AN AMI-3’36 OF SG-iOLARS“ CRITICISMS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION Thesis for Hm Degree of M A. aiIC3§G;3{ SEATL LR LEiBs Y NichoEas .E. Labecfiz 1957 LIBRARY Michigan State University " ‘1‘ _ nfik “ “- AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOLARS' CRITICISMS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION By Nicholas J. Labedz A THESIS Submitted to the College of Education of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS College of Education 1957 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author sincerely thanks Dr. John Hanson for his advice and the patient assistance rendered in preparing this manuscript. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . . . Statement of the Problem Scope and Limitations Importance of the Problem to the Investigator Definition of Terms Used 'Design of Study II. APPROACHES 0F CRITICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Techniques Employed in Criticisms Scholars Versus Professional Educators Refusal to recognize education as a science Criticisms of lack of intellectualism Lack of disciplines in education curricula Conflict of traditionalists and pragmatists Education pressures upon State departments of education regarding teacher cerrification Quality of education recruits Criticism of education‘s reaction to criticms III. SCHOLARS' CRITICISMS OF EDUCATION THEORY: THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholars' Resentment of Progressivism in ”New Curriculum" and in Pedagogical Techniques "Curriculum Experts" Educational Jargon Readiness Individual needs :3 Q [:11 \DODO‘UIWHHH NHI-‘I—‘H meow-«mm SO 50 52 e7 68 70 Page Interest 7h Growth 79 Whole Child 83 Group Adjustment 86 Life Adjustment 9h Iv. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL THEORY TO A JUNIOR HIGH CORE-TYPE CURRICULUM . . . . . . .'. . 103 Popular Types of Curricula 103 Core Curriculum lOu Social studies in the core program 109 Language Arts in the core program 11h Teacher-pupil planning 11? Evaluation Of experiences in a core program 120 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 12h Conclusions and Educational Implications 129 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Distribution of Educational Criticisms over the periOd, 19,4»2-19514-00000000oooooooooooooooooooooooo 3 II. A Comparative Ranking of College Students Representing the Various Academic areas....................... H2 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. A graphical representation of mental, physical, and learning growth patterns..................... 8h CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Statement of the Problem Criticisms of the theories of public education and the development of these theories in the school curriculum have gained nationwide recognition in newspapers, popular magazines, educational journals and everyday conversation. Professors of education, scholars, laymen, professional and businessmen possess some idea as to what education is or what it should be. Their varying, and often conflicting viewpoints usually reflect the educational training and at- titudes which their reference groups advance. The analysis of criticisms included in this study will demonstrate how an individual's educational training and the educational atti- tudes advanced by his colleagues may affect his determination of what the purposes of education should be. Scope and Limitations Because of the complications which would arise if an attempt were made to analyze the criticisms of all groups and all the areas of education which have been criticized, this paper will lend itself to an analysis of those criticisms advanced by scholars from l9u9-56. Replies of professors of Education will follow. Scholars' criticisms directed at the field of Education will receive considerable attention, since they believe that professional educators are primarily responsible for current educational shortcomings. Following this consideration, attention will be directed to criticisms of selected educational theories, concepts and methods pro- pounded by schools of education. Finally, an application of such theories and methods will be applied to a junion high school program.and will be followed by criticisms or Justi- fications for their implementation by scholars or professional educators. Related areas of education will be considered only if they clarify the subject under discussion. The selection of the scholar as the critic for study narrows the problem to convenient preportions and permits a study of criticisms made by men representing the arts and sciences upon which the major portion of the school curriculum is based and from whom teachers acquire specialized training in the subject matter fields. Their criticisms of the develop- ment of their field of specialization is important for they are perhaps better qualified than anyone to determine whether a high school graduate is equipped with the basic skills re- quired for advanced study in the fields they represent. Sig- nificant critics also include many influential college gradu- ates who represent a specific field of thinking because of their training. They may also occupy key positions in the community as members of boards of education, as professional persons or as leaders to whom laymen look for direction. Importance of the Problem to the Investigator Some idea as to the increased criticisms of public education within the past decade may be obtained from a sum- mary of entries in the Education Inde; under the heading of "Public Schools--Criticism" for the period 19h2-52, inclusive. The heading of criticisms was introduced in the Igggg in l9u2 which suggests that considerable attention was attracted to this area. The number of entries from 19h2 to l95h is as follows in Table I. TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATIONAL CRITICISMS OVER THE PERIOD, 19t2-195u* 19u2 - 3 19u8 - 8 19h3 - 5 19U9 - 13 19th - 8 1950 - 12 19A5 - 7 1951 - 35 19U6 - 6 1952 - A9 19A? - 10 1953 - 2h 195a - NB *Source: W. C. Scott and C. Hill, Public Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1955. p. 3. These figures also include the reactions to criticisms by professional educators. It is interesting to note that after the publication of Educational Wastelangg, written in 1953 by Arthur Bestor, one of the scholars included in this study, a major portion of educational replies covered in the Igggg are directed to Dr. Bestor. Certainly the increased criticisms and reactions of educators at this time are sig- nificant and a study of the scholar is justified. Criticism of education should be desired when the criticisms are directed toward the improvement or betterment of education. The ability to recognize sound criticisms of education and the concomitant ability to advance plausible answers to these criticisms is a test of the competent edu- cater. In such a study, which is both empirical and theoreti- cal in nature, explanations will be provided in answer to the various criticisms directed toward the types and content of public school curricula. Too often, educators are overly complacent with their theories of education and it is for- tunate that they are called upon to examine their theories when critics voice their opinions. Any educator should possess the facility to answer general criticisms and sup- port his own claims with reliable evidence. As a member of the profession, it is my intention to equip myself with tools of analysis and empirical data as a result of this study. Definition of Terms Used ‘ Criticism - A criticism is a reflection or expression of personal thought directed toward a specific issue. The opinion or remarks of a critic usually are interpreted in light of his values or standards. His remarks may express merits or a lack of them concerning the topic under discussion. Professional Educator - The expression "professors of edu- Cation" refers to members of departments of edu- cation in teacher training institutions. People in this category are sometimes referred to as "teachers of teachers" and concern themselves with pedagogical problems. Scholars - We can define the scholar as a member of a society of men learned in humanities or sciences and bonded together to promote the advancement of their special interests. Most of the scholars cited in this study are associated with some higher institution of learning. Other terms requiring clarification are handled as they appear in context and will be defined relative to the tepic under discussion. Design of Study Such areas or programs of education as teacher edu- cation, school administration, school curriculum, educational philosophy and methods are popular areas for criticism. A number of possible approaches to handling such criticisms exist, such as: (1) One critic for study could be selected. This approach would solve the problems of determining which criticisms to cover and would avoid the issue as to which criticisms and answers are "characteristic" of scholars and educators. Arthur Easter is one of the more prominent critics of most every phase of education. His criticisms range from the education of students in the primary grades to the inadequacies of the professional educators at the college level. The drawbacks which exist in studying one critic are the limitations in analysis of criticisms and the restriction of many scnolar's viewpoints to one man's views. Such an approach merely affords explanations to speci- fic arguments of one individual and does not account for areas that may have been omitted which many scholars may deem as highly important. Unless a critic's comments are highly typical of other scholars in his field, the selection of a single individual is not very valid when considering the criticisms of scholars in general. (2) Comments reflecting similar viewpoints which recur among most scholars could be synthesized and presented ' as "typical" criticisms. A series of similar answers by various professional educators could be consolidated to determine relatively common viewpoints. The method of se- lecting answers would follow the same pattern employed in selecting criticisms. After recurrent criticisms have been synthesized, they will be related to curriculum practices. Statements of sCholars and professional educators will be injected at points where they would seem to be most applicable. This procedure would exemplify the relationship of criticisms to actual educational methodology. It is this second approach which will be followed in this dissertation. CHAPTER II APPROACHES OF CRITICS Too many educators believe that the array of attacks directed against public education originate from biased, misinformed or subversive sources. The range of answers provided by educators runs a wide gamut of reactions. In- sufficient funds for school operation, lack of qualified personnel or a disinterested society are but a few of the replies they offer to attacks on educational practice. Many of the criticisms presented are not definite attempts to conspire against the educational systems. In their investigations of educational criticisms, educational researchers Scott and Hill state that numerous attacks are honest and sincere and that "most of the criticisms, not all of them by any means, are honest and they are made by. honest, high-minded, well-intentioned, if often misinformed or uninformed people. They come largely from friends of public education."1 These authors further postulate that the "contemporary wave of criticisms is an expression of deep-seated, abiding faith in public education."2 They elaborate on the unbounded 1N. C. Scott and C. Hill, Public Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955: p. 3. 