their power from the specific habits that have been developed during the formative period of life. The ideal of duty grows out of the specific habits of obedience, the ideal of work out of the specific habits of industry, and so on. These habits may be initiated by the application of the various incentives named above, and then, in the later periods of the pupil’s school life, the habits should, in turn, be generalized on the basis of ideals p. 186 – 87

Regarding efficiency:

The Study Lesson. The application of the pupils in their period of seat work tests the efficiency of the assignment. One of the surest indices of a teacher’s ability is the diligence of the study class. Indeed, the expert and experienced supervisor will always look first at the study class. If these pupils are working vigorously and with evident efficiency, he turns his attention to the class that is reciting. The prime test of a teacher is not the manner in which he conducts a recitation, but the growth that his pupils make in ability to work efficiently without supervision. p. 206

The Recitation Lesson. The work of the recitation should test both the efficiency of the study period and the efficiency of the assignment. In order to be maximally effective, it should be dominated by this fundamental precept : Hold the pupil rigidly responsible in the recitation for whatever tasks were set for him in the assignment. Unless this principle is adhered to strictly, the most skillful assignments and the most artful devices for the study period will be a waste of time and energy. pp. 210-11

Taking either social efficiency or “moral character” as the ultimate end of education (and, from the practical standpoint, the two may be considered as synonymous), it is clear that the product of the school must fulfill some fairly definite and tangible conditions if his education is to be adjudged successful. p. 226

Regarding standards and record-keeping:

One must be certain that one’s pupils are progressing toward the desired end. If the teacher has the standard well in mind, he will correct the pupils who assume inadequate positions. But if habit-building is to be effective, it is manifest that these corrections must become fewer and fewer in number as practice continues. It is well, therefore, to keep a simple record of the number of pupils that need correction each day, and of the number of times each day that any particular pupil requires correction. This record need not involve any very elaborate bookkeeping. A check mark  may be made on a pad whenever a correction is made, and the names of the more troublesome cases can also be written upon this pad and checked against. This plan is effective in that it keeps the teacher informed as to the efficiency of his efforts. If the habits are not being formed, — if corrections seemingly have no effect, — it is obvious that other methods must be employed. pp. 230-31

Regarding obedience:

The problem of the relation of the classroom teacher to his superior officers should be solved by an attitude of obedience to constituted authority. This is very far from saying that the teacher should adopt an attitude of servility; intelligent loyalty is the better term to employ. The situation is entirely analogous to that in any other organization or system, — the army, the navy, governmental departments, great business enterprises (or small business enterprises, for that matter). pp. 265 – 266



So there we have it. I think we can fairly say that we have developed a depth and breadth of understanding as far as the foundations of efficiency and scientific management. We can see how ‘time’ and measurement played out as background context modalities in the establishment of efficiency and scientific management. We can also see how assembly-line factory models and business metaphors influenced society and teacher training.


Have a great rest of your week!