Education in theFirst Half

of the20th Century

by

Robert C. Morris

EDLE 6322

Department of Educational Leadership& Professional Studies

University of West Georgia

EDUCATION IN THE FIRST HALF

OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Table of Contents Page

Traditional Education in the United States…………………………………………… 5

Historical View of Progressive Education……………………………………………. 8

The European Background………………………………………………………… 8

Rousseau: A New Theory of Education……………………………………… 10

Johann Pestalozzi……………………………………………………………… 12

Intellectual Outlooks in the New World………………………………………. 13

Benjamin Franklin…………………………………………………………….. 15

Thomas Jefferson……………………………………………………………… 15

Horace Mann………………………………………………………………….. 17

The Essence of Progressive Education……………………………………………….. 18

The Development & Spirit of Progressive Education………………………………... 20

The Twentieth Century Revolution……………………………………………….. 20

Progressivism and Social Reform……………………………………………. 22

Francis Wayland Parker………………………………………………………. 28

John Dewey…………………………………………………………………… 30

Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education………………………….. 33

Progressive Education Association ………………………………………….. 34

Added Pressures on education in the 1930’s and 1940’s ……………………………. 43

Confusion and Dissension …………………………………………………………… 46

Summary …………………………………………………………………………….. 48

Copyrighted 1976Robert C. Morris

EDUCATION IN THE FIRST HALF OF THETWENTIETH CENTURY

2

This chapter is designed essentially to describe the antecedents and the nature of the

educational system which developed in America during the first half of the twentieth century.

The complexities and intricacies of educational developments during the present century plus the

lack of time for the full development of historical perspective in analyzing them add to the

difficulty of surveying any relatively recent period of history. Any one of the numerous

educational developments during those immediate decades leading up to the present deserves

extensive discussion in itself. The forces and events within this chapter were selected as the

most relevant. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in analyzing the major developments is the fact

that the present century has produced an abundance of self-analysis and criticism of the

traditional system of education and its purpose. This is a century pulsating with tensions and

friction; its educational practices, theories, and experiments are one index of the changing pattern

of American thought and institutions.

Not since the common schools movement had there been so much concern about the

purposes of education and its relationship to democracy as in the beginnings of the twentieth

century. The educational leadership of the late nineteenth century had dedicated itself largely to

extending opportunities to those which has earlier been denied them and to discovering the

means of adjusting and modifying institutions and objectives to fit the needs of an industrial

society. In the first half of the twentieth century, the theme of democracy and education is

repeatedly expressed. Progressive and democratic ideals were restated and reaffirmed, and the

existing order was severely indicated for failure to meet the demands of a democratic people.

There was a growing demand for the school to help build a better social order. An inevitable

problem resulted from the growth in acceptance of nineteenth century educational ideal of equal

opportunity: that of mass education versus quality. The first half of this century reverberated

with criticism and rejection, with questioning and evaluating, and as the second half of this

3

century closes one can easily see numerous programs, methodologies, and attitudes that are

direct outgrowths of these generalized attacks on our educational system.

However, education in the first half of the twentieth century has, in general, accepted the

principles of the nineteenth century education reformers. Despite the attacks and counter-attacks

made on American education were seen as the foremost means of promoting the democratic aims

of society. Social improvement and progress are two key educational objectives of this century

as they were in the preceding one. Whether expressed in the abstract realm of American thought,

through the reform proposals of the educational theorists, or by the methods and concepts of

progressivism-faith in democracy and in education as a means of improving social institutions

became a dominant theme. The main difference between the views of the twentieth century

leadership and that of the past is in the recognition of the complexities and peculiar problems and

conditions of an industrial urban society. The result is a variety of innovations and reforms and a

sharp break with the traditional educational patterns of the nineteenth century. This chapter will

attempt, therefore, to describe the combination of growing forces that accounted for the

development of a new more progressive education in the United States.

The story of this “new” progressive education begins with the Greek, Roman, and

Hebrew philosophies of education and flows through history to such European educators as

Rousseau and Pestalozzi, whose ideas became a mainstay for progressive thought. With these

and others the seeds of progressivism were planted.

As early American “educators” such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Mann studied and

recognized the potential of a useful, citizenship-oriented public education, the seeds that had

been planted centuries before began to grow.

Finally with the closing years of the nineteenth century the movement flowered with the

help of such educators as Parker and Dewey, as well as organizations like the (PEA) Progressive

4

Education Association. This progressive movement for education quickly developed widespread

appeal in the twentieth century.

TRADITIONAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

There seems little doubt that by the time of the Civil War, the major outlines of the

American school system had emerged clearly enough to warrant some generalizations. That the

common school had become an essential feature of American life by that time cannot be debated.

By 1886 the conception of this institution had crystallized to a point where a Massachusetts court

decision was able to define a common school as one supported and controlled by the local

community, open to all children, and teaching the elementary common branch subjects. Though

conditions varied considerably from one part of the nation to another, the beginnings of grading

systems were already in evidence in the cities, while the work of infant school societies had

begun to extend the common school downward. In general, children were able to enter

somewhere between the ages of four and six, and could stay from five to eight or nine years,

depending on the region.

That the common school was to stand as the first section of an educational ladder

stretching all the way through the university was also clear by the time of the Civil War. In

many northern and western cities the high school had already begun to displace the academy as

the people’s secondary schools. The fact that the high school came after the common school,

and they embraced both college-preparatory and terminal students, served sharply to distinguish

the American system from more traditional European dual systems. With the state universities

open to qualified students of the high school, the ladder was completed.

Of the many conflicting educational aims vying for support during this period of

tremendous expansion, traditional ones tended to dominate the schools. While it is true that the

curriculum broadened at every level—especially in the more populated areas—and while it is

5

true that dozens of educational experiments and innovations appeared in various individual

schools or school systems, it was not until after the Civil War that these new influences really

began to alter that basic purposes of American Education. What, then, were these more

traditional aims which continued to provide the guidelines for the American school program?

Perhaps the dominant aim of the whole support school system from common school

through university was character and moral development. Stemming from the profound

influence of organized religious groups in the founding and control of American schools, this

stood central in the thinking of most educators prior to 1865. For some, character and moral

development could never be separated from instruction in the tenents and doctrines of a

particular religious faith. For others, character training could still be central in the program of a

nonsectarian common school. Often the controversy over what kind of school could best provide

this training was the crux of the struggle over public education.

Rooted in the European traditions of idealism and rationalism, the ideal of mental

discipline was another central aim of early nineteenth-century education, and emphasis upon it

increased as the century progressed. Ascribing only secondary importance as the century

progressed. Ascribing only secondary importance to the acquisition of knowledge, mental

discipline stressed rather the importance of training the faculties and intellectual powers of the

mind. Thus, for example, mathematics would be taught not for any practical or theoretical value

it might posses, but primarily to strengthen the mind’s power to reason logically. This theory

was strongly advocated by religious and humanist educators. It was cited most frequently as

justification of the continuance of classical studies in the curriculum. It was, therefore,

particularly popular in the liberal arts college, and was often used to support the college-

preparatory functions of the academics and high schools.

6

A third ideal which held powerful sway, specially at the elementary level was universal

literacy, and through this, the dissemination of information. Traditionally Protestant groups had

placed emphasis upon this aim, growing out of their conception that each man achieved salvation

by reading and interpreting the Bible for himself. In the nineteenth century the achievement of

this goal was increasingly fortified by arguments that a republic could survive only with

universal literacy among the electorate. Thus, in those areas which accepted the common school

idea the assumption that universal literacy would automatically bolster a people’s freedom was

commonly acknowledged.

The third aim was quite closely allied with a fourth which has been gaining headway

since the European nations had first begun to conceive of education for national purposes in the

seventeenth century: namely, education for citizenship. This deal was certainly powerful in the

common schools, where one guiding purpose was to train loyal citizens able to assume their

responsibilities. Moreover, it was increasingly evidenced in the establishment of public

secondary schools and colleges whose stated purpose was to provide competent leaders for the

community. Clearly, education for citizenship furnished consideration support for the inclusion

of social studies at all levels of education. Moreover, the programs of Americanization which

grew out of it played an important part in welding one nation out of a variety of national and

cultural groups.

A fifth aim which began to make headway in the fact of traditional opposition was that of

vocational or practical competence. This ideal was particularly manifested in the academics,

where the claim was most often made that studies would be useful in the “ordinary business of

life.” In the pre-Civil War period, although there were sporadic attempts at vocational training

for manual or industrial positions, most people though of studies that pertained to the business

and commercial world when they thought of these “practical” subjects. This is quite

7

understandable in view of the face that academics catered principally to the middle classes and

the fact that commerce and trade were far more developed than industry before the Civil War.

A final traditional aim tied in clearly with practical competence, namely, the goal of

individual success. Nurtured by frontier and capitalist individualism, this end guided many into

the school who might not otherwise have attended. For this group—and it was a large one—

schooling would help one along the ladder to success. More often than not, just how the school

would help was not entirely clear, but the fact remains that it would help was accepted

uncritically. In many cases it was simply a matter of attaining something which over the

centuries had traditionally been reserved for small groups among the upper classes. In the spirit

of the middle class they wanted for their youngsters what the youngsters of the upper classes had

received for decades—say classical education. They were not quite sure of what advantages

accure from such an education, but they steadfastly believed it would help their children along

the road to success.

HISTORICAL VIEW OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION

The European Background

Americans seem to think that God created the world in 1620—that is, that nothing much

of importance happened before the New England colonies were settled. This orientation—

probably a result of our almost exclusive educational concentration on American history – tends

to exclude an awareness of the very important contributions of Europe and Asia toward the

shaping of American culture. The truth of the matter is, of course that: (1) European colonists

brought to the New World a rich cultural heritage, and (2) this cultural heritage was immediately

modified by the conditions of the new land.