21bid. faith of the American public in education and its influence in correcting and resolving "world ills and of creating and perpetuating the kind of society we hope to develop."1 Even though a large percentage of the critics may be sincere in their reactions of educational practices, they knowingly or unknowingly are guilty of employing a multitude of slanted techniques in expressing their varying Opinions. On the other hand, many scholars feel that educators have failed to recognize and justly evaluate criticisms. One professional educator states that many professors of educa- tion have been "antagonistic and unresponsive"2 to fair criti- cism. He further states that "we interpret many honest criticisms as attacks. By failing to consider or Clarify the complaints of honest critics we have alienated the sup— port of many individuals and groups who have a genuine in- 3 terest in education." Such reactions suggest that other approaches toward resolving educational Conflicts may be more rewarding than constant arrogant reaCtions. In spite of the fact that a genuine interest by some critics of education may exist, educators should become aware Of the various techniques employed in condemning their field of specialization. Therefore, an examination of the validity of criticisms is required so that the educator can .— libid. 2E. O. Melby and P. Morton, Freedom and Public Edu- cation, New York: Frederick A. Praeiger, Inc., 1933, p. 533. 31b1d. 10 distinguish attacks which are genuine and sincere from those which are based on petty prejudices, rabble rousing or a sense of emotional appeal. Expressions of personal prejudice are commonly dis- played through the use of loaded words. Trow cites common examples of "loaded value words" which the reader often en- counters. Such loaded words as "trivia, preposterods, inanity, nonsense, monstrosity, Charlatan, sterile, vicious, wasted, unthinkable, hodgepodge, ineffectual and unfounded"l are but a few examples. Popular cliches, metaphors, analogies and deductions are often incorporated by critics when they aid in expressing their personal prejudices. Another frequent form of distortion is misrepresen- tation through the use of selective quotations. In such a situation, critics tend to select statements which appear to confirm their assumptions leaving the reader with doubt as to the authenticity of their position. Such selectivity of excerpted material and the omission of supporting data pre- sents a one-sided picture and does not express the intended views of the quoted author. Trow aptly describes this tech- nique as "misrepresentation due to inexcusablé neglect of pertinent evidence."2 1William C. Trow, "Professional Education and the Disciplines: An Open Letter to Professor Bestor," Scientific Monthl , LVII (March, 1953), p. 1&9. 2 £939,” p. 137. There is a widespread belief that much of the contem- porary wave of educational criticisms is an expression of general social unrest. hennan believes that "these are groups that have become frightened and obsessed by the present general condition of threat and fear and uncertainty. They [cl-riticg use the schools as a scapegoat and seem hopefully to expect to find a communist under every teacher's desk."l Educational criticisms tend to appeal especially to those who find ills in public education and seek comfort in the dogmatic statements made by critics. Eloquent testimonies expounded by businessmen regarding the academic inadequacies which their subordinates, the col- lege graduates, exemplify (e. g., poor English, inability to solve simple arithmetical problems, poor expression of thought, etc.) cause scholars to rise and defend their academic stand. The scholars in turn condemn the educational training provided by public schools, claiming that the teaching of such funda- mentals is the business of the elementary and secondary schools. Such reactions coupled with any prejudices that scholars may possess, places public education in a vulnerable position. The thousands of World War II inductees tested and found educationally unprepared to perform tasks which re- quired only a primary education found the schools available - 1Richard B. Kennan, "What Are They Calling You Today?" Childhood Education, XXVIII (October, 1951), pp. 53-56. to serve as a perfect scapegoat for the shortcomings of the inductees. Thus, we often find that the manifestations of social disorders are partially alleviated when public educa— tion can be used as a scapegoat for displaced aggression. The incorporation of the aforementioned techniques of educational criticism are only external manifestations which may provide some clues as to scholars‘ underlying motives regarding public education. Unfortunately, profes- sors of education become obsessed with the idea that educa- tional attacks must be squelched with superior counterattacks. Thus, professional educators too often attempt to provide "suitable" answers to specific issues and are led astray or avoid studying the actual cause of educational criticism. Why do scholars criticize? Such methods of resolving educa- tional attacks only afford an understanding of the peripheral issues and limit a realization and analysis of the nucleus of the problem. Thus consideration should first be directed to an investigation of E21 Scholars criticize. One's definition of education can be readily discerned by synthesizing his purposes of education. The extent of dis- ciplinary training which a profession imparts strongly in- fluences both the fabrication of an individual's concepts and his application of such concepts to other academic areas. This is an exceedingly important fact to remember when analyzing and applying the views of those representing the sciences and humanities to the field of education. Most scholars who f-) criticize education represent the academic disciplines, e.g., arts, biological and physical sciences. The men representing these fields not only disagree with professors of education as to the purposes of education, but they refuse to accept education as a recognized science. Thus, those persons re- ceiving training in such disciplines assimilate the expressed educational attitudes propounded by their group and tend to define education according to the dictates of their discipline. With these ideas in mind, we can consider (1) the reason for failure to recognize education as a science, and (2) what ideas these men possess regarding the purposes of education. Both of the preceding considerations are an in- tegral part in the scholar's development of the purposes of education. Within the last half century, many of the "modern" or social sciences, e.g., anthropology, psychology, sociology, professional education, etc., received limited acceptance by scholars as legitimate subjects of college and university study. Only within the past few decades have most of the social sciences found their niche among the more "proven" disciplines. Education, as expressed by one scholar, "has rapidly assumed that it is the fair-haired child of American educational arrangements. First looked upon with some senti- mental compassion, and perhaps also a little bit pampered he has not been received into the family university disciplines."1 1Mortimer Smith, Public Schools In Crisis, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1956' PP- 53-5ho Advancement of the social sciences has been hastened by literary contributions of outstanding educators such as Conant, who states, "For our free society has more need, perhaps for an understanding of the fundamentals of human nature than any other. The empiricism of the past may be sufficient for the members of the police state, but a free people in this modern age requires as much assistance as ' he also possible from advances in the social sciences.’ adds "The types of problems where one can hope for help from the social psychologist involve human relations and those conflicts among individuals and groups whiCh have been much intensified by the conditions of modern life. The people of the United States will be the beneficiaries of whatever l m dvances can be made in the study of man as a social animal." In spite of the profusion of such acknowledgments of the social sciences as accepted fields of study, many scholars Spurn such "sciences" and consider them to be inferior to their own discipline. In spite of their societal contribu- tions they receive limited recognition or acceptance. Under such circumstances, scholars' critical convictions of public education are often intensified and a develOpment of their ideas of education are reinforced by corresponding views ad- vanced by their colleagues. 