对美国教育史学早期发展的再审视

当前学界对美国教育史学的早期发展存在一定程度的误读。美国教育史学萌芽于殖民地时期的历史书写之中，在经历了殖民地时期的基督教历史写作、建国初期的民族主义历史写作之后，美国教育的历史写作已经基本形成了一种以宽泛的文明叙事为主流的“辉格派”历史写作风格。但在19世纪晚期德国历史主义和美国实用主义观念的影响下，在美国历史学科学化和美国教师教育专业化的两股浪潮之中，产生了美国教育史写作的两条路径：一条路径杂糅了德国历史主义，继续沿着美国教育史写作的文明叙事道路前进；而另一条则开启了美国教育史写作的教科书模式，这虽然反映了教师教育专业化对美国教育史教科书编写的迫切需要，但导致了美国教育史学中的工具主义，是对美国教育史写作传统的反叛。这一反叛在20世纪50—60年代职业史学家的系统反思之后被抛弃，“温和修正派”对历史写作的实用主义的批评使得美国教育史学重回宽泛的文明叙事形态，同时正式完成美国教育史学的专业化。

Rethinking on the Early Development in American Educational Historiography

Current academic understandings of the early development of American educational historiography are not adequate and require clarification. Early historical writings on American education had a typical “family history” style pioneered by Ellwood P. Cubberley. The subsequent work of Bernard Bailyn and Lawrence A. Cremin in the 1960s and 1970s saw the framework of “moderate revisionism” replacing the earlier tradition with a broad and universally connected civilization narrative writing style, marking the emergence of a “new American educational historiography”. The main cause of academic misunderstandings is that there has been a one-sided emphasis on the importance of Cubberley and Cremin’s criticisms of the “family history” writing tradition, which has failed to give full considerations to other works in the development of this historiography, particularly the numerous early works. This bias also illustrates that, intentionally or otherwise, linear historical views and “présentiste” exist in the research of American educational historiography in China, and this requires careful consideration. Based on the Western historical writing tradition and systematic analysis of numerous works, this study once again reviews the early development of American educational historiography to provide a new understanding of its development in the colonial period. Influenced by writings on Christianity in the colonial period and the nationalist documentation of early American colonial history, American education historians developed a style that was dominated by a stream of broad narratives on civilization called the “Whig school”. However, under the influence of German historicism and American pragmatism in the late 19th Century, two styles emerged. Inspired by the scientificization of American history, one path adopted historicism from Germany and maintained the “civilization narrative”. The other path, motivated by a push for the professionalization of American teacher education, turned against the “textbookization” of American educational history writing. Although the writings by educational historians reflected the acute demand for teacher education professionalization, it led to instrumentalism, rebelling against the previous writing traditions. This “rebellion” was discarded after a systematic review by professional historians in the 1950s and 1960s. Following this “moderate revisionist” criticism of the pragmatism of historical writing, American educational historiography returned to a framework of broad narratives on civilization, which simultaneously marked the full completion of the professionalization of American educational historiography.