“The Political Construction of Mass Schooling: European Origins and Worldwide Institutionalization” by Ramirez and Boli (1987)

In this article Ramirez and Boli “account for the rise and legitimation of nation-states’ compelling interest in mass education.” …they focus on transnational similarities in “ideological acceptance of particular goals for mass education, the adoption of compulsory school laws and constitutional provisions affirming a state interest in mass education, and the formation of national educational ministries and bureaus.” (p. 2)

In several historical sketches of educational systems in Prussia, Austria, Denmark and Sweden, Italy, France and England they uncover interesting patterns in the rise of the union between state and mass schooling.

Prussia: the earliest occurrence of mass schooling is reported to be in Prussia. The very earliest beginnings started with Frederick the Great who: “following a military model of governance, tried to unify Prussia through state centered education. All children were taught to identify with the state and its goals and purposes rather than with local polities…” this was after a period of war in which Prussia was victorious but had suffered great losses “Education became the means of reconstruction and renewal.”

They discuss in more detail the struggles between religious and secular forces of education that ensued…in the end the secular powers prevailed and between 1817-1825 the model of mass education was spread.

Ramirez and Boli state that while many of the characteristics of the rise of schooling in Prussia/Germany are unique there are a couple of themes that stand out in the extent to which they apply to universal types of processes of the “union between state and schools”:

“First the state attempted to use mass schooling to create a more unified national citizenry and thereby consolidate state power both within the nation and relative to other national states”…second, the union between state and school was sparked again as a result of a challenge to Prussia’s position in the European state system… “Prussia saw its rise in the European State system blocked. Its response was state controlled education, and the system it constructed would later be widely cited as an important element of Prussian (German) success in the state system.” (p. 5)

In both the cases of Prussia and Austria “mass public education was adopted as a means of improving national competitiveness in the interstate system.” (p. 6)

A similar pattern is observed in Denmark…Denmark had been a major European power in the 17th century but its power and influence fell…as in Prussia, an advocate arose to fight for the passage of a bill for the establishment of state sponsored mass education in 1814…his rationale for the cause was “for Denmark to regain its spiritual and national strength.”

Sweden also drew inspiration from Denmark and Prussia for the passage of a bill in 1842 for establishment of universal education and it was put into practice with great efficiency and effectiveness thereby making Sweden a model for other nations to follow.

They argue that in France, the impetus for state involvement in education was “made in the context of an intense effort to reconstruct the French national polity…broadly based nationalistic sentiment, the modern alchemy through which many different individuals become one with the interests and purposes of the state was practically invented in France during this era.”

They then go on to argue that because of England’s domination in the world they did not feel the pressures felt by other nations to invest heavily in state-sponsored education and so they are relative late comers. It was only on the waning of Britain’s international dominance that they began to take national education system more seriously.

“a waning of national confidence was clearly reflected in the British reaction to the 1867 Paris Exhibition, a world’s fair at which English products compared unfavorably with those of other countries. The Exhibition was widely interpreted as marking the end of unchallenged British superiority in the development and manufacture of goods. As a result of these developments, there arose a clamor for education both to improve British workmanship and to achieve greater national cohesion in order compete in the larger system…not until 1944 did England establish a national ministry of as the central educational authority. By then, the radical demise of British economic, political and military power was conspicuous and the United States emerged as the new dominant power in the world.”

Ramirez and Boli propose five institutionalized myths that gave rise to the modern schooling system:

1) the individual
2) the nation as a society made up of individuals
3) progress
4) childhood socialization
5) the state as guardian of the nation and guarantor of progress

“This set of interrelated myths linked the development of children to the national interest: good loyal and productive children would become good loyal and productive adults who in the aggregate would produce a better, stronger, and more developed national society. It was therefore important that children be systematically exposed to the appropriate socializing influences so that they would develop appropriate values.” P. 10

Previously the welfare of children had been up to the family or to religious organizations but in the “modern” world the interests of children were linked to national interests… “since the national welfare was believed to be influenced by the character instilled in the nation’s children, the state was impelled to play a role in the socialization of children”

footnote 6 notes the peculiarly distinctive decentralized organization of education in the U.S. however later in the article Ramirez and Boli postulate that in coming decades as the position of the U.S. as world leader comes increasingly into question we may see changes in the relationship between state and schooling and we do seem to be seeing such a trend in increased national interest in the development and reform of education.

They outline a world model:

“it is increasingly taken for granted that all peoples must be organized into national units, that states must control those units, that economic development and social justice are attainable goals reflecting the highest purposes of humanity, that the state must play a central role in society if those purposes are to be realized, and that an expanded state educational system is essential to individual and national progress.”

They cite the following empirical results:

more recently independent states create ed. ministries and adopt compulsory education laws more rapidly…
states continue to increase financial investments in schooling and in regulation of school structures, examinations and curricula
primary school enrollments have been expanding around the world
national and individual development have emerged as the most legitimate objectives of mass schooling replacing such objectives as preservation of status distinctions, maintenance of indigenous cultural values, and protection of regional or subgroup interests—the types of objectives that motivated social development in earlier models of society. The emphasis on national development is clearly reflected in educational policy statements…
the quantity and quality of school-based socialization of the individual has increased.
the use of educational reform as an important solution to challenges to national power and prestige in the interstate system has been further institutionalized e.g. sputnik reaction, fear of Japanese development etc.

in less powerful countries, national commitments to mass schooling are more certainly imposed by the world model; indeed such commitments are supported directly by transnational organizations such as the united nations, and the world bank.


Overall this is a key article for my purposes because it outlines the origin of the role of the nation-state in the development and expansion of education for social control, national solidarity and in the context of nation-state competing with each other for economic and national power. Also the connection between national interest and the socialization of individuals.