1James B. Conant, On Understanding Science, Lew York: New American Library, 1951, p. Eh}. Education receives especially heavy criticism as it tends to impinge on most academic disciplines in developing its teacher preparatory curriculum. The field of education can be considered as one of the newest sciences having to contend with both the academic and social sciences for ac- ceptance as a science. At this point it is rather evident that scholars' Opinions as to the purposes of education reflect their edu- cational disciplining. Their views can be expected to coin- cide with the academic or disciplinary schools with which they identify themselves. Arthur Bestor, historian, author, and Professor of History at the University of Illinois, is perhaps the most outspoken critic of the field of education. He aptly illustrates the preceeding supposition by citing historical references in expressing his purposes of education: He (Thomas Jefferson) knew moreover what he meant by education. It is first of all, the opposite of ignorance. Its positive meaning is indicated by the synonyms which Jefferson employs in his letters. The kind of schooling that is vital to a democratic society is the kind that results in the "special information" and the "diffusion of knowledge" the kind that regards "science . . . (as) more important in a republic than in any other government"; the kind that recognizes that "the general mind must be strengthened by education"; the kind that aims to make the people "enlightened" and to "inform their discretion." These are the ends which the schools must serve if a free people is to remain free. These, be it noted, are intellectual ends. Genuine education, in short is intellectual training.1 1Arthur Bestor, Educational Wastelands, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1953, pp. 2-3. Canon Bernard Bell, former professor at the University of Chicago and important assailant of educational complacency expresses a similar viewpoint: They Eeacherg must foster a sense of identifica- tion with the tried and tested customs and attitudes of our forefathers. It is not the business of schoolmasters to teach their pupils what the pupils wish to learn, certainly not to let them behave as they desire but rather to impart to them wisdom dis- tilled out of the race's long experience, that which the past has learned about what human beings ought to know and to do, and to persuade them that they like it.1 Rigid and well-defined patterns which have proven themselves through time and trial are apparently advocated by the disciplinarians. Numerous scholars believe that the underlying goal to be sought for is the establishment of in- tellectualism as a focal point in the construction of edu- cational objectives. Bestor aptly explains this by declaring, "the purpose of public education today is what it has always been: to raise the intellectual level of the American people as a whole."2 He directs his opinions specifically at the schools,stating: "The school makes itself ridiculous when- ever it undertakes to deal directly with 'real-life' problems, instead of indirectly through the development of generalized intellectual powers."3 Hutchins' notion of education is in 1Bernard I. Bell, Crisesln Education, New York: MCGI‘BW H111 BOOK COO, lgugg Pp. 31-320 2Arthur Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, New York: Alfred A. hnopf, Inc., 19??) p. 17. 3 Bestor, Educational Wastelands, p. 63. accord with Bestor's position when he declares "Men can live full and good lives only if they have been given the education to achieve their full intellectual powers, so that they act on reason and understanding rather than prejudice and emotion."1 Lynd contends that the purposes of education are based on a broader continuum, but he still includes the intellectual concept, "I would grant a lot of ancillary functions, but I think the primary function of the school is to transmit the intellectual and cultural heritage and knowledge of the race, and in the process to teach young people to think, and how "2 to buttress moral values. (Italics mine.) Bestor believes that intellectualism should serve as a framework for educational planning. He contends that schools can contribute toward the advancement of intellec; tualism by the incorporation of well-defined subject matter courses. He states: An indispensable function of education, at every level is to provide sound training in the funda- mental ways of thinking represented by history, science, mathematics, literature, language, art, and the other disciplines evolved in the course of mankind's long quest for usable knowledge, cultural understanding and intellectual power. To advance moral conduct, responsible citizenship, and social adjustment is, of course, a vital function of education. But, like the other agen- cies which contribute to these ends, the school 1Robert Hutchins, "'Liberal"y§. 'Practical' Educa- tion--The Debate-of-the-Month," Public Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1635, p.—§6. 28mith, 22. cit., p. e. J must work within the context provided by its own characteristic activity. In other words, the particular contribution which the school can make is determined by, and related to, the primary 1 fact that it is an agency of intellectual training. Bestor argues that a liberal education is the type of education which would meet the demands of scholars. He believes that "liberal education is designed to produce self- reliance. It expects a man or woman to use his general in- telligence to solve particular problems."2 Hutchins' views again coincide with Bestor's position when he eXplains that education should serve a more vital purpose than just train- ing to make a living. He assumes educational training should be concerned ". . . with enabling the individual to live, with benefit to himself and his nation. Hence, a liberal education best equips the student to achieve the status of a free human being and a citizen."3 At this point we can conclude that scholars believe that emphasis on intellec- tualism not only affords a sound educational program, but simultaneously accounts for the social develOpment of the individual--all of whicn can be achieved via a liberal edu- cation. What other forms of education exist that are spurned by scholars who advocate a liberal education for the enhance- ment of intellectualism? Botanist Fuller explicitly relates 1Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. 7. 2 Ibido, p. 63. 3Hutchins, Public Education Under Criticism, p. 56. the inadequacy of intellectualism in schools to professors of education who de-emphasize those academic subjects which constitute the core of the curricula of a liberal education. Fuller says, "What I am arguing for is the restoration of the humanities, the arts, and the sciences to their properly dominant position in our educational s‘stem and for the elimination from our schools of the silly fads, the tawdry tricks, the superficial subject matter, and the cheaply utili- tarian educational philosophy forced upon them by some edu- cation professor."1 Thus, it is rather evident that the underlying contention of scholars in criticizing public edu- cation is the deficiency of intellectualism in educational theory, which subsequently, is evident in educational method- ology. But, professors of education were prepared to answer such questions with empirical evidence. Carlos De Zafra coordinator of the General Education program in the school systems of Rochester, New York, com- piled results of a study which concerned ten most signifi- cant trends in the content and organization of the junior high curriculum.2 One of the tests in the experimental cur- ricuhnnanalyzed the correlation and fusion of compatible subjects into a more meaningful experience for the pupils 1Harry J. Fuller, "The Emperor' s New Clothes, or Prius Dementat,“ Public Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 195?, p. 28. 2Carlos De Zafra, "General Education--Where It Stands Today," The Clearing House, XXVIII (harch, IQSh), p. 3b7. P) than had been the case previously. The traditional subject fields were not discarded, but served as a valuable addition enabling students to satisfy personal needs and interests. Traditionally separate discipline courses such as history, economics, and American government were "fused" or combined to form a single course of study; the most common program existing today is entitled, "Social Studies."1 Under such a program opportunities exist for the superior student to set goals in accordance with his abilities. Hence, such a course of study is more individualistic, meeting the differ- ent needs and demands of varying capabilities in a given classroom. Emphasis is not directed toward the acquisition of pure subject matter but is focused on the social as well as academic development of the individual. This type curricu- lum provides opportunities for a wide range of abilities. Scholars react to such curricula by claiming that they lower academic standards and are directed toward goals of mediocrity. Without question, the introduction of an additional concept (social) impinges upon the time previously allotted to studying subject matter. Scholars further claim that such substitutions cause the curricula of public schools to become "watered down" with "fads and frills." Professors of education have replied by stating that "General education does say that 'scholarship for the sake of scholarship is llbid. unrealistic and drives young people away from school but also places a great premium both on relating the findings of scholarship to the daily lives of each pupil and on developing the pupil‘s skill to ferret out pertinent facts for himself."1 Educators further have contended that ". . . evaluation studies indicate pupils in the core are making somewhat more educational progress than those in conventional courses."2 Such testimonies of increased learning by the use of "core," modern methods or general educational curricula have been constantly provided by educators in defense of their peda- gogical methods. Opposing points of view regarding the extent of em- phasis which should be placed upon subject matter or upon developing desirable social attitudes are largely determined by the value orientation which advocates of either vieWpoint possesses. Thus value orientations and professional training of individuals are reflected in their opinions and choice. It would be virtually impossible to attempt an elaboration of curriculum construction at this point. In the following chapter a discussion of curriculum content of both schools will be considered and decisions can then be formulated. Scholars attest that the intellectual shortcomings in the public school curricula are due to the lack of 11bid., p. 390. 