European educational systems were derived ultimately from the Greeks and Romans, the

former dating to as early as 400 B.C. The Athenian Greeks thought of education as a process

8

that developed both intellect and character. Education, the property of the ruling class, was to

produce the kind of person who would naturally fit into that ruling class. For those who were not

of the aristocracy training in the manual arts would suffice. Roman education had a similar goal.

The Hebrew concept, however, was considerably different. The Hebrews believed that,

for the good life to be lived and salvation attained, one had to be acquainted with religious truths.

These truths must be divinely inspired, understood, and memorized. Unless one possessed a

deep understanding of the truths contained in the scripture, neither the good life nor salvation

was possible. Thus by linking formal education to religion, the Hebrews began a tradition

continued by the Christians, including the Puritans in America 1600 years later.

Good and Teller believes that the ancients made several contributions to education: (1) A

clear distinction between education and training was made by the Greeks and Romans.

Education was the cultivation of both character and intellect, with a good man and a wise leader

as the desired end result. Training, a kind of low-level habit formation whose end was

vocational, was reserved for those members of the lower class who were to serve the elite. (2)

The classical curriculum was seen as a proper blend of subjects usually centering around a

literary, philosophical, and mathematical core. (3) By wedding the educative process to their

religion, the Hebrews made education sacred and indispensable.1

All of these contributions filtered into the Christian European world after the fall of

Rome in 476. In view of the religiously uniform character of Europe, it is not surprising that for

many years education was the exclusive possession of the church. Education was by and for the

Church. The young boy who showed intelligence and ability was educated by monks who taught

him Latin, Church doctrine and theology, sacred music, and Biblical combined with other

ancient history. Secondary schools slowly came into existence to provide advanced training for

1Harry G. Good and James D. Teller, A History of Western Education, “London: Macmillan Co., 1969), p. 13-15, 41-55.

9

future religious or state leaders. Out of the medieval secondary schools there arose higher

education, which at first was an amazingly simple affair: a master, usually a renowned scholar,

and disciples who gathered around him. Eventually this master-disciple relationship became

institutionalized, and in the thirteenth century there arouse the European university. This was a

state-approved institution in which there existed a kind of contractual arrangement between

masters and students: the former agreed to teach and the latter agreed to learn.

Gradually, as Good and Teller point out, European towns began to create both elementary

and secondary schools, financed and controlled by the civil authorities. These schools, often

referred to as “burgh” schools, were in part a response to the growing complexity of life and to

the need for educating a class of merchants and tradesmen who were beginning to become more

numerous and powerful.1

Good and Teller continue:

The eighteenth century was a period of diverse trends in education. Humanism, although it had become traditional, was still dominant, but a young and vigorous Realism was opposing it. The church schools for the common people were beginning to feel the hostility of democrats and nationalists demanding universal education for citizenship. Political and scientific advances led from uncritical optimism of the writers of Utopias to a definite but still uncritical theory of progress. Although the philosophers favored education, they did not fully realize the central place the school should have occupied in this program. Civilization was expected to produce a perfected society easily and quickly. 2

Rousseau: A New Theory of Education. Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that man had been

perverted and enslaved by a civilization that had fostered oppression, corruption, injustice, and

artificial and extravagant urbanism, and “those ridiculous institutions call colleges.” 3 Men had

been happier in simpler conditions. He also disagreed with his contemporaries on the nature of

12 Good and Teller, op. cit., pp. 139-161.2Ibid., p. 220. 3 Ibid.

10

the world of man. Nature gave sufficient grounds for belief in God, freedom, and immortality.

Man should guide his life not only by reason but also by feeling and conscience. 1

Rouseeau was born in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1712. As William Van Til points out:

“The conduct of his life reflected his philosophical thesis: the glorification of nature,

individuals, and man’s communion with elements of nature.”2 Rousseau was an avowed

romanticist, in keeping with the trend of thought sweeping Europe during his lifetime. He

claimed that too much civilization, too much society, corrupted man.

Rousseau, as would some progressive educators of the twentieth century, regarded the

purpose of education as fostering the natural inward growth of the individual. Rousseau also

believed that the basic objective of the school is to foster the natural development of the

individual child; everything else is secondary. The schools of his day, however, were largely

entrenched in external processes; they were authoritarian, uncreative, and stereotyped.

Another similarity between Rousseau and some later progressive educators of

“modern” America was the fact that Rousseau believed that education should be student-

centered, that it should be an action-oriented experience which would develop the individual’s

ability to manifest the power of his senses, to feel and express emotion, to create, and to utilize

his knowledge in practical action for his individual well-being.3

In Progressive Education at the Crossroads, Boyd Bode stated of Rousseau that:

In his revolt against the tyrannies and brutalities of the social order of his day, Rousseau made his appeal, not to the principle of democracy, but to the sacred and inviolable nature of the individual. Over against the absolutes of the social order he placed the alleged absolute of human nature. Education, in his view,

must be conducted, not according to the behests of vested interests, which used the creed of absolutism to entrench themselves, but according to the nature of childhood. This latter meant, in effect, that the child should be permitted to grow up in his own way, without being subjected to “impositions” by others. Since

1 Mabel L. Sahakian and William S. Sahakian, Rousseau as Educator, (New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc. 1974), pp. 27-33.2 William Van Til, Education: A Beginning, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1974 ed.), p. 415.3 Ibid.

11

man is created in the image of God, the best way to educate him is to permit thisimage to express itself according to its won inherent nature.1

Bode was critical of this view which he believed to be restrictive of a truly progressive

education.

Johann Pestalozzi (746-1827). Pestalozzi was another precursor of progressive education.

Pestalozzi was born in Zurich, Switzerland, and his close connection with that city continued

even though his work took him away for long periods.

Social reform and education were not separate concerns for Pestalozzi. Pestalozzi was a

social reformer, deeply aware of harsh laws and the injustice suffered by the people; and at the

other end of the social scale, the poverty, crime, disease, unemployment, and unhealthy work in

factories. The factory, as Pestalozzi saw it, tended to treat the worker as a thing or a machine.2

Pestalozzi’s major teaching successes came while teaching at his farm home at Neuhof.

The idea was to teach the most neglected children work skills and work habits, health care with

cleanliness, and basic literacy.

Pestalozzi recognized the presence in all men of three basic drives: the primitive

impulse, the social impulse, and the ethical impulse. Education, according to Pestalozzi, is the

process whereby the ethical impulse triumphs over the others. This belief conflicted with the

artificial training common in the schools of his time and favored an inward development

whereby the human capacities of love, understanding, and creativity were cultivated.

Kat Silber describes Pestalozzi’s basis for man’s ability to learn as:

……the natural relations of men as arranged in ever-widening circles. The circleof experience granted to every man in his particular situation is narrow; it beginsclose around him, first around himself and his nearest relations, then it extends from there; but in its extension it must always be related to the centre of strengthand truth.3

1 Boyd H. Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads, (New York: Newson and Company, 1938), pp. 37-38.2 Kate Silber, Pestalozzi, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965), pp. 52-60.3 Ibid., p. 34.

12

Like Rousseau and Comenius, Pestalozzi emphasized the necessity of pleasant rapport

between teacher and student, the need for motivation in learning, and the object lessons which

nature can teach. Pestalozzi also believed that every child must be free to become involved in

learning and develop at this individual ability level. Later progressive education drew on many

of these ideas.

Intellectual Outlooks in the New World

Those colonists who emigrated to this country brought with them the germ of the

institutions they were to build. In particular, they began their American experiences with the

following concepts: (1) Education as an inseparable part of religion; (2) An elite education for a

ruling class and training for the masses; (3) Some embryonic ideas of specific educational

institutions, including the idea of an elementary school, as secondary school, and some

institution for higher education; (4) Educational goals concerning both the development of

intellect and the improvement of character; (5) Two levels of curriculum: the first was an

elementary curriculum to inculcate basic literacy skills, asn the second, the Seven Liberal Arts,

or a curriculum for universities. Secondary education, as a separate and distinct institution, was

not firmly established in Europe in the sixteenth century. It was not to become established in this

country until the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.1

In addition to cultural patterns concerning education, sixteenth century emigrants brought

with them other cultural patterns they had learned in Europe. They carried to these shores a

language and a well-developed literature. They possessed legal and political institutions,

including forms of administration and the idea of representative government. A most important

cultural concept was the English belief in stability, order, law, and property. Also included was

the belief that it was important to conserve the past and that whatever change was needed could

1 Good and Teller, op. cit., pp. 437-445.

13

best come about slowly as a result of small parliamentary innovations and slight changes in

attitude. This attitude toward law and order was later combined with the eighteenth century

French emphasis on liberty, equality, and brotherhood—political freedoms. It is obvious that the

English emphasis on law and property, and the French emphasis on freedom and equality were

not entirely consistent with each other. This inconsistency tended to create an American culture

with some extremely sharp conflicts. The cultural conflicts have resulted in some rather serious

strains and cleavages within the American society. They have also contributed to the creative

nature of the American society.

The new arrivals to our country came slowly at first, then in larger numbers, and in the

nineteenth century in a torrent. The early colonists arrived with fairly extensive stock of ideas

about education, government, philosophy, agriculture, finance, and trade. But almost

immediately they discovered that many of their cultural patterns were completely inappropriate

in the wilderness of North America.

