The history of teaching in the United States from colonial days through the 20th century is marked by continuity in the following themes: citizen control, teacher status of proximal power, cellular organization producing solitary or independent work organization, little change in modes of instruction, eased entry into the profession, and (since mid 19th Century) predominance of women (Lortie, 1975).

Unprofessional teachers working in isolation. Evaluation of this work done by community leaders. Schools were a very locally focused endeavor. Corporal punishment was prevalent, so most teachers were men. Pay was the same as for artisans, but social status near that of minister. Literacy development seen as work of the church; trained people to read the Bible.

Local control still exerted through governing boards. Urbanization, mandatory schooling and movements like Common School Crusade created demand for more teachers and required rural teachers to move from one room school houses to multiple classroom secular schools.

Most new teachers were young women, causing diminished status of profession and lower wages while simultaneously upholding rigorous moral expectations for teachers. They earned up to 60% less than male teachers (Grumet, 1988). "Special but shadowed" very evident here (Lortie, 2002). Little organizing and professional associating. Work was solitary by design to support rapid turnover as young female teachers married and had to leave profession. Minimal schooling or training requirement made it easy to fill positions.

This is the period of lowest prestige for teachers. Professionalization was just gaining predominance but centralized planning supported by newly powerful administrative models kept teachers in check. Scientific management approach to curriculum turned teachers into cogs in a machine, laborers as described by Mitchell &Kerchner (1983), rather than artisans.

More and more women entered the profession, normal schools provide opportunity for inexpensive training – supporting new education requirements for the profession, yet keeping the eased entry reality in place (Lortie, 2002). State review and certification of teachers becomes the norm. Education associations grow rapidly, but still "all ranks".

Citizen control still maintained through school boards budgeting and use of property taxes for funding salaries. Shadowed prestige of the profession still existed despite higher education requirements. Colleges of education were one of the only undergraduate professional training options available in liberal arts departments, so eased entry remains. Teachers took a more oppositional stance in their organizing. One change: separating of professional organizations from organizations that serve administrators.

Status quo maintained by adherence to instructionism (Sawyer, ????) and the means by which teachers were recruited into the profession. Many of those called to the profession drawn to it because they like their experience in education, perpetuating the status quo because there is no incentive to push for change.

Christiansen et al. (2011) write that real change can only happen through disruptive innovation. Research on education and teaching and technology have failed to create real change because they have been crammed into the status quo – organizational structure that has changed little since the 19th century.

Cuban (1993) writes that change has been inhibited by cultural beliefs about the nature of knowledge and what teaching should look like, the static nature of the structure of formal schooling, conservative policy governing classroom practice, mandates created and enforced by the organizational structure of school districts, conservative classroom culture, and teacher beliefs about role of schools.

Christiansen suggests taking what we know of learning and using technology to replace failing models and serve students whose needs are left unaddressed in current educational models.

Sawyer provides many other suggestions focused on creating learning based on learning theory and creative use of technology.

To foster positive change, must understand how gender and femininity influences pedagogy and curriculum around and how subjugation of women has shaped educational organization and processes since the early 19th Century (Grumet, 1988).

Leaders must capitalize on what they know about learning and the socio-cultural impact of the feminization of the job of teaching. Too many students are ill served by the current paradigm. Disruptive innovation using technology and what we know about sociology and classroom practice might create blue sky and room for change.