21bid., p. 392. -‘r- H r f k.) (U intellectual training on part of the professors of education. Smith advances a notion which may epitomize the scholaris view concerning the conflict of the traditionalist-humanist versus the pragmatist. He states, The traditionalist—humanist asserts that men must be bound together by ties of moral stability and he considers that true education for all men will consist of studies that illumine and strengthen those ties. The educational pragmatist, on the other hand, lacking a belief in man's need for such a central moral stability, sees no necessity for a common education which will connect man with man and man with nature. But without this belief in a common bond between man and man, education tends to become mere animal training, with the educator occupying himself more and more in a search for re- fined method; the content of education-—those studies apprOpriate to all men--tends to get submerged by the empirical and the practical by fragments of informa- tion and skills.1 The critic of public education often asserts that the implementation of pragmatism.in educational methodology becomes so submerged with the "practical" that moral stability and other values responsible for the development of sound character are ignored. ' Because of the array of responsibilities confronting educators which did not exist decades ago, teachers are unable to account for all academic prerequisites which scholars be- lieve to be essential for the development of a well-rounded individual. Hence, aspects of the academic curriculum are extracted and used as a basis for illustrating how such knowledge may be utilized toward the development of sound, lMortimer Smith, The Diminished Mind, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 19Sh, p. 83. acceptable values. Education directed toward critical thinking, a respect for moral ideals and the development of sound character are but a few of the virtuous objectives. which teachers hope to instill in their students. The process involved in relating academic material to the development of such attitudes may assume a utilitarian appearance. What is especially interesting, is the extent (if any) of study by scholars to determdne whether intellectual training could overcome all the shortcomings which they discover in educa- tional methodology. The change of emphasis from the traditional methods of learning skills to newer methods seems likewise to meet with disapproval from scholars. What is interesting about the preceding criticism is the argument against a shift (whether this is the actual intention of the pedagogues or not) of emphasis from content to method. Whether or not the methods of pedagogy enhance learning is not questioned in the aforementioned statement. Since the professional educa- tors' research is characterized by a constant search for implementing skills in "practicalways,l such criticisms of scholars are inevitable. Mort and Vincent claim, "No matter how their [Epholaég] own souls were chastened while they were in school, they view with suspicion, if not alarm, any de- partures from the practice they have known. They strongly incline toward associating changes in method with a lowering of standards. At least they feel that change in method is basically a softening process." Since the traditionalist-humanist values conflict with those of the progressive instrumentalists, educators can eXpect future surges of criticism from scholars. One professional educator describes the anti-intellectual posi- tion which education encounters when either advocating pro- gressive techniques or when misinterpreted and treated as a cohort to anti-intellectualism. He also accounts for the deleting of intellectual values and attributes this to a societal failure because of the public's materialistic de- mands. He states: It is now common to insist that instrumentalism and progressive education are major factors in contem- porary anti—intellectualism, considered as "the re- treat of learning and reason." It is true that John Dewey showed the weakness in the old-fashioned mental discipline and emphasized problem-solving activities. But it is unfair to identify instrumentalism and pro- gressive education with the current distrust of intel- lectual values. In the first place, there is little progressive education in the country. Second, much that is called progressive education is a shocking perversion of Dewey's teaching and example. In the third place, the criticisms overlook his emphasis on the great importance of critically reliving and re- constructing experience in terms of new situations. Dewey did not reject reason: he tried to improve reasoning. Nevertheless, many tenaciously hold that his theories have subtracted intellectual values from public school education. They fail to see that these have been deleted largely because of an expanding population and the vocationalism demanded by a business- minded people.1 1 Merle Curti, "Intellectuals and Other Peeple," The Education Digest, XX (March, 1955): PP. 7-10. Insofar as the acceptance of the concept of intel- lectualism is concerned, Broudy states, "Intellectualism is not a theory or philosophy in itself; it is rather a degree of emphasis placed on the powers of the human intellect to achieve truth and happiness."1 Many professors of education feel that intellectualism cannot be obtained solely by an accumulation of subject matter courses. Throughout their comments they state that intellectualism exists in various -areas and can be brought to light by the use of methods which suit the demands of individuals. Mort and Vincent feel that "it is no disparagerent of verbal intellig ence to say that there are other equally important ways in which intel- ligence is expressed. There is social intelligence, mechani- cal intelligence, artistic intelligence and other expressions of intelligence which in varying degrees may be found highly develOped in different individuals."2 Scholars assert that the discipline should be related to the individual; they also assume that a liberal education can accomplish these goals. The professional educator believes in placing greater emphasis on relating personal interests and abilities in manipulating subject matter so that the Optimum of individual success can be realized. Thus, what is important, is the recognition of intelligence in students and the manner in which it is developed. lWilliam Broudy, "Anti-Intellectualism," Educational Theory, Iv (Fall, 195a), p. 187._ 2Mort and Vincent, 92, cit., p. hi. Professors of education recognize intellectualism not as an entity to be dealt with separately but explain that intellectualism is manifested in various forms within the personality. Trow accounts for the incompleteness of the "intellectual training" attitude in asserting, The human brain is not separate from the rest of the organism. Teachers, and even college professors, have been a long time in realizing the significance of this truism. In spite of the academic concern for intellectual training, children persisted in bringing their bodies to school, and with them their interests and attitudes, their likes and dislikes, their ambitions, and their frustrations. Granted that the intellectual values are the ones the schools should emphasize, they are not developed in vacug. Attention will be directed to the pedagogical position concerning the implementation of academic skills which scholars believe to be necessary for the development of intellectualism. Professors of education are apparently under the impression that traditionalists erroneously inculcate intellectualism into minds by assuming that practice will automatically fol- low precept; that if a principle is learned, it automatically applies. Russell states ". . . the ability to see the appli- cation in a new situation of a principle learned in another, is a rare ability; and once having recognized the application, "2 to translate it into action is rarer still. He concludes the pedagogical stand on intellectualism stating 1Trow, op. cit., p. 150. 2William Russell, How Good Are Our Schools? Twenty- First Annual John Adams Lecture at the University of Califor- nia at Los Angeles, March 2h, IQSh, California: University of California Press, l9Sh, p. 13. A r-v. {—4 There has been a shift from the traditional sub- jects and linguistic conceptions, concerned pri- marily with the intellect, to activities that are closely related to the cultural activities of the race! Apparently the cultural activities of the race are not closely related to traditional sub- jects concerned primarily with the intellect. You have there the Educationists' reason for freeing your child from intellectual burdens. Hence, the scholars believe that methods of the pro- fessional educators operate at the expense of the content of the discipline whereas professional educators believe the relation of the individual to content has priority over purely intellectual pursuit. Aside from claims directed at the lack of intellectual training of the professors of education, scholars areiespecially concerned with the influence and eventual effects of profes- sional educators upon their subordinates. Bestor charges pro- fessors of education with indoctrinating prospective educators with their own "particular philOSOphy of education."2 The scholars also believe that those educational administrators who tend to uphold the doctrines of professors of education are lauded for their progressive outlook on education whereas those who are inclined to express views other than those ex- pounded by professional educators are held up to public scorn and labeled as "old fashioned." Bestor sums up their influ- ence by concluding: "Powerful organs are in their E2}ofessors l .121Q0: P: 1h. 2Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. e. of education hands. In the long run, the philosophy of the dominant group of professional educators today--unless it is attacked and repudiated-sis bound to determine the direc- tion that American public education will take."1 Coupled with the resentments of scholars regarding the influence of professors of education upon education is their concern for safeguarding academic interests. Bestor denounced professional educators "partly because so many of them, by misrepresenting and undervaluing liberal education, have contributed--unwit- tingly perhaps, but nevertheless effectually--to the growth of an anti-intellectualist hysteria that threatens not merely the schools but freedom itself."2 What deficiencies of professional educators exist that have brought about charges of decline of instructional quality in public education? The American Association for the Advancement of Science directly accuses the faculties of the colleges of education of a lack of emphasis on the subject matter areas which leads to graduating a profusion of "edu- cators" who have limited academic backgrounds. They insist that higher institutions of learning Egg produce teachers . . . who are adequately trained in the fundamentals of mathematics, grammar, history, literature and science. But we shall not secure teachers who are concerned with teaching until we find a means of re- instating in the colleges of education the regard for learning, for fundamentals, and the discipline of the mind and formation of character through mastery of simple facts. Unless the importance of content courses in the training of teachers be- comes recognized by those whose business it is to secure and train teachers, and until educators in charge of certification re-adopt the examination method of determining competence to teach wnich they have