Butts and Cremin described “The Colonial Mind” by stating:

In the course of more than 150 years the colonial mind of America which formed the intellectual setting for educational theory became increasingly complex and representative of the crosscurrents of thought that swept over Western Europe. At the beginning of the colonial period the prevailing orthodoxies in America were based upon theological conceptions and reinforced period, however, new sanctions had appeared and were receiving some acceptance as a basis for approved right thinking. This change from religious to nonreligious or secular sanctions for thought and action is usually summed up by historians in the term Enlightenment. Especially during the eighteenth century proposals for change in the older way of thinking and acting carried appeals to human reason rather than divine law, to natural rights rather than supernatural rights, to scientific method rather than to established truths, to social agreements and individual freedom rather than authoritarian control, and to humanitarian and democratic faith rather than aristocratic privilege. The results of this short in emphasis in intellectual sanctions were felt in theology and religion, in philosophy, and in political, economic, and social theory. They were likewise seen in the emergence of new forms of educational theory and proposals for educational change that eventually led to changes in educational practice. 1

1 R. Freeman Butts and Lawrence A. Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953) pp. 43-44.

14

Benjamin Franklin. One of those prominent Americans, who was not a school master but

nevertheless contributed significant educational concepts, was the illustrious Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin was a product of the new American middle class, and his concepts reflected the realistic

perspective of this group. In this respect Franklin expressed himself as a reformer who stressed a

utilitarian and nonsectarian approach to education. He rejected the traditional accent on religious

orthodoxy and classical indoctrination, and substituted instead, his belief in a program of studies

that met the actual needs of colonial society: “First Steps of a Practical Education.”1

An upper-level school curriculum, in his opinion, should include moral instruction. More

importantly, it should be broad enough to train boys for any profession or trade.

Benjamin Franklin was also instrumental in the founding of the College of Philadelphia.

After the Philadelphia Academy had opened in 1751, Franklin believed that this institution

should soon develop into a “ regular college”2 The opportunity for establishing such a college

came two years later, after the Academy had obtained the right to grant college degrees.

The key word in Franklin’s educational vocabulary was “useful”; his version of

usefulness grew out of his self-education, his studies, and his times. Above all, he wanted to

open up useful education to the people of the colonies.

Thomas Jefferson. The last years of the eighteenth century and early decades of the nineteenth

stand out as a period of premature nationalism in which America concentrated on achieving a

degree of cultural and economic independence, and on furthering the political experiment of

republicanism. Their efforts were deliberate, exaggerated, and often self-conscious.

What the new nation needed, as the intellectual as well as the political leadership

recognized, was a system of schools which would guarantee the fulfillment of the principles and

ideology of the American Revolution, unify and bind the nation together, and promote cultural

1 Cross, H., Chandler, C. (1964). The History of American Education. Boston: D.C. and Company p.21-25.2 Buttts and Cremin, op. cit., pp. 77-79.

15

development. The school books became the immediate and practical instruments by which

young Americans could be trained in loyalty, republican principles, and Christian virtues.

Numerous tracts and essays written on the subject appeared in the last decades of the

eighteenth century. Although there was wide diversity of opinion on the methods of education,

there was great similarity among the theorists on how the training was to be carried out, by

whom, and for what purpose.

Throughout the writings runs the constant refrain of education as a means of binding the

nation together, whether the plan is for a national university or for the creation of a system of

schools by the federal government. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson

were among those who advocated the establishment of a national university which would keep

Americans home as well as bring them together from the vast reaches of the growing nation.

To Jefferson, education rested with the state government and not the federal. AS

governor of Virginia in 1779, he proposed the Bill for the More General Diffusion of Learning

based on the concept of public education for the talented.1 Jefferson envisioned a system which

would permit free education on each level for a select few of ability until a handful of the

brightest young men would enter the College of William and Mary at public expense. The plan

of education for the talented was fundamentally aristocratic, but nonetheless revolutionary in the

fact that the state did assume responsibility and that at the rudimentary level free education was

provided for all classes.

Horace Mann. Historians consider Horace Mann as the outstanding nineteenth century

advocate of universal public education. Cremin says of Mann:

Consider Mann, as the leading example. The commanding figure of the early public-school movement, he had poured into his vision of universal education a boundless faith in the perfectibility of human life and institiutions…Universal education could be the “great equalizer” of human conditions, the

1 Thomas Jefferson, “Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge.”

16

“balance wheet of the social machinery,” and the “creator of wealth undreamed of.”1

While a member of the Massachusetts legislature in 1827, Mann aided in the successful

drive for the creation of a State Board of Education in Massachusetts. In 1837 he accepted the

position of secretary of the board, thus becoming the chief administrative officer of

Massachusetts’ public schools.

The energy and vision which Mann brought to the office soon made it an influential

forum for his views. Mann stressed the potential of education for the elimination of both social

problems and individual defects. Mann could combine practical economic arguments with

appeals to utopian beliefs.

Cremin discussed Mann’s “total faith in education” by stating:

The theory supporting Mann’s faith represented a fascination potpourriof early American progressivism, combining elements of Jeffersonian republicanism, Christian moralism, and Emersonian idealism. Man understoodwell the relationship between freedom, self-government, and universal education.Like Jefferson, he believed that freedom could rest secure only as free men had the knowledge to make intelligent decisions. . . . Man recognized that knowledgewas power, but the power to do evil as well as good. Hence, the education of freemen could never be merely intellectual; values inevitably intruded.2

In essence then Mann’s quest “was for a new public philosophy, a sense of community to

be shared by Americans of every background and persuasion. And his instrument in this effort

would be the common school.” 3 Man’s school would be common, not as a school for the

common people, but rather as a school common to all people. It would be open to all, provided

by the state and the local community as part of the birthright of every child. Cremin then

concludes of Mann that “in social harmony he located the primary goal of popular education.”4

THE ESSENCE OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION

1 Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School, (New York: Random House, 1964, ed. , pp. 8-9.2 Ibid., p. 9.3 Ibid., p. 10.4 Ibid.

17

At this point, an assessment of the contributions made by the individuals already discussed to the

later progressive movement, is in order. The assessment will be followed by discussing those

social forces in the growing American democracy that fostered progressive education.

The Progressive education movement grew out of Rousseau’s belief that education ought

to be pleasant and “natural”, and that young children ought to be given an education that

followed both the child’s “real” human nature and the natural laws.

The progressive education movement also drew upon Heinrich Pestalozzi, who attempted

to put Rousseau’s theories into action. Pestalozzi’s theories were to become known as “objective

teaching”, and his attempts at teaching the young to learn a useful occupation and to appreciate

the wonders of nature, were to be the principles taught at many normal schools and teacher-

training institutions.

In the New World, the progressive education movement evolved out of the practicality of

Benjamin Franklin with his emphasis upon useful education. The movement also drew upon the

beliefs of Thomas Jefferson that in a republic there should be diffusion of knowledge so that the

common man might govern himself. The movement reflected Horace Mann’s dreams of schools

for both illiterate and informed citizens educated irrespective of class distinctions. Mann

believed the schools should play a role in commerce and industry as well as teach the principles

of the great experiment in republicanism.

As noted by Good and Teller, the changes that came about in American education were

the result of a number of forces:

1. The increasingly democratic nature of other American political and socialinstitutions, particularly those associated with Jacksonian democracy in the mid-nineteenth century.

2. The arrival of a torrent of European immigrants who needed to be rapidly enculturated.

3. The increases in industrialism, which demanded a much higher level ofliteracy skills.

4. Related to the above, an increased urban population. City life is inherently

18

more complex than rural, and requires more skills to provide the interdependence growing out of the need for sanitation facilities, judicial institutions, specialized occupations, and greater social interaction.

5. The growing sensitivity of the Americans. Eventually, education was viewed as something that went beyond individually or state concern. Education was considered a necessity that society should guarantee to everyone.

6. The importation of rather unique educational theories.1

In short, progressive education also developed out of the understanding that classical education

would not suffice in an ever-increasing industrial society peopled by immigrants and calling for

greater preparation for work regardless of occupation or living environment.

In addition, progressive education was to be a direct stem of the broader Progressive

Movement of an era which fostered social reform through settlement houses, country life

campaigns, municipal reform, and broad national legislation. Lawrence Cremin describes the

progressive movement’s beginning as:

. . . part of a vast humanitarian effort to apply the promise of American life(the ideal of government by, of, and for the people) to the puzzling newurban-industrial civilization that came into being during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The world progressive provides the clue to what it really was: the educational phase of American Progressivism writ large. In effect, progressive education began as Progressivism in education: a many-sided effort to use the schools to improve the lives of individuals.2

Cremin continues: in a sense, the revolution Horace Mann had spanked a generation

before (the revolution inherent in the idea that everyone ought to be educated) “had created both

the problem and the opportunity of the Progressives. For if everyone was to attend school, the

Progressives contended, not only the methods but the very meaning of education would have to

change.”3 We will return to the relationship of the Progressive Movement to progressive

education a few pages further on.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND SPIRIT OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION

1 Good and Teller, op. cit., pp. 429-542.2 Cremin, op. cit., p. viii.3 Ibid., p. ix.

19

The term “progressive education” has been in common used for more than six decades,

but because the complex movement that carries this label has changed from time to time, its

various meanings require restatement here. All of the educational movements described in this

chapter have some elements of progressivism, whether expressed in the abstract realm of

American thought, or through the reform proposals of the educational theorists, or by the

methods and concepts of progressivism. Each is based on a basic faith in democracy and in

education as a means of improving social institutions.

The Twentieth Century Revolution

The tremendous educational progress took place in the nineteenth century is undeniable.