It is also interesting that individual ideals of social mobility have converged with the goals of the nation state for education for the national interests.



Ramirez, F., & Boli, J. (1987). The Political Construction of Mass Schooling: European Origins and Worlwide Institutionalization. Sociology of Education, 60(January), 2-17.

“Some comparative principles of educational stratification” by Randall Collins (1977)

In this article Collins outlines two main theoretical perspectives on educational stratification: functionalist and neo-Marxist theories.

Functionalist theories—contribution of education to the integration and productivity of society

Neo-Marxist—weapon in the struggles for domination that make up the phenomenon of stratification.

Collins argues that there is no empirical validation of functionalist approaches to education. “A close look at the evidence indicates that schooling does not supply specific technical skills as functionalists contend.” p. 2.

He sketches three versions of Marxist views of education: 1) Marx—free and universal mass education in order to eliminate class differences in educational access and attainment. 2) Althusser who argues education’s role in social reproduction. 3) Bowles and Gintis and education for the production of a compliant labor force.

Collins states that his approach is Weberian and considers the struggle between multiple groups for domination, for economic advantage and for prestige. He extrapolates Weberian categories of class, party, and status to come up with three lines of societal division: economic, organizational-political, and cultural. He also combines this with a Durkheimian approach which sees education as an agent of “moral socialization and hence the secular equivalent of religion in modern society.” [I should incorporate Durkheim more directly into my paper on social interactions.]
“Durkheim shows that participation in rituals—whether religious, political, or educational—promotes group identification, and that myths or symbols that are the focus of rituals become marks of membership in distinctive social groups and the referents of moral legitimacy.… in its overgeneralized form, the Durkheimian theory simply asserts that education integrates entire undifferentiated societies…”

In this article Collins uses comparative historical approaches to study educational stratification.

There is an interesting history in this article of the birth of the modern secular school system. Collins traces its beginnings to Prussia in the 17th and 18th centuries. England only built a public school system as late as 1870.

“In general any strong, centralized state or church tends to be bureaucratically organized…such a state or church provides demand for education…can provide a market for education…state influence on education is fairly strong when examinations are required for entrance to government office…the state is most deeply involved in education where it requires school attendance…

“capitalists interest in using education to ensure labor discipline may have been a force behind the development of mass, compulsory education in some of these countries, but it was not the central motive…the safer generalization is that bureaucratic states impose compulsory education on populations which are seen as potential threats to state control, and that those economic classes which are influential in the state will help define the nature of the “threat”.

“The various kinds of demand for education—practical, status-group, and bureaucratic—may be viewed more broadly as part of a cultural market in which social actors simultaneously attempt to attain certain goals. The interest of government in bureaucratic control over particular classes may mesh with the interest of these very classes in improving their cultural attainments for the sake of status…eg. there is a symbiosis between government concern for compulsory educational indoctrination of the modern masses and some interest in status mobility on the part of those masses. The interest of capitalists in ensuring labor discipline adds yet another demand to this market…as does the interest of a particular ethnic group in maintaining its opportunities vis-à-vis other ethnic groups.”

“the extent to which education develops in different societies and historical periods varies according to the nature of their cultural markets. Abstractly we may see that cultural markets require a common currency and independent sources of supply and demand for cultural goods…a common cultural currency derives from an elite culture, which has undisputed dominance because it legitimates a wealthy and powerful group….the supply of cultural goods…is determined by the availability of teachers, of material resources for schools…of methods for producing…books and writing materials…The demand for cultural goods is determined by the number of individuals of groups who feel there is a potential payoff from education and by the economic and political resources they have to make their demands effective…the desire for training in the culture of a status group has been a stronger source of demand for formal education…”

Collins, R. (1977). Some Comparative Principles of Educational Stratification. Havard Educational Review, 47(1).

Theories of the State

In his presidential address at the Comparative and International Education Society annual meeting, Martin Carnoy suggested the need for educational researchers to make their theory of the state explicit. I am now grappling with notions of the theory of the state...

Originally I had focused only on what I was terming "functionalist" theories, "conflict" theories and "institutionalist" theories. now i am thinking of only two: "state as rational actor" vs. "institutionalist theories" which proscribe the role of state as rational actor. could the state as rational actor encompass the notion of purposeful cultivation of workers for the workforce [as in "Schooling and Work in the Democratic State"] as well as state as purposefully using education as a means for social reproduction?...do theories of social reproduction focus on more latent or hidden forces rather than explicit forces. I need to go back and look at these more carefully. to the extent that forces of social reproduction are aspects of the hidden curriculum i guess I should classify these under institutional forces.

perhaps my problem is that previously i was trying to combine educational purposes e.g. somehow link functionalist ideas with a major focus on the role of education in economic development and conflict theories with the role of education in social control...but i may now be able to separate perspectives on the role of the state [i.e. rational vs. bounded rationality] and the ostensible educational purposes.

but explicit educational purposes seem to only fit in the state as rational actor model...and in this case it becomes necessary to read between the lines if you want to draw any conclusions or test any theories about institutional processes...is that right?

is there a way i can get away with state as rational actor model?

another problem is that i have not yet made it clear what i am trying to prove...

basically... i want to obtain a description of what the policy reforms aim for in terms of policy rhetoric. i want to state explicitly my theory of the state [which i am trying to construct as state as rational actor but drawing on institutional theory as a way to moderate this with an understanding of bounded rationalities...spread of internationally institutionalized norms of social justice--EFA etc., progressive ideologies related to the cultivation of innovation and creativity, not sure what to say about patriotic education...]

1) what are the policy goals for the new education reforms and specifically for the curriculum reforms for basic education?
2) what implications do different theories of the state have for understanding these goals for the curriculum reforms.