abandoned, nothing--not even a substantial increase in teachers' salaries--can raise the qual- ity of instruction in public schools.1 Thus, scholars assert that the nucleus of educational deterioration lies within the powers of the professional edu— cators. Scholars contend that professors of education are responsible for a philosophy almost void of intellectualism which they transmit to future teachers and school administra- tors. Coupled with this criticism is the limited instruction in the academic disciplines within teacher preparatory cur- ricula. Such training inevitably molds the intellectual out- look of prospective teachers which in turn is reflected in the performance of their students and could possibly account for the inadequacies in the academic performance of contem- porary youth. Lynd, educational critic, asserts that the over- emphasis of pragmatism and the submergence of intellectual ideals of the professional educators is a fault all their own. He cites from historical reference when it was the duty of professors of pedagogy to train teachers in the various disciplinary areas (e.g., mathematics, languages, history, physics, etc.) and to uphold "high standards of scholarship 1Jean H. Henry, "The Trend In Teacher Training," Eacts Forum, February, 1956, p. 35. «-\ in those disciplines."1 He adds, "as long as the art of science of teaching was thought to be the technique of im- parting the intellectual accumulations of the race, the Faculty of Education was dependent upon the Faculty of Let- ters and Science."2 He charges professors of education with being persons who have worked "most effectively" via their progressive theories of education to sever any ties to traditional learning. He concludes by placing all blame on education, stating The real villain of the piece is Educationism itself; its establishment as an autonomous Opera- tion, its growth into a tremendous monopolistic enterprise whose inflated course requirements and artificial standards deflect the prOSpective teacher from genuine educational interests. The heart of the matter as Professional Bestor wisely remarks further, is the cultural isolation of Educationism from the world of reputable letters and science.3 When scholars insist that intellectualism should serve as a focal point for the establishment of educational objectives, it is no surprise that they consider educational viewpoints contrary to the position that they maintain as anti-intellectual. Professional educators have been accused of implementing pedagogical techniques that function at the expense of academic content which scholars believe to be es- sential to the development of intellectualism. 1Albert Lynd, Quackery In The Public Schools, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1953, pp. 168-9. 2 Ibid. 31b1d. 0., '..L Scholars place themselves in a vulneraole position when they insist that professional educators are intellectually narrow because of the emphasis which they place upon methods advanced primarily by members of their profession. The scholars' insistence that a "sound" education can be achieved solely via the academic approach is as narrow as the position that they accuse professional educators to be guilty of when they fail to recognize other educational positions. This notion is clearly evidenced by the fact that many criticisms of education would not be advanced if scholars were cognizant of the actual objectives and ultimate accomplishments of pro- fessional educators. One of the primary preoccupations of professional educators is the development of methods which intend to do justice to the interpretation of the arts and humanities. Hence, academic content serves as a definite prerequisite WhiCh Professional educators take account of in devising methods which are directed at creating more meaningful learning situations. By the very nature of their objectives, they intend to cultivate intelligence and not destroy it. The assertion that they Operate in an intellectual vacuum is c”Dr‘ttrary to the very nature of their work. Perhaps the crux of educational disagreements is the unwillingness of SChOlar'S to release their academic holdings and subject the disciplinary areas to empirical testing. Because scholars Often refuse to acquaint themselves with the objectives and methods of professional educators, methods contrived as a result of educational research are alien to them and conse- quently are summarily condemned as anti-intellectual or utilitarian in nature. Pedagogical methods are at least directed at an attempt to determine the educative value in studying the various academic areas—~a test which scholars seemed to have neglected as a result of their complacency in expounding the virtues of disciplinary training. Since professional educators have been accused of in- tellectual inferiority which supposedly is directly attributed to their educational training, an examination of their curricu- lum and course content with comments provided by scholars should reveal areas where controversy is greatest. One notion which scholars progose as a possible ex- planation for the low caliber of intellectualism in the teacher training curricula are the "methods courses" almost void of academic content. Bestor implies that the actual accomplishments of pedagogy cannot be measured on the same continuum as courses of the disciplinary areas. He argues that the ultimate purposes of education of both schools dif- fer since academicians favor a philos0phical goal and the pedagogues emphasize the hgg via methodology. He states: The exact nature and the limitations of pedagogy need to be more accurately understood than they have hitherto been. Like the various branches of engineering, pedagogy is an applied science. It answers practical questions, not ultimate philo- sophical ones. It tells HOW something can be taught most effectively, but it provides no pasis whatever for deciding WHAT should be taught. Thus he states that the actual accomplishments of pedagogy lack the academic "what" which is basically the subject matter taught in public schools. He concludes, em- phasizing that it is the scholar who must help make this "what" decision: The question of WHAT subjects should be taught is a totally different one. It cannot be answered on the basis of pedagogical considerations alone, Ear it involves the ultimate purposes of education. Scholars assert that one of the inconsistencies of the pragmatists is their de-emphasis of subject matter. Lynd implies that ironically enough, "the doctrine which de- plores "subject matter" in the lower schools has itself sup- plied most of the subject matter out of which endless educa- tion courses are contrived."3 Scholars are especially critical of professional educators when they attempt to include academic content in their methods. The popular criticism is the failure of professional educators who attempt to encompass more in a semester course than they are capable of accomplishing. Lynd cites what he considers to be a typical education course, WORLD LITERATURE. This course will deal with a consideration of the outstanding writers of the world, from ancient times to the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as sketches of 1Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. 103. 21bid. 3Lynd, Op. cit., p. 268. k") the lives and times of the writers. Lecture, the reading of selections in an anthology, and the individual research will comprise the course. The critic comments: The outstanding writings of the whole danged world plus the "lives and times" of the writgrs, plus "individual research"--in thirty days. Another example cited by the same critics of educational methodology appears in science curriculum: This review considers not only such areas as the nature of the cell, metabolism, and other life functions, etc., but as well such areas as ecology, human physiology, conservation of biological re- sources and similar more functionally designated fields.3 The goals of the professors of education in offering such courses may not be to cover all areas in minute detail, but rather to project excerpted examples from.areas and re- late pedagogical methods when they apply. In spite of this fact, many scholars still wonder how a course in education can cover such a wide variety of material especially when handled by a professor of education who possesses limited academic background. Critics react to the overemphasis on the "how" and insufficient emphasis placed on the "what." Subject matter requirements for teachers are piti- fully inadequate, and cannot well be otherwise. There is too little time to study the sub ect one 1Albert Lynd, "Quackery In the Public Schools," Egblic Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-hall, Inc., 1935, p0 1700 2Ibid. 31b1d., p. 171. )2 is to teach, when so much time is taken up by courses in how to teach, and so, all too often a makeshift program of college courses is built around the required "professional" courses. Such professional training is considered by scholars to be inferior to the academic realm where emphasis is placed on subject matter courses. Scholars predict the type of teacher we can eXpect as a result of such training: Consequently, the appalling fact is that our most pgorly educated college graduates are teachers. A college which would raise its academic standards is invariably hindered by the plight of the pros- pective teacher who because of "professional re- quirements cangot carry more than a minimum of academic work. Thus, the certification of teachers poorly trained in the academic areas to their methods of instruction may account for criticisms of the academic shortcomings of con- temporary youth. Yet, professors of education remark that by far the largest portion of the teacher preparatory curricu— lum consists of subject matter with the remainder of the pro- gram directed to methods courses and student teaching. 0b- viously the problem which lies herein is establishing criteria for determining the relative emphasis to be placed upon sub- ject matter and teacher preparatory courses within certifica- tion curricula. 