That most or even many Americans were completely satisfied with the quantity and quality of

schooling their children received, however, does not necessarily follow. As the nineteenth

century closed, both the amount and the bitterness of criticism leveled at educational institutions

increased.

The educational critics of the early twentieth century focused their attention on the fact

that our schools were actually being operated by and for a rather limited segment of our

population. How could school, it was asked, which were supposed to be dedicated to the

democratization and to be for all the people, be so fundamentally undemocratic?

The undemocratic character of schools revealed itself in both the curriculum and the

teaching methods. After “mastering” the basics, the “Three R’s,” students would presumably go

on to more advanced learning. This learning, though it sometimes included geography, science,

art, and music, most often tended to center around the classics, ancient history, mathematics,

foreign languages, and literature. These subjects, hallowed by years, were defended as excellent

means of disciplining one’s mind. That subject matter could be made intrinsically interesting or

that it could have application in any practical sense was not widely believed. Without knowing

20

basically what the classics meant, both teachers and those laymen who approved of the classics

tended to see them as necessary.

Whatever the ultimate truth of either argument, the fact remained that the classical

curriculum did indeed have little appeal to the immigrant or even “old stock” sons and daughters

of bricklayers, factory workers, farmers, and other members of the working class. “Why”, they

asked frequently and with bitterness, “could schools not teach something that was useful, helpful,

and practical?” Thus, little by little, there arose an increased demand for vocational subjects and

a curriculum that would, somehow, be useful to students.

In brief, American education in the early twentieth century was under heavy attack of

offering outdated curricula, employing obsolescent and often unreadable textbooks, being

influenced by corrupt politicians, utilizing incompetent and poorly trained teachers, and making

almost sadistic use of corporal punishment. The entire school, from the classical curriculum to

the tyrannical administrator, seemed an island of anti-democratic practices in a land supposedly

democratic. Learning, often was a matter of rote memorization, with things repeated and

completely misunderstood by or having little meaning for the students. These were accusations.

That they were partially valid is undoubtedly true. That they represented a completely accurate

picture of the schools might be doubted: Those who are trying to reform a situation invariably

both exaggerate the evil of the status quo and tend to overlook any virtues that exist. No

institution in this country, particularly one so close to the people as the schools, can long remain

indifferent to widespread criticism, and almost immediately, reform elements began to attempt

solutions.

Progressivism and Social Reform. With the spread of industrialism, the rapid growth of cities,

and the ever increasing tide of immigration, a host of interrelated social problems became

evident in the American society of the early 1900’s. Industrialism was accompanied by child

21

labor, low wages, recurrent depression, and poor working conditions. Urbanism was

accompanied by slum areas, commercialized vice, increased crime, and organized gangs. For

many people, the immigrant experience meant exploitations, fear, and loneliness in a poverty-

stricken environment. To counter these realities, a social reform movement began in the 1980’s

and persisted into modern times. Historians have termed this program of social and political

reform the Progressive Movement. In describing the “Progressive Years,” Otis Pease states:

To talk of progress in America in 1900 was to talk to material improvements; but to call a man “progressive” was to label him a reformer, a man determined to improve his society, revise its laws, purify its politics, rearrange its economic awards, and invigorate its morals. The reform impulse had slowered in the nineties when the stark conditions of depression and industrial unrest made reform so compelling….one keynote of the Progressive years is the nationalizing of the reform efforts hitherto confined to local problems. More important is the possibility that with the return of good times…the gap between what is and what could be seemed all the less bearable….While urban life had improved for all classes, the disparity between the poor and the new, rich was now the most visible feature of the urban landscape.1

Broader in scope than the progressive deduction which owed much to it, the Progressive

Movement originating in the late nineteenth century took many forms—the establishment of

settlement houses, the fostering of country life, municipal reform movements, the legislation of

Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt administrations.

The modernization of the great cities, in short, was not solving most of the social

problems of the slums. As this fact became clear in the late 19th century, a number of urban

religious leaders began to take a hard look at the situation. Traditionally, American churchmen

had insisted that where sin was concerned there were not such things as extenuating

circumstances. To the well-to-do they preached the virtues of thrift and hard work, to the poor

they extended the possibility of a better existence in the next world, but to all they stressed the

individual’s responsibility for his own behavior and thus his salvation.

1 Otis Pease, ed., The Progressive Years, (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1962), p.3.

22

The conservative attitudes of most religious leaders, both Protestant and Catholic, did not

prevent some earnest preachers from working directly to improve the lot of the city poor. Some

followed the path blazed by Dwight L. Moody, who became famous all over America and Great

Britain as a lay evangelist. Moody conducted a vigorous campaign to persuade the dozens of the

slums to cast aside their sinful ways. He went among them full of enthusiasm and God’s love

and made a powerful impact. Over the years uncounted millions heard him preach. Moody and

other evangelists founded mission schools in the worst parts of the slums and tried to provide

spiritual and recreational facilities for the unfortunate. Men of this type were prominent in the

establishment in the United States of the Young Men’s Christian Association (1851) and the

Salvation Army (1880).

However, the evangelists paid little heed to the causes of urban poverty and vice. In

effect, they depended upon old-fashioned faith in God to enable the poor to transcend the

material difficulties of life. For a number of Protestant clergymen who had become familiar with

the terrible problems of the slums, a different approach seemed called for. Slum conditions

produced the sins and crimes of the cities; the wretched humans who actually committed them

could not be blamed, these men argued. They began to preach a “Social Gospel” which focused

on trying to improve living conditions rather than on merely saving souls. If men were to lead

pure lives they must have enough to eat, decent homes, and opportunities to develop their talents.

Social Gospelers rejected the theory of laissez faire. They advocated civil service reform

to break the power of the machines, child labor legislation, the regulation of the trusts, and heavy

taxes on incomes and inheritances. The most influential preacher of the Social Gospel was

probably Washington Gladden. At the start of his career Gladden, who was raised on a

Massachusetts farm, had opposed unions and all governmental interference in social and

economic affairs, but his experience as a minister in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Columbia,

23

Ohio, exposed him to some of the harshness of the poor man’s lot in industrial cities, and his

views changed. In Applied Christianity (1866) and in other works, Gladden defended labor’s

right to organize and strike and denounced the idea that supply and demand should control wage

rates. He favored factory inspection laws, strict regulation of public utilities, and other reforms.1

Although millions read Applied Christianity, its effect, and that of other Social Gospel

literature, was merely inspirational: On the practical level, a number of earnest souls began to

grapple with slum problems directly by organizing what were known as “settlement houses.”

The prototype of the settlement house was London’s Toynbee Hall, founded in the early eighties;

the first American example was the Neighborhood Guild, opened on the lower East Side of New

York in 1886 by Stanton Coit. By the turn of the century nearly a hundred had been established.

Among the outstanding settlement houses was Hull House, founded by Jane Addams and

Ellen G. Starr in Chicago in 1889. In this and other such settlements, social workers lived

among their charges and organized a multitude of activities designed to enrich the living of slum

residents. The settlement house workers also recognized that the immigrant newcomers had left

behind them organized communities which gave meaning to their lives and had come across the

seas only to encounter the disorganization of life in the slums.

These workers jumped into the midst of pressing social problems all about them. Among

their targets were filthy neighborhoods, vandalism, disease, unemployment, and illiteracy. In

response they attempted to establish clubs for recreation, visiting nurses and medical clinics,

vocational education, and instruction in reading for all age groups.

Since many schools regarded coping with such realitites as beyond their scope, the

settlement houses necessarily sponsored educational programs ranging from kindergartens for

children, to clubs for adolescents, to adult education for neighborhood workers and their wives.

1 Henry Steele Commager, The American Mind, (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953), pp. 171-177.

24

Cremin states that Jane Addams and settlement workers like her were intent on “imparting to

young people a deeper, more humane understanding of the industrial world of which they were

part.”1 Cremin continues:

. . .She wanted the school to bathe the surroundings of the ordinary individual with a truly human significance, assuming “that unless all men and all classes contributed to a good, we cannon even be sure that is worth having.” There may have been more coldly realistic notions of education in her time, but certainly none more humane.2

The settlement houses became no only schools for teaching English to the immigrants but centers

for political discussions, as well as facilities for providing instruction in cooking and sewing and

caring for children.

Other individuals and groups worked in a hundred other ways and directions to alleviate

these social evils. The efforts of Jacob A. Riis of the

New York Sun to improve housing standards will long be remembered. Others turned their

attention to the problems of “children’s rights.” The organization in New York of the Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty to Children attests to the widespread interest in this movement.

Closely allied with this latter effort was the growing interest in the problems of child

delinquency and punishment, and innovations like the special reformatory for younger offenders,

the indeterminate sentence, and the parole system soon appeared in penal practice. Health

problems were attacked by state boards of health; by the 1800’s the latter agencies were fairly

common. Local authorities were quick to follow suit. Needless to say, the findings of scientists

and physicians in no small measure were responsible for the ever declining death rate.

As might be expected, the Progressive Movement produced a considerable body of

literature of social protest. This involved at least two types of writing: the utopia and the

criticism. Of the first, Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, 2000-1887, was the most popular

1 Cremin, op. cit., p. 62.2 Ibid., p. 63.

25

and widely read. Its visions of a perfect society of plenty, a society devoid of crime, want, and

poverty, carried great appeal for a people who had traditionally combined a belief in inevitable

progress with a faith in their own manifest destiny. Doubtless, Henry George’s Progress and

Poverty awakened similar aspirations. Throughout both ran an optimism which had

characterized the American mind since the early years of the republic. On the heels of these

utopias came a fold of “muckraking” literature exposing and criticizing the sordid conditions of

industrial life. Ida Tarbell’s History of the Standard Oil Company was among the first of a long

series of publications exposing and documenting the seamy side of American business growth.

Upton Sinclairs’s novel The Jungle sharply awakened Americans to the problem of sanitation in

the meat packing industry, as well as the sordid quality of immigrant life in the new world.

Lincoln Steffens and others turned their probing eyes toward the corruption in local and national

government and politics. These and hundreds of other publications increasingly turned the

interest of the people to the pressing problems they treated.

Thus when progressive education came upon the American scene it was associated with

those social forces active in the Progressive Movement. Cremin, in discussing the relationship

between the development of progressive education and Progressivism, believes that to “grasp” an

understanding of the two “is to sharpen significantly our understanding of both.”1 Cremin

continues:

. . . to sense the relationship between progressivism and progressive education is to gain new insight into the meaning of Progressivism itself. Richard Hofstadter has observed that the Progressive mind was characteristically a journalistic mind, and that its characteristic contribution was that of a socially responsible reporter-reformer.2

Cremin further believes that “one might well papaphrase,” Hofstadter’s

1 Ibid., p. 88.2 Ibid.

26

Statement, “to contend that the Progressive mind was ultimately an educator’s mind, and that its

characteristic contribution was that of a socially responsible reformist pedagogue.”1 Cremin

believes that as moralists, the Progressives might be expected to turn to education; and as

journalists concerned with purveying information, they would certainly view the mass school as

an adjunct to the mass press.

Finally, Cremin states, and perhaps most importantly;

. . . the Progressives were fundamentally moderates, and for all their outrage, moderates take time. It is this as much as anything

that usually separates them from their more radical contemporaries. The real radicals of the nineties—men like Eugene Victor Debs and Daniel De Leon—had little patience for reform through education. . . . .But for the much larger groupimpelled by conscience yet restrained by conservatism, educationprovided a field par excellence for reform activities untainted by radicalism.2

Cremin concluded that the Progressives’ “predicament” was not a new one. “A half-century

earlier Horace Mann, certainly no radical, had refashioned the school as an engine to create a

new republican America.

It should hardly be surprising that a generation which followed him would again view

education as an instrument to realize America’s promise.”3

Cremin defines progressive education in his preface as:

First, it meant broadening the program and function of the school to include direct concern for health, vocation, and the quality of family community life.

Second, it meant applying in the classroom the pedagogical principles derived from new scientific research in psychology and the social sciences.

Third, it meant tailoring instruction more and more to the differentkinds and classes of children who were being brought within the purviewof the school. . . .

Finally, Progressivism implied the radical faith that culture couldbe democratized without being vulgarized, the faith that everyone could

1 Ibid.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.

27

share not only in the benefits of the new sciences, but in the pursuit of thearts as well.1

Francis Wayland Parker. Though progressive education grew out of long established and

more recent forces in American life, certain individual educators played their roles in its theory

and implementation. For instance, as early as 1875 Francis W. Parker (1837-1902), as

superintendent of the public schools of Quincy, Massachusetts, replaced the formal textbooks

with more active and realistic approaches to learning. The methods of teaching favored by

Parker at Quincy were based on observation. Parker’s methods were influenced by nature study,

child study, and the kindergarten. At Quincy, observation was to lead to further experience

because the classes were to be more active and informal and the materials were to be more

appropriate and interesting to the children than in the traditional object-teaching.

Parker recognized that most children knew the rules of grammar but that they could not

write successful letters; though they could read their textbooks, they could not read unfamiliar

materials; thought they knew the required word lists, they could not spell. So new and

unfamiliar materials entered the classroom, such as magazines and newspapers. Field trips were

added to the curriculum as well as practical use of mathematics and writing.

Good and Teller describe Parker’s philosophy of education by stating:

. . . He hated the dual educational system of Europe and all schemes to confine people in fixed classes an by class education to keepin ignorance and thereby in subjection. He held that in building a democracy we must begin with the children; we must give them both freedom and responsibility; and, therefore, we must make the school a working democracy. And the freedom of the child, in his view implied the freedom of the teacher; but with the possible conflict courses of study, no numerical records, and no inflexible classification of pupils. Instead of report cards the children’s drawings, compositions, and models were themselves taken to the parents. The social factor he declared to the greatest factor of all: more important than the subjects taught, than the methods, and than the school itself. That which children learn from eachother in play and work is the highest that is ever learned. Altogether in the

1 Ibid., pp. viii-ix.

28

spirit of Lincoln, he insisted that in school the strong and clever must serve the weak, for the sake of the social education of the strong and not only that the weak might be served. In democracy, he held, there can be neither masters nor slaves. 1

When Parker became the principal of the Cook County Normal School in Chicago in

1880, he introduced other innovations to interrelate the subjects of the curriculum with learnings

by the child. Of Parker’s experience in Chicago Cremin says:

There are innumerable accounts of what went on in the practice school. . . Parker himself maintained that his effort was twofold: to move the child to the center of the educative process and to interrelate the several subjects of the curriculum in such a way as to enhance there meaning for the child.

Rather than accept an overly bookish and dictatorial atmosphere, Parker attempted to create an

environment marked by creativity, discovery, spontaneity, and pleasure in school work. He

borrowed “heavily form Pestalozzi, Froebel, and Herbart,” as Cremin pints out, and was able to

produce a “synthesis that marked a transition from early American transcendentalism to a newer

scientific pedagogy, and from dependence on European formulations to a more indigenous

effect.”2

John Dewey. John Dewey, until his death in 1952, best represented the progressive education

tradition. Born in 1859 and living ninety-three years, his career overlapped the late nineteenth

century and the first half of the twentieth century.

Dewey was influenced most strongly by the theory of evolution. Thus he tended to

approach education from a biological perspective. To him, the scientific method had meaning

not only in the laboratory, but also in the schoolroom. He was to be guided by the spirit of

tentativeness.

1 Good and Teller, op. cit., pp. 504-505.2 Ibid., p. 134.

29

A fundamental idea in Dewey’s philosophy of education was his concept of mind. Man’s

mind is not a thing-in-itself; it is part of one’s evolutionary development; it is a tool for

adjustment.

Accordingly, the school to Dewey was not a prelude to life, rather it represented a

miniature society. We grow only, Dewey maintained, as we participate, as we work out together

common difficulties and common problems. Dewey elaborates on this in Experience and

Education, by stating that:

Because traditional school tended to sacrifice the present to a remote andmore or less unknown future, therefore it comes to be believed that the educator has little responsibility for the kind of present experiences the young undergo. But the relation of the present and the future is not an Either-Or affair. The present affects the future anyway. . . . Education as growth or maturity should be an ever-present process.

Dewey was saying that education does not stop with graduation, for life is to be our

teacher if we are to develop better persons in a better society. When we stand still we stagnate;

only when we seek and look forward can we live a constructive life. The individual and society

are not opposed to each other, for man is a social animal and finds expression through group life.

One of Dewey’s major aims was to establish a fundamental basis in theory or philosophy

for an acceptable educational doctrine. This aim attempted to accomplish by appealing to the

philosophy of experience. There must be an “organic connection between education and

personal experience,” he states, and “Education in order to accomplish its ends both for the

individual learner and for society must be based upon experience—which is always the actual

life-experience of some individual.”1

As early as 1896, Dewey had established a Laboratory School in Chicago, in which he

tested and developed his educational ideas. Through his writings, teachings, and numerous

experiments in their laboratory school, he sought to provide a model for a school that would have

1 Ibid., pp. 74, 25.

30

a beneficial influence on the course of social progress and would become an agency of

democracy.

In his work Democracy and Education Dewey undertook to introduce to the world a

particular education which was deemed to shape the understandings, dispositions, and character

necessary to a democracy. He presented growth as the characteristic of life and education as all

one with growth, with no end beyond itself.1 Since Dewey’s view of man is essentially that he is

a social creature, he views meaningful learning (education) as a function of participation, of a

social situation in which interest and purpose are shared.

Dr. Dewey’s experience with the progressive schools during the twenty odd years

following his major work, Democracy and Education, resulted in some reformation and

clarification of his educational ideas. In his essay entitled Experience and Education, Dewey

speaks to the danger of any new movement in developing principles negatively rather than

positively and constructively. He believed that the progressive practices in rejecting external

control often failed to find those factors of control inherent within experience. Dewey saw the

traditional and sometimes the progressive educational practices as having neglected to develop

learning situations that honor all sources of experience; namely, those experiences which are

historical, social, and dynamic, as well as orderly. He reiterates his frame of reference as namely

the organic connection between experience and education. However, he warns that the two must

not be equated together, for an experience can be mis-educative as when it arrests or distorts

growth. He suggests that our major concern must be the quality of an experience and the

direction of growth that takes place. He offers the principles of continuity and interaction as the

measure of the educative significance and the value of an experience. He describes continuity as

the moving force of an experience which must be taken into account so as to judge and direct it

1 Irwin Edman, Great Teachers, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1946), p. 195.

31

on the ground of what it is moving into, and he defines interaction as the interplay of objective

and internal conditions which together form a situation.