1Harold Clapp, "The Stranglehold On Education," American Association of University Professors, XXXV (Spring, 19u9)9 [30 3h10 21bid. Scholars are especially antagonistic toward depart- ments of education which restrict liberal education graduates from teaching in public schools because of their lack of edu- cation courses. For example, Dodds states that State laws generally demand that the public school teachers have passed certain courses in teacher training. If they don't have such credits, they can't teach. Because of this, high schools miss out on some brilliant teachers whom private schools have access to. An able Princeton graduate who earns a Rhodes scholarship can teach in virtually no high school in the country, because he lacks the required number of "credit hours" in formal courses in pedagogy; bgt he can readily find a post in a prep school. Many scholars have expressed similar views. They are especially resentful of the certification requirements placed upon prospective teachers by "colleges of education." Such reactions again reflect the low value which scholars place upon teacher education courses. Scholars especially feel affected because scholarly students (whose views of education usually coincide with their own) are not permitted to teach in public schools because of such requirements. Such re- strictions may also prevent them from propagating the intel- lectual ideals which scholars promote. The attack upon the quality of education courses also originates within the ranks of the professional educators. One viewpoint is expressed in the following statement: 1Mortimer Smith, Public Schools in Crisis, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1956, pp. 70:71. This brings us to another class of educators who are doing the cause of education a great deal of harm without malice aforethought and perhaps with- out really knowing that they are doing this harm. This group uses the trapping of academic titles and procedures to create courses, credits, degrees and even academic departments in an overwhelming profusion and confusion. Broudy, education theorist, feels that an examination ? and evaluation of pedagogical methodology is long due. He asserts this to be the responsibility of the philos0phers of education who cannot . . . leave this Ee-examinaticfl either to special- ists or to administrators. If we are really the theorists of education in the best and broadest sense Of that word, then it is up to us to: (1) define the necessary sub-disciplines within the general discipline of edu- cation, (2) assay the theory and peculiar content that would sustain them as separate courses of instruction, (3) squeeze out the water of triviality and that of duplication.2 He senses that members of the profession should develOp con- sistent viewpoints towards the establishment of education courses so that each course would have a "core of indispensable theory and unique organization of content to Justify a para- graph in the catalogue."3 Finally, he warns professional educators that unless they give heed to his advice, "we should 1101; be too surprised to find ourselves low men on the univer- Sit? totem pole . "’4 1Broudy, op. c_i_t_:., p. 199. 21am. , p. 205. 31b1d., p. 199. LLIbid. Other professional educators assume a more defensive stand regarding the value of education courses by taking the pragmatic approach of insisting that scholars should offer proof of the extent of value derived from the sheer study of academic courses to determine if "there may be any differences between the educative power of different kinds of subject mat- ter and between different modes of studying them [Eourséa . In fact, it never is."1 They'insist that scholars are content in adhering to the "unexamined idea of 'subject matter' ac- cording to which the study of zoology or physics has just as much to contribute to a person's education as the study of history and literature." Critics remind professional educators that insofar as the implementation of pedagogical theory is concerned, "theory does not always produce the results it desires or deserves."3 Other critics believe that even though such discrepancies in educational theory and methodology are brought to the attention of professional educators, the at- tempt of scholars to resolve what they consider to be an overemphasis on the pragmatic nature of educational theory is futile. One critic believes this assertion to be true because education profesSors ". . . have vested interests in 1John Pilley, "Evaluation In Teacher Education," Educational Theory, III (January, 1953), p. 32. 2Ibid. 31bid. the endless inflation of courses. In this field the most promising reform will begin from the bottom."1 If colleges of education are responsible for the spread of anti-intellectualism in public schools, what course of action might scholars pursue to remedy the situation? An investigation of teacher certification requirements reveals that teacher training colleges and graduate schools of edu- cation are under the jurisdiction of state legislatures which pass down certification laws to departments of educa- tion. Smith, outstanding assailant of education, contends that the schools of education and teachers' colleges "aided and abetted by the N.E.A. National Education Associatiéfi] constitute a closed union in public school education."2 He elaborates on the organizations which lobby their points of_ view in state legislatures so that "it is practically impos- sible for a teacher to be certified who has not been through the educational mill."3 Lynd points out that professional educators usually have well-organized pressure groups operating within state departments of education. "Up-state lawmakers are easily impressed by the academic trappings of its spokes- men, by their specious identification of Education with Edu- cation, and by their insinuation that their Opponents are 'enemies of the public schools' and therefore enemies of Our lsmith, Public Schools In Crisis, p. 257. 2Mortimer Smith, "The Failure of American Education," Public Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Ines, 1955, p. 68. 31bid. Children."1 Smith contends that "they [Eiofessional educa- toég) have so effectively lobbied their point of view in the state legislatures that today only a miracle can get a well- qualified person in the scholastic sense into the schools without exposure to 'professional education.”2 Smith's assertion is supported by other critics who maintain that "'Education' is not just the private eccen- tricity of a small group of college professors. It is the fierce which controls public education."3 Smith further be- lieves that the professional educator sets the standards of American education through the establishment of requirements for teacher training, and that the major proportion of such requirements are largely in terms of courses taught by pro- fessors of education themselves. Such procedures he insists, approaches the definition of a racket."" Besides earning the minimum hours of credit for a teaching certificate, most teachers are expected to accumu- late additional credits for the fulfillment of "professional growth" requirements. Periodic enrollment in methods courses enables the teacher to keep abreast of current educational theories and practices, thus contributing to his professional development. Professional growth requirements can usually be completed by electing education courses in summer schools of -18mith, The Diminished Mind, p. 87. 2Clapp, op. cit., p. 337. 31bid. .. accredited institutions. Smith opposes the emphasis on edu- cation.course requirements and believes that changes should km inaugurated so that experienced teachers could devote their efforts at summer school "to their own intellectual interests rather than to a further study of teaching methods."1 The important thing, he suggests, is for teachers "in all their experience to grow as persons rather than to become edu- cational technicians."2 Henry asserts that professional edu- cators are not accomplishing their sought-for goals by re- quiring additional education courses, but believes the situation which.has resulted from such demands is, in fact, "because of the nature of the criteria for certification, defeating its original purpose of raising and maintaining a high quality of teaching . "3 If the aforementioned statements are valid, why haven't educators questioned such tactics? Critics discover the fault to lay with teachers who permit the imposition of education requirements. The establishment of such requirements is at- tributed to education students who are coerced into such Predicaments because of their submissiveness. Considering the student of education, scholars state, "There is no reflec- tion here of personal merits of those in a profession of lower ranks, at least who manifest qualities of generosity and ——_~_ 13mith, Public Schools In Crisis, p. 9. 2Ibid. 3Henry, op. cit., p. 3h. AZ sensitivity well above the average. But it is a simple datum-- a brute fact-~that organized educationism does not attract, in comparison With other professions a high proportion of first- rate minds."1 Lynd attributes this to the attraction of the "too many who are easily fooled (as students of medicine or law or architecture could not be fooled by the repetition of pretentious jargon)."2 A Scholars are convinced as to the inferiority of the student of education by studying evidence gathered from re- sults of draft deferment examinations given to over 300,000 students in 1951 where education students performed poorest as compared to the performance of students of other academic areas. According to the findings published by the Educational Testing Service, of 97,800 college freshmen tested, those who scored highest were (in order of highest to lowest):3 TABLE II A COMPARATIVE RANKING OF COLLEGE STUDENTS.REPRLSENTING THE VARIOUS ACADEMIC AREAS W = Field Percent Passing 1. Engineering 68 2. Physical Science on 3. Biological Sciences 59 h. Social Sciences 57 5. Humanities 52 6. General Arts h8 7. Business H2 8. Agriculture 37 9. Education 27 lLynd, o . cit., p. 163. 