To summarize in a few pages the major educational ideas affecting progressive education

of a man who wrote countless books and articles, as did Dewey, is obviously difficult. But, as

John Childs noted, it was Dewey’s recognition of the cultural significance figure in the

progressive school of thought. Dewey viewed the construction and direction of a school

program as an exciting intellectual and moral task—a task that could only be done well if those

who teach in the schools have a creative role in it.1

In Characters and Events written in 1929, Dewey makes the following provocative

observation:

What will happen if teachers become sufficiently courageous and emancipated to insist that education means that creation of a discriminating mind, a mind that prefers not to dupe itself or to be the dupe of others? Clearly they will have to cultivate the habit of suspended judgement, of skepticism, of desire for discussion rather than bias, inquiry rather than conventional idealizations. Whenthis happens schools will be the dangerous outposts of a humane civilization. But they will also begin to be extremely interesting places.2

Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. Out of the great ferment for modernizing

the curriculum and extending secondary education to all youth, the National Education

Association’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education produced a document

in 1918 on the main objectives that should guide education in a democracy.

Unlike those who saw the high school as designed simply for college entrance, the

Commission members who developed the report, often simply called the Seven Cardinal

Principles of Secondary Education, advocated that secondary education be based on the present

and prospective lives of young people. The report released identified the following seven

comprehensive principles or aims of secondary education: (1) sound health knowledge and 1 John L. Childs, John Dewey and the World View, eds. Douglas Lawson Arthur Lean, (Carbondale:

Southern Illinois Press, 1964), p. 13.2 John Dewey, Characters and Events, (New York: Henry Holt and Co., Ind., 1929, p. 100.

32

habits; (2) command of the fundamental processes (reading, writing, computation, and oral and

written expression); (3) worthy home membership; (4) education for a vocation; (5) education

for good citizenship; (6) worthy use of leisure; and (7) ethical character.1

Though the Commission specifically refers to secondary education, the recommendations

have been found to be applicable to elementary education as well. The report endorsed the

comprehensive high school in which diversified studies would meet the specialized needs of

students while, at the same time, the curriculum would provide for those common ideas, ideals,

and modes of thought, feeling, and action necessary for a democratic society. The Seven

Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education clearly pointed to the comprehensive role of the

secondary school in its mission to educate all citizens for complete living in a democratic

society. Of great significance was the recognition of the responsibility of the high school to

serve all youth, not just the college-bond. The commission noted that the traditional high

schools of the day were failing to serve a large proportion of their students with over two-thirds

of the students entering high school failing to graduate.

At a time when progressive educators were seeking to reformulate educational aims and

means according to the nature of the learner and the need for societal improvement, the Seven

Cardinal Principles came also to influence the thinking of subsequent educational commissions

and organizations during the ensuing decades as universal secondary education moved on its way

to becoming a reality.

Progressive Education Association. In 1919, what began as criticism of the old order and

individual suggestions for changes and reform, evolved into a formal organization, the

Association for the Advancement of Progressive Education (PEA), under the leadership of

Stanwood Cobb. Its guiding principle was:

1 Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education, Bulletin 35, 1918), pp. 11-15.

33

The freest and fullest development of the individual, based upon the scientific study of his physical, mental, spiritual, and social characteristics and needs. Progressive Education as thus understood implies that following conditions, old in theory but rare in application:

I. Freedom to Develop Naturally. The conduct of the pupil should be governed by himself according to the social needs of his community,rather than by arbitrary laws. This does not mean that liberty should beallowed to become license, or that the teacher should not exercise authority when it proves necessary. Full opportunity for initiative and sefl-expression should be provided, together with an environment rich ininteresting material that is available for the free use of every pupil.

II. Interest, the Motive of All Work. Interest should be satisfied and developed through:1. Direct and indirect contact with the world and its activities, and the use of the experience thus gained.2. Application of knowledge gained, and correlation between different subjects.3. The consciousness of achievement.

III. The Teacher A Guide, Not a Task-Master. It is essential that teachers should believe in the aims and general principles of Progressive Education and that they should have latitude for the development of initiative and originality.

Progressive teachers will encourage the use of all the senses, training the pupils in both observation and judgement; and instead of hearing recitations only, will spend most of the time teaching how to use various sources of information, including life activities as well as books; how to reason about the information thus acquired; and how to express forcefully and logically the conclusions reached.

Ideal teaching conditions demand that classes be small, expecially in the elementary school years.

IV. Scientific Study of Pupil Development. School records should not be confined to the marks given by the teachers to show the advancement of the pupils in their study of subjects, but should also include both objective and subjects reports on those physical, mental, moral, and social characteristics which affect both school and adult life, and which can be influenced by the school and the home. Such records should be used as a guide for the treatment of each pupil, and should also serve to focus the attention of the teacher on the all-important work of development rather than on simply teaching subject matter.

V. Greater Attention to All that Affects the Child’s Physical Development.One of the first considerations of Progressive Education is the health of the pupils. Much more room in which to move about, better light and air, clean and well ventilated buildings, easier access to out-of-doors and greater use of it, are all necessary. There should be frequent use of adequate playgrounds. The teacher should observe closely the physical condition of each pupil and, in co-operation with the home, make abounding health the first objective of childhood.

VI. Co-operation Between School and Home to Meet the Needs of Child Life.

34

The school should provide, with the home, as much as possible of all that the natural interests and activities of the child demand, especially during the elementary schools years. These conditions can come about only through intelligent co-operation between parents and teachers.

VII. The Progressive School a Leader in Educational Movements. The Progressive School should be a leader in educational movements. It should be a laboratory where new ideas, if worthy, meet encouragement; where tradition alone does not rule, but the best of the past is leavened with the discoveries of today, and the result is freely added to the sum of educational knowledge.1

Thus the progressive movement in education became formalized. From a small members

composed largely of interested laymen and parents, it grew steadily in number, influence, and

professionalism. Foundation support, committee reports, recommendations, and a journal all

became part of the progressive movement.

As the organization grew, ideological and functional division developed. Some called

upon education to play an active reform role; others insisted that the spirit of progressivism lay in

its emphasis on the child and individual development. The problem was that of finding a

rational, a program, that would be acceptable to a large and unwieldy group more and more

composed of professional educators. During the economic crisis of the thirties, some of the

progressives spoke out. They offered blueprints of various sorts, and it was largely this question

of program that divided the Progressive Education Association.

After the First World War the PEA was taken to be the official and organized expression

of that general trend in American education known as the progressive movement. This was

pretty much the case. Despite the public’s imprecise knowledge about the Association itself, the

widespread assumption that during its lifetime the PEA represented the progressive movement as

a whole is a valid one. Progressive education’s sins of commission and omission were also the

1 These Seven Principles of Progressive education appeared on the inside cover of each issue of Progressive Education from 1924 to 1929. They were originally adopted in 1920.

35

Association’s and common to both the general movement and the specific organization was

responsible for much of the improvement in American education between 1919 and 1955.

The Association and the progressive movement as a whole shared common ground in at

least five important areas: commitment to child-centeredness in education; belief in the

responsibility of the school in society; conviction of the need to evolve a philosophy of

progressive education; orientation toward research; a trend to homogeneity in the character of

supporters and consequently increasing isolation form the American mainstream. Certainly other

educational organizations were affected by progressivism but it was the PEA that

institutionalized the aspirations of the movement and transformed its tenets.

As progressive education built upon its origins to reach a peak in the first half of the

twentieth century, major wings of the movement emerged. As might be expected the dominant

wing placed high emphasis upon the needs and interests of young people. The most influential,

spokesman for this general position was William Head Kilpatrick, a philosopher of education

who urged that education take its point of departure from the genuine concerns of young people

and lead them into projects which involve problem-solving self-motivated activity.

Kilpatrick was essentially saying that education must deal with the real and vital concerns

of young people as they encounter the world in which they live. Cremin states of Kilpatrick that

“more than any other, he has been acclaimed over the years as the great interpreter and

popularizer of Dewey’s theories.”1

Cremin describes Kilpatrick’s effort in his “celebrated” essay, “The Project Method.” He

was attempting to present, Cremin states:

. . . wholehearted purposeful activity proceeding in a social environment—hisFormal definition of the project—as a pedagogoical principle . . . By emphasizing purposeful activity, activity consonant with the child’s own goals, he sought to take maximum account of Thorndike’s law of effect, thereby enhancing both

1 Cremin, op. cit., p. 215.

36

direct and concomitant learning. And by locating this activity in a socialenvironment he believed he could facilitate certain ethical outcomes, since moral character was for him “the disposition to determine one’s conduct and attitudeswith reference to the welfare of the group.” . . . “The regime of purposeful activity, “he concluded, “offers . . . a wider variety of educative moral experiencesmore nearly typical of life itself than does our usual school procedures, lends itself better to the educative evaluation of these, and provides better for the fixingof all as permanent acquisitions in the intelligent moral character.”1

Another wing of progressive education, under the leadership of such social

reconstructionists as George S. Counts, advocated focusing the curriculum on the real and urgent

social problems of the time. George Counts’ volume, Dare the School Build a New Social

Order?, was an attempt on his part to point out the lack of social theory in education.

Progressive education, Counts stated, could only be successful if it faced “squarely and

courageously every social issue” that might arise. 2 Activism, acceptance of central purpose,

recognition of the ills of society, and dedication to the welfare of the masses were essential,

according to Counts.

Possibly the most significant aspect of Counts’ perceptions was the fact that he

questioned the continuation of the existing economic system as being perpetuated by the schools

and emphasizing the need to educate for a new democratic age, not founded on individualism or

based on capitalism. This was to be the new role of the traditional school: to offer a new vision

of industrial America. However it lacked a sound philosophical base.

George Counts offered an ideology and a program by which the school could create a

democratic free from the ills of economic depression and crisis. In essence, Counts believed that

the schools themselves must contribute to building a “new” social order because society alone

could not do it.

1 Ibid.2 George S. Counts, Dare the School Build a New Social Order?, No. 11, John Day Pamphlets, (New York:

John Day, 1932), p. 9.

37

The ultimate problem Counts attempted to deal with, as pointed out by Cremin, “was that

educational reform in the United States had never really come to terms with the realities of

industrial civilization, and until it did it would continue to be a piecemeal process that dealt at

best with superficialities.” 1

Cremin also notes that: Counts’ writing were among the outstanding progressivist

statements of the twenties; yet few thought of them as progressive education. Attention was too

exclusively focused on the “child-centered schools…but with the onset of the depression…

socially conscious notions of progressive education…came once again to the fore.”2

It was the reconstructionist wing of progressive education that the right wing critics of education

were to identify with all progressive education and that they were to vigorously attack in the

1949-1954 period.

It seemed very logical to many critics of progressive education that with Counts, a leading

progressive, supporting the indoctrination of liberal or radical answers to social questions—and

daring the schools to “build a new social order,” that progressive education as a whole had

become unpatriotic and subversive.

Still a third wing, typified by the views of Boyd H. Bode, called on young people to use

the method of intelligence as they studied the conflicts between authoritarian and democratic

ways of living.

Cremin notes that Bode spent “his lifetime as a progressive critic of progressive

education.”3 Like Dewey, he was convinced that any new pedagogy would have to make the

individual pupil the point of departure; moreover, to emphasize individual creativity in the

1 Cremin, op. cit., p. 227.2 Ibid., pp. 227-228

3 Ibid., p. 221

38

classroom, older social ideals of conformity would have to change. Cremin notes that Bode

thought:

…The teacher would need as equipment “not only the quality of sympathy and discernment to understand individual pupils and the ability to understand the ends that are to be attained, but also the further quality of resourcefulness, which will enable him to keep his methods or procedures flexible so as to suit the needs of the occasion.” 1

To understand Bode and the significant way he differed from Kilpatrick and the child-

centered wing, one must first understand that Bode believed that no one general method could

incorporate all the findings of “the new psychology” of education. Cremin notes that: “sensitive

to the fact that even projects could become formalized—as indeed they did—he argued that

methods and procedures would have to vary in terms of the content and the children to be taught.

They would be sometime free and informal, sometimes controlled and regulated, but never

stereotyped.”2

Numerous experiments with progressive ideas and methods were begun in private

schools and university laboratory schools during the early twentieth century. By the 1920’s and

1930’s, suburban and city schools were introducing progressive practices into the classrooms. So

the PEA sought to evaluate the outcomes of these progressive techniques and methods.

Perhaps the most influential of the several committees of the Progressive Education Association

was the Commission on the Relation of School and College. Established in 1930, this

commission directed its efforts at freeing the secondary schools for experimentation. Then as

now, the prevailing college entrance requirements restricted the secondary schools from

experimenting with the curriculum and attempting needed reconstruction.

Soon after its establishment, the commission on the Relation of School and College

reported on the failure of the high school to deal adequately with fostering effective citizenship,

1 Ibid., p. 223

2 Ibid., pp. 223-224

39

challenging gifted youth, and motivating all students to their fullest potential. The commission

encouraged thirty leading secondary schools to develop further their progressive programs within

the framework of its declared purposes. Wilford Aikin notes the commission’s intent:

We are trying to develop students who regard education as an enduring quest for meaning rather than credit accumulation, who desire to investigate, to follow the leadings of a subject, to explore new fields of thought; knowing how to budget time, to read well, to use sources of knowledge effectively and who are experienced in fulfilling obligations which come with membership in the school or college community.1

Through the cooperation of more than 300 college and universities throughout the nation, the

thirty secondary schools were free to ignore the usual college entrance requirements. The

cooperating colleges and universities had agreed to waive their entrance requirements for

recommended graduates of the thirty schools. Thus these schools were free to develop a wide

range of curriculum innovation and reconstruction.

The study covered the period from 1932 to 1940 and included 1,475 graduates who had

entered college. These graduates of the thirty progressive schools were pained with graduates of

other secondary schools according to similarity in socioeconomic background, aptitude, interests,

age, race, and other factors. In following up the 1,475 matched pairs in college, the evaluation

team reported that the graduates of the thirty progressive schools did as well as the students

from conservative schools in mastery of subject matter. But in other important aspects of

education, the students from the progressive schools were distinctly more successful than their

partners in the inquiry. Specifically the progressives:

1. Earned a slightly higher grade average;2. Earned higher grade average in all subject fields expect foreign language;3. Received slightly more academic honors each year;4. Were more often judged to possess a high degree of intellectual curiosity and drive;5. Were more often judged to be precise, systematic, and objective in their thinking;

1 Wilford M. Aikin, The story of the Eight-Year Study, (New York: McGraw-Hill book Company, 1942), p. 144

40

6. Were more often judged to have developed clear or well-formulated ideas concerningthe meaning of education;

7. More often demonstrated a high degree of resourcefulness in meeting new situations; 8. Had about the same problem of adjustment, but approached their solution with greater

effectiveness;9. Had a somewhat better orientation toward the choice of vocation;

10. Demonstrated a more active concern for what was going on in the world.1

The study also revealed that the graduates of the progressive schools participated more

frequently in the arts and earned a much higher percentage of nonacademic honors than the

traditional group.

Since the reports of the Eight-Year study appeared during World War II, they drew less

attention than they would have ordinarily received. This was unfortunate for not only the PEA

but the entire progressive education movement, for here at last was a carefully developed Eight-

Year study, scientifically constructed and significant at research which conclusively refuted the

contention of numerous critics of the progressive schools that students “were learning nothing”

and “could not succeed in college.”

Much more might be written about the Eight-Year study; suffice it here to say that its

reports still bear careful study and analysis. What is more to the point, is the impact of the study

on the Association itself. When the Commission was appointed in 1930, it represented only one

among many diverse activities of the PEA. Very soon, however, the tail began to wag as

secondary education loomed ever larger in the life of the Association. The Commission on

Secondary Curriculum was created in 1933, as an offshoot. Later the Commission on Human

Relations was in turn an offshoot of the Secondary School Curriculum.

These and other commissions and studies encountered the ever present ideological

conflicts that were tracking the larger movement, the very conflicts the founders had “skillfully

1 Ibid. , pp. 111-112

41

avoided during the twenties in their effort to create an organization genuinely receptive to all

schools of pedagogical reform.”2

Through the numerous reports, proposals and writings during the 1930’s, that called for

change and at time even demanded that the schools take an active part in the remarking of

America’s social and economic order, the PEA was reluctant to accept such drastic suggestions

as a guiding philosophy. Thus the organization remained without an official idealogy. It followed

general progressive education concepts rather than a commitment to social reform. Without a

platform, but with a radical tinge, in the eyes of conservative critics, as a result of the various

proposals, the PEA as an organization and progressive education as a movement declined and

membership fell off.

The progressive educators and the Association itself spoke frequently and with passion

about goals of education, and of the role of schools in society. In its finest moments the

Association tried to arouse Americans by all means at its disposal to a consciousness of the

purpose of education. The questions raised were never completely answered but these questions,

unlike certain of the Association’s other activities, will long outlive its partisans.

ADDED PRESSURES ON EDUCATION IN THE 1930’S, 1940’S AND 1950’S

This writer feels that it is significant to note that the depression had at least three major

effects upon education as a whole, and ultimately upon progressive education. They were:

financial cutbacks which seriously hampered both programs and effective teaching; more

students remained in high school and went to college in view of the grim prospects facing them

on the outside; and theories were proposed and experiments tried reflecting the varied response

of educational leaders to the crisis of quality education.

2 Cremin, op. cit., p. 258

42

Progressive education had to contend, as did all of education, with the New Deal’s

emergency programs and ultimately with Governmental control. There was a bright spot though

—the government was continually attempting to incorporate progressive innovations into New

Deal programs. Cremin notes:

Few… programs were conceived primarily in educational terms; most resulted only indirectly from the attack on unemployment. And certainly no explicit educational philosophy bound them together. Yet seen in perspective, almost all in one way or another managed to advance the cause of pedagogical progressivism. 1

Cremin states that by the late 1930’s even these ingenious few programs were under attack by

educators for “continued federalization of the American school system.” 2

One disadvantage of not having a national school system became apparent in the early

worst years of the depression. Local school boards, faced with diminishing revenues,

Started to cut salaries and programs, and in some instances to close schools. Since the burden

could not, under the American local system of education, be shared equally, the poorer districts

and states were harder hit than others. In Georgia 1,318 schools were closed in 1933. In a

number of districts in many states the academic year was cut by one to six months. Teachers saw

their already modest salaries plummet. Many districts in Iowa paid only the minimum required

by law--$40 a month. Other states established maximum salaries which were below $100 a

month. Chicago teachers were not paid at all for a year. And school districts cut costs by firing

and reducing staff.

The New Deal provided considerable aid in keeping schools open, constructing school

buildings, giving aid to needy students through the NYA, and providing for adult education and

1 Cremin, p. 318

2 I bid. , p. 323

43

the employment of fired teachers through the Emergency Educational Act. But Congress refused

to fund a massive program of federal aid to education. The consequences of all this were visible

in the Census of 1940, which uncovered some ten million illiterates and disclosed that

approximately three million children were not attending school at all.

On the other hand, the trend toward higher education for everyone was given a sharp

boost by the depression. Not only was there little economic reason for leaving school before

graduation, but it quickly became apparent that if one were to have a chance at a job at all a high

school diploma would be an advantage. There was an increase in vocational programs, aided by

federal funds under the Smith-Hughes Act.

Although higher education lost enrollment early in the depression, enrollment began to

increase by mid-decade, and by 1940 almost 1.5 million students were in colleges and

universities, a new high in actual numbers and in percentage of the college-age population. Here,

too, limited prospects for jobs kept many in college. State colleges and universities, because of

their low tuitions, got most of the needy who were further aided by NYA and other governmental

funds.

Although college life was not grim by any means, the atmosphere was certainly more

serious than it had been in the twenties, seriousness reflected in the increased interest in

economics, sociology, political science, and history. Students were also far more politically

active than ever before, forming clubs and study groups. The result was that far more graduates

moved into the world of government service. If business no longer offered jobs and prestige,

government took up the slack. Public service tended to satisfy the idealism of youth as well as

their natural desire to eat, and government benefited at all levels. Professors, especially in the

social sciences, acquired a new status, even if their finances did not improve. Students turned to

44

them in increasing numbers, and so did government, seeking their expertise to meet the

economic and social problems created by the depression.

A third fundamental effect of the depression on education and democracy, that of quality

versus mass education, grew increasingly important. In the nineteenth century universal free

education came to be accepted as a right as well as a necessity of democracy. As the ideal

became a reality in the twentieth century, more concern was evident among educational leaders

as to what kinds of materials, methods, and techniques to be used, as well as the purpose of the

training. There is ample evidence of a continued recognition of the need for educating all classes,

and thus making education available for all individuals without distinction.

As a result of the scientific impact on education, the recognition of individual differences,

the growing need for specialists, and the democratization of higher education, the period

following the depressed thirties and the war years of the forties produced considerable criticism

of the long existing concept of equality of opportunity. Also, the question of the purpose of

education and the kind of education—specialization or general, vocational or liberal—was part

of the current revaluation. Harvard University’s report, General Education in a Free Society, 1

which appeared in 1945, recognized the growing problems of education as a result of the

achievement of universal free education on the secondary level. Again the traditional faith in

American education was voiced and again the school was viewed as the hope of democracy. The

Harvard report became the basis for a vast revision in college curricula to provide a program of

general education; but it was also significant in its recognition of the growing problem of

providing universal secondary education, as well as opening avenues for promoting excellence

and meeting the needs of widely diversified groups in a complex social and economic order.

1 General Education in a Free Society, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1945).

45

CONFUSION AND DISSENSION

To the American mind, education—the schools in particular—had become the single

most important agency and institution for promoting national welfare and international

awareness. Education was a powerful instrument of national policy, and as the United States

recognized its own failures and shortcomings—the school became both the hope of the nation

and the scapegoat for all its ills.

Williams and Morris note some of the societal pressures on education during the late 1940’s and

early 1950’s by describing how:

The depression and World War II left our school districts with outmoded buildings and facilities. The increased birth rate of the postwar years compounded the need for new schools. Tremendous tax increases were needed to meet those new demands. It was during this critical period of postwar reconstruction that a new wave of criticism was leveled at the public schools. Some critics were primarily interested in keeping taxes at a minimum. Other wanted to see schools return to the fundamentals or the basic subjects. 1

To these conditions Cremin adds:

… there were the multivarious difficulties associated with deepening public concern over communist expansionism at home and abroad. And finally, though perhaps less visibly, there were the voracious demands of an expanding industrial economy for trained and intelligent manpower. Any one of these in and of itself would have loosed fantastic pressures on the schools. Taken together, however, and compounded by a growing dissatisfaction among the intelligents, they held the makings of the deepest educational crisis in the nation’s history.2

The assault began, Cremin says, with a “spate of books, articles, pamphlets, radio

programs, and television panels” which burst upon the pedagogical scene, airing every

conceivable ailment of the schools, “real and imaginary.”3 One result, as Cremin points out, “was

1 Robert O. Williams and Robert C. Morris, “Democracy, Education and Social Responsibility: A Reflection on Schooling from 1920 to 1970,” Contemporary Education, XLVII, No. 3, Spring 1976, p. 174

2 Cremin, op. cit., pp. 338-339

3 Ibid., p. 339

46

the most vigorous, searching and fundamental attack on progressive education since the

beginning of the movement.” 1

Prior to 1949 the indictments of failure gave the appearance of local origin, or, as in the

case of Robert Hutchins and other intellectuals in the 1930’s and early 1940’s, testified to a

widespread but healthy concern of the friends of public education that instruction in the schools

be brought to higher levels of efficiency. The enforced resignation of Dr. Willard Coslin from his

position as Superintendent of Schools in Pasadena, California, in the fall of 1950, however,

indicated that criticism had become neither exclusively local in origin nor designed merely to

improve and strengthen the public schools.

The high point of these attacks on the schools was reached in the early 1950’s when it,

indeed, became strident, irresponsible, and effective. The beginning of this hostile campaign

could be seen in the late 1940’s.

Several popular magazines opened their pages to slashing attacks on the progressives,

and thus permitting and even inviting super-patriotic groups to step in and criticize American

education. The late 1940’s witnessed a right wing:

… criticizing the public schools and the education students received. Education was condemned by some as communistic and socialistic, and godless and atheistic, and as disloyal and unpatriotic. Even such organizations as the National Education Association were portrayed by some rightists as part of a communists conspiracy to take over the country. 2

SUMMARY

1 Ibid.

2 Williams and Morris, op. cit., p. 175

47

Traditionally, the accepted function of the school has been conservative—to transmit in

orthodox from the ideas, habits, customs, and ideals of the society it serves. This seemed an

obvious policy in a homogeneous society and in periods of little change. It was not challenged

seriously in the United States until the accepted facts of heterogeneity in religion confronted

educators with the problems of the place of religion in public education. Horace Mann and others

attempted to solve this problem by means of nonsectarian religious instruction—instruction that

emphasized items of common agreement and carefully excluded the controversial. With the

advent of serious disagreements in other areas—economic, political, social—in American

society, the principle underlying nonsectarian instruction seemed to most educators the

appropriate one to follow until well into the twentieth century. At this time there emerged a more

dynamic and creative conception of the nature of “mind,” and a keener appreciation of the type

of intellectual discipline required for intelligent participation of the individual in a democratic

society. These changes influenced new educational practices. The new (progressive) education

emphasized the importance of objective consideration of controversial issue but with careful

avoidance of indoctrination. Implicit was the assumption that the task of the school was to render

the young sensitive to the growing pains of society and to develop skill in coping with these

pains, while scrupulously refraining from imposing upon them an officially approved cure.

The twentieth century witnessed child labor legislation, compulsory school attendance,

and woman suffrage. Our knowledge of human behavior was greatly accelerated and, coupled

with a growing humanitarian conscience, the education of the masses became a realistic goal.

The need to diversify the curriculum of the school was partly influenced by the

heterogeneous pupil population, and partly by the great advances in science and technology. The

crisis of World War I led to federally supported programs of vocational education in the high

schools of our nation. The Great Depression and the high rate of school dropouts and

48

unemployed youth led to a reassessment of the high school curriculum, with focus on the

problems and needs of youth. The progressive education movement represented the attempt to

make education attuned to the needs of our times, rather than the instrument of tradition.

The period following World War II witnessed unprecedented activity by the federal government

in sponsoring the continued education of ex-servicemen. Leaders in higher education discovered

that a far higher proportion of our population than heretofore realized was capable of the

successful pursuit of higher learning. Even after the expiration of the G.I. Bill of Rights, the

demand for higher education continued to grow at a rate higher than the growth of the college-

age population. Shortly after mid-century it was clear that the major responsibility of meeting

these needs would rest with the public college and universities.

Criticisms of our public schools were rampant at mid-century. The conservationists were

calling for reduced educational expenditures. They were attracted to the essentialist position

which advocated curriculum retrenchment. At the same time, the schools were preparing for an

unprecedented increase in enrollment as a result of the population boom. Construction of school

buildings and facilities, halted during World War II, and now acquired new urgency.

The 1940’s and 1950’s witnessed a quite different attitude toward public education than

did the 1930’s. Progressive education, with its emphasis upon experimentation, once welcomed,

now encountered stubborn opposition and suspicion. A partial explanation for this reversal may

be found in the fact of war, a hot war followed by a cold war of seemingly endless duration. War

and the fear of war often generate a frame of mind and spirit unfavorable to experiment and

creative thought.

In the wake of war came new demands upon the American people, demands that

emphasized simultaneously the importance of conserving traditional values, the need to abandon

long-established policies of isolation and relative indifference to the trouble of other peoples, and

49

the assumption of positive leadership of the free world in opposition to strange ideologies and

the conspiracies of totalitarian powers. Disillusionment, confusion of mind, and frustration of

spirit accompanied these new developments, developments with which education in school and

college had obviously not prepared Americans to cope. For many Americans, long accustomed

to view education as an open sesame to change, the failure of the schools to provide an answer to

their problems caused the American public to doubt and question. What was once pride and

confidence in public schools gave way to doubt and criticism—doubt in the efficacy of their

work, doubt even in their integrity.

Criticism during this period, as Chapter Three will demonstrate, varied greatly. Certain

individuals and groups analyzed in the following chapter, adopted demagogic and propagandistic

methods, charging that educators had become victims of foreign ideologies and were engaged in

attempts to subvert American youth to communistic and collectivistic ideas by means of new

courses of study and group methods of instruction. Another group of individuals and

organizations convinced that the schools were responsible for the failures of democracy,

attributed these failures to the fact that school and college alike reflected in their work the least

desirable characteristics of American society—materialism, scientism, shortsighted adjustment to

the trivial demands of society—and were thus neglecting their essential task, the training of the

mind. Only by concentrating upon the development of the intellect by means of materials drawn

from the trivium and the quadrivium, insisted these critics, might the schools hope to educate for

freedom.

50