2Ibid. 3Smith, Public Schools in Crisis, p. 70. J One fact not accounted for such a t,resentation is the question of what the Selective Service Test attempted to measure. Since the major portion of the test is directed toward the measurement of scientific knowledge, a superior performance by students of the sciences should be eXpected. Since relatively few questions, if any, tested educational methodology, performance by education majors was naturally 10W. Still, education students enroll in departments of the arts and sciences for the fulfillment of subject matter requirements and the ranking of education as the lowest per» Gentile is reason for alarm. Explanations and suggestions for education certifi- cation are advanced by both professors of education and scholars. Before committing themselves to handle the burdens Of all educational criticisms, professional educators be- lieve that there is much w rk for theorists on bgth sides t0 "determine more precisely the role of the school in a highly complicated, industrial order before we professors 0f educati§§l pledge the school system to a hodge podge of Promises to every pressure group in the community."1 The responsibility of solving educational issues is not only the concern of scholars and professional educators but that Of the layman as well. Educational critic Smith disagrees 1Broudy, op. cit., p. 198. exclaiming that "the sad truth is that in most cities and towns in the United States the philosophy of education is de- termined not by the citizens who own and support the schools but by a close-knit union of super-professionals over whom the citizens have not even an indirect control."l Insofar as the influence of the layman's efforts are regarded, Lynd sunmises, "It is not easy, however, for a layman to combat the system at its source in legislation."2 Scholars further state that the criticism of public education is necessitated especially since "the wildest ex- travagance of educational theorists go unrebuked."3 Scholars asmlme the role as overseers of the educational theorists since they believe that professors of education operate in an atmosphere almost devoid of self criticism. Such effects, they believe, are dangerous to the general public who, the scholars insist, should have such criticisms brought to their attention "clearly and unambiguously so that they may know where the weight of professional opinion lay."h The public may then make "informed judgments of their own concerning the soundness of the proposals submitted for their consider- ation."5 1Smith, "The Failure of American Education," Public Education Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 195Tp. 68. 2Bertrand Russell, Education and the Social Order, London: Unwin Brothers Ltd., 1932, p. 266. 3Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. 180. "Ibid. SIbid. w) Bestor believes that the attitude of professional educators toward criticism "is the acid test of their pro- fessional sincerity."1 Scholars also contend that unlike other professions, one of the most shocking facts about the education profession is the "almost complete absence of rigorous criticism from within ranks of the professional educatoéE]."2 Bestor further states that "among scientists and scholars, criticism of one another's findings is regarded as a normal and necessary part of the process of advancing know ledge . "3 Many scholars are in accordance with the belief that "anyone who ventures adverse comment on the schools finds rm has spoken at his peril and that he has incurred the wrath of the powerful, organized groups."" Smith supports clahms contending that individuals venturing criticisms against public education are either "belittled, denounced or suppressed."5 He concludes that not only are individuals regarded as "reactionaries" or "crackpots," but "let any group of laymen whose interest in education goes beyond a Bestor, The Restoration of'Learning, p. 179. Bestor, Educational Wastelands, p. 110. le-J Ibid. Lynd, op. cit., p. 13. Smith, The Diminished Mind, p. 100. m4.- docile acceptance of the official line, venture criticism of the schools, and the panjandrums of the N. E. A. and the teacher's colleges descend on them with shrill cries of 1 outrage." Thus anyone intending to criticize public educa- tion.shou1d, at the outset "make his idological position as clear as possible,"2 else, (in the eyes of the scholars) he will be denounced by the "hierarchy" of public education. Professional educators, McGrath and Taylor point out that the greatest resistance regarding some of the progressive theories of education originates within the field of higher education.3 Trow asserts that professors of education do not necessarily shun criticism but assume a larger part of the responsibility in determining educational standards because they "are the ones who have studied the situation in day and out, who have thumbed through the studies, hundreds of them good and bad, and whose responsibility it is to help, not tO stand aloof and criticize."" He further extends the no- tion that the educational crises today prompt educational research for possible solutions to the dilemma of mass edu- cation thus limiting the opportunity to answer educational criticism.S ‘ 1 2Ibid. Smith, "The Failure of American Education," p; 69. 3Earl McGrath and Harold Taylor, "A Summary of Some Fbcent Comments on Progressive Education," Public Education Eager Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1955, P- 10h. "Trow, op. cit., p. 151. 51bid. I” Cottrell, professor of education, supports the notion that professional educators do attempt to take account of educational shortcomings that they may discover. With speci- fic reference to teacher certification, he cites three possible goals which should serve to inprove certification standards. 1. Joint responsibility of schools and teacher's colleges for educating teachers, 2. Simplified procedures of certification, and 3. Better ways to evaluate teaching and teacher education, including a clarification of the teaching art.1 Such.attempts to correct educational deficiencies certainly refute the notion that the "wildest extravagances of educa- tional theorists go unrebuked."2 Criticisms do originate frdm.within the ranks of professional educators and are directed toward the betterment of the profession. Such pro- cewares, coupled with empirical testing, discharge the notion that there exists a complacency among professional educators which fails to recognize educational criticisms or that there is an "almost complete absence of rigorous criticism from Within Em ranks of professional educato-_r—_s] ."3 Professors of education are especially critical of the scholars who they feel are partly to blame for weaknesses — 1Lecture by Dr. Cottrell, June, 1956, Michigan State University. 2Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. 180. 3Bestor, Educational Wastelands, p. 110. in public schools.1 They criticize their [Epholargzl failure to keep close contact with the schools. Consequently they feel "academic course offerings (not all by any means) are unrealistic, in that the teachers do not see how the courses they are required to take will help them do the things they have to do."2 Thus, professional educators defend their in- fluence on education contending that it is they who have supported education through time. Professional educators insist furthermore, that it is not the desire of the education profession to "smear all critics and stifle criticism."3 Educators meet the challenge of educational criticism via the establishment of "school- community advisory councils or other avenues of communication through which criticism can be channeled, dispassionately evaluated and acted upon if valid."" In response to educational attacks, educators believe many attacks result from unfamiliarity with changes which have come about in education. Ernest Melby, former Dean of Education at New York University contends that "they [Ehe criti§§| ignore the fact that the culture of 1951 is differ .— 1Trow, op. cit., p. 1H9. 21bid. 3Ernest Melby, "The Pressures on Public Schools," thldhood Education, XXIX (January, 1953), p. 20a. ulbid., p. 206. "1 from that of their youth. Professional educator Hooper states that criticisms are desirable when they fall in the "Honest Group Type," e.g., criticisms which meet such cri- teria as: "constructive and specific," "welcomes teachers and administrators in meetings," "making decisions based upon all available evidence and only after exhaustive stucy.’ Melby best sums up the position of professional educators stating, Criticism of educational practice is desirable. When it is sincere and well-founded it contributes to the improvement of our education. But criticism based upon misinformation and misunderstandings serves only to confuse the public and interferes with the effective discharge of duty by our teachers.3 Ibid. 2Laura Hooper, "The Child-~The Curriculum--The World of Materials," Childhood Education, XXXI (May, 1955). pp. MAB-his. 3Ernest helby, Story of the Phony Three-R Fight. Anti-Defamation League, 1951, p. 36. 2 CHAPTER III SCHOLARS' CRITIC IShS Ob‘ LULCAIIOLAL THEORY: THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURdICULUM Scholars avow that the fault for the decline of aca- demic emphasis in school curricula is directly attributable to professors of education. The consider the professors of education guilty because of their deliberate attempts to de- emphasize subject matter.1 Smith, educational critici vehe- mently argues that, . . learning, in the traditioral sense of dis- ciplined knowledge, is rapidly declining in our public schools, not through fortuitous circum- stances but by deliberate and almost invariably well-intentioned design of those responsibge for setting the direction of public education. He further asserts that there may have been a time when di- vergent opinions regarding the degree of emphasis on subject matter and method took priority and was the crucial issue. Times have changed, and today, the problem has become a con- troversy concerning those who "continue to believe that the cultivation of intelligence, moral as well as intellectual is inextricably bound up with the cultural heritage and accumu- lated knowledge of mankind," and individuals who concern themselves with the primary task of adjusting the individual 1Smith, The Diminished Mind, p. 2. 21bid. to the group and seeing "that he responds 'satisfactorily' to the stresses and strains of the social order."1 Scholars contend that the "New Curriculum" or today‘s "General Education" concerns itself primarily with the sub- servience of subject matter to educational theory. This weakness they claim, is clearly exemplified in today's public school curricula. Educational critic Lynd provides further "proof" of "educational distortion" with his deliberations on educational "frills" which serve as substitutes for the disciplinary areas. Surveying general areas of the curricu- lum, he excerpts examples which illustrate "how a family may play together on home games, leisure reading, entertaining, courtesy in the family, vacations and outings [EtEQ ."2 Other areas on "Home and Family Life" deal with a section on the doorbell, the telephone, the gas and water service.3 In analyzing the curriculum offerings, scholars state that "there is no reference to reading, writing or arithmetic or such."br Such discoveries, scholars explain, "are no sur- PPise. It is demonstrable from their own works that many enthusiasts of the New Education are themselves half educated 115 or uneducated. The crucial problem they believe, lies —_ lIbid., pp. 19-20. 2Lynd, op. cit., p. 3t. 3Ibid. "Ibid. SIbid.’ p. 16. in determining the "competence of those who are managing the change."1 Bestor directly assigns the blame to those members of the education profession who bear the titles of "Curricu- 1um.Experts." He argues that "the idea that there can be a 'curriculum expert' is as absurd as the idea that there can qfifi_fl be an expert on the meaning of life."2 Professional educa- tors have advanced the notion that curricula of schools are determined by school staff--the staff of which comprises § individuals representing the various academic areas who pre- L. i, sent their Opinions to curriculum coordinators responsible for developing feasible programs of study. Bestor states, "To devise a balanced and adequate curriculum for any system of schools is pre-eminently a work in which the wisdom of nmny men must be enlisted."3 The problem which lies herein is the determination of those who are thg "wise men." Bestor clarifies any doubt as to his ideas on the selection of such individuals when he further asserts that: We have permitted the content of public school in- struction to be determined by a narrow group of specialists in pedagogy, well-intentioned men and women, no doubt, but utterly devoid of the quali- fications necessary for the task they have under- taken. These pedagogical experts are making decisions far outside their realm of pedagogy. They are de- ciding not merely how subjects should be taught in L‘ 11bid. 2Bestor, Educational Wastelands, p. hO. 3 Ibid., p. 39. the public schools, but also Egg; subjects should be taught. Under the guise of improving the methods of instruction, they have undertaken to determine its content as well. Thus, schools are being "more and more completely divorced from the basic disciplines of science and learning." Educational critic Smith accounts for the undesirable -.i_w methods employed by professors of education by advancing the notion that perhaps because of the "enormous difficulties which confront educators in educating the masses, educators need to concoct radically new methods of teaching."3 Es- pecially important is the task of prOperly educating students who achieve no higher than a high school education. Smith believes that educators have not met this dilemma with any success but rather have advanced the situation toward the point of breakdown and chaos. He lays the blame at the doorstep of instrumentalism which he asserts "supposedly teaches that there are no intellectual or moral standards of knowledge, that no subject is intrinsically of any more value than any other subject; in the end it reduces education to a vast bubbling confusion."LL Scholars believe that the educational dilemma can partially be relieved through the implementation of stringent L‘ 1Ibid., p. h3. Ibido, p. LL11». 3Smith, And Madly Teach, p. 23. 2 LLIona” p. 2h. academic standards. Bestor complains of the limitations placed upon students who are prohibited from studying until they experience full command of a subject. When teachers slight academic content, he charges that "instead of opening a door for him, we may actually slam it shut."1 Concerning the extent of investigation which students should pursue in studying the disciplines, he emphasizes, "in the early stages of learning a new discipline, the student is mainly impressed with how much there is to be known and how unfamiliar and hence difficult the processes of reasoning are. Only when he [Ehe studeiil reaches the threshold does he acquire pleasure and confidence as the reward of his labors. If we cut him off before he reaches the critical point, we frus- trate the process of learning." Many scholars deny the assertion that they emphasize the acquisition of ”textbook facts" as the important objec- tive of academic training. They impatiently denounce this accusation, emphasizing that a majority of individuals in any field of scholarship would agree that "character building" and learning "how to think" are of primary importance in any educational scheme and that facts which may be learned from textbooks are valuable chiefly as aids to those ends. Even when the academic areas are recognized and treated t’Y'Professional educators as an integral part of the school ‘. 1Bestor, Educational Wastelands, pp. 171-2. 2 Ibid. J ,2) Curriculum, some critics do not feel this meets their objec- tions. Instead, they criticize the distortion of the dis- ciplines when professional educators re-interpret them within the goals and philosophies of their profession. They assert, “Thus rhetoric and English literature may still appear under those names on the books, but their content may become 'com— muncation arts,‘ a melange of hints on radio acting, writing advertising; copy, evaluating political speeches, persuasive salesmanship etc. ."1 As for the sciences they disclose, "Biology courses may still bear the tag of biology, but their content is often reduced to personal hygiene, what to do about forest fires, how to breed better corn and sheep, 2 n etc. - Jacques Barzun, contemporary author on education in America brings the question to point, "'But why,‘ it may be asked, 'is it necessary to stress mind and subject matter so maPliedly?"'3 He acknowledges the fact that teacher training in the psychological areas may be necessary, but the need for i”creased emphasis upon academic content is obvious, ". . . we must, Stress what has been neglected, we must call for what has been forgotten, we must supply the lack that everybody notes \ . lFuller, "The Emperor's New Clothes, Or Prius Dementat," o Clt . 3 p. 2).}... 21bid., Educ, . 3Jacques Barzun, "Backgrounds for Teaching," Public atlon Under Criticism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall inc., 19 ’ D. 3314.. 1'13 the finished product":L Scholars further generally accept the fact that a "social awareness" must be developed within the student, but they remind educators that "those subjects which deal with the history of ideas and ideals [is] a knowledge of which is essential to all youth who would assume their place in society as thinking, feeling, human beings."2 In regard to electives, they argue that they may serve a useful purpose as an activity, but "they are no substitute for the intellectual demands which a school should be making on Your child to develop his power to think."-3 Scholars are of the conviction that the poor per- formance of college students in the academic areas is a re- flection of inadequate academic training in the primary and 5°00ndary schools. They insist that colleges and universities cannot fulfill their tasks when secondary schools continue to send Students who are ill-equipped in the disciplinary areas. They contend, "This is true no matter how widely they have been 'Orientated'. The blame for what is wrong with American intelle(L'tuality and American effectiveness and Amsrican honesty of achievement rests chiefly upon the secondary S°h0018.nll- Thus, ,the contention stated in the previous chapter that the intellectual training imparted to teachers by colleges ___“__‘__¥ 1Ibld. 23mith, And Madly Teach, p. 11. 3Smith, Public Schools in Crisis, p. 7n. "Bell, Crisis In Education, p. he. of education is reflective in the formulation and exercise of their individual-centered philosophies of education may be valid. Such philosophies invariably affect the develop- ment of school curricula and are responsible for the type of education their recipients receive. Hence, the academic per- formance of individuals, whether it be in industry or univer- sities is somewhat reflective or indicative of their educational training. Scholars believe that because of the nature of public school curricula, the training imparted by public schools is inferior and lacks the intellectual virtues which are essential and can be transmitted only be emphasizing the academic dis- Ciplines. Professors of education denounce such viewpoints contending that empirical evidence proves the critics to be wrong - In justification of their behavior, professional edu- cator-s cite many accomplishments of education which have proven to be beneficial for the masses and yet take account of the academic skills which scholars deem as important. Some educators have attempted to clarify the conflict in the traditional and modern programs of education. There “dated and exists today, the thought that the traditional ways or teaching as "represented by the older and well-estab- lished subject matter were best. They were generally for in- $18terlce upon a relatively narrow curriculum of the three R's and the accepted subjects of English, grammar, mathematics, hi Story and science."1 Traditionalists viewed interventions __\ Cultu lFreeman Butts, A History of Education in American w, New York: Henry Hold and Company, 19143, p. 9141. in school curriculums as "fads and frills,"1 e.g., art, physi- cal education, or music. The traditionalists stressed the acquisition of factual data via "memorizing, drill and skill with major emphasis upon learning from books."2 Some profes- sional educators believe that they [E‘aditionalist-é] seemed to rely upon theories of learning that stemmed from the faculty psychology and the disciplinary theories of the nineteenth cen— tury. Many citizens and educators who felt loyal to the religious, disciplinary, and scholarly orientation mentioned werg likely to feel drawn to such tradi- tional views. Considering the advocates of newer methods, one pro- fessional educator eXplains his scorn of traditional views as being "narrow, lifeless” and that a wider range of experi- ence Should be brought into the school to enrich the curriculum by means of creative, expressive, handcraft and social ac- tivitie s .l" Thus, some educators discovered educative values in aetivities other than the previously adhered to rigid training in the disciplinary areas. The thesis which many pI'Ofe‘?~'32’1.<>nal educators emphasize is the insistence that "learning [is] best when the learner ES] interested in what he as doing and that learning would be promoted by active exPePiel'lees as well as, if not better than reading."5 Perhaps _.__\ the 1111 lArthur Barr, Supervision: Democratic Leadership In I‘Ovement of Learning, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, no.0 1947: p. 8&9. 2Butts, op. cit., p. 5&2. 31bid. LLIbid. SIbid. V .i most outstanding of all is the argument that students who have been allowed to pursue courses of study of particular interest to them more often than not have experienced intrin- sic satisfaction of individual success and have evidenced greater learning. Since complaints discouraged the implementation of "progressive methods," what has induced educators to continue such practices? Butts accounts for this by the fact that "whenever they Eofessional educatozg turned for evidence to the careful research of psychologists, sociologists, cur- riculuzn experts, and guidance specialists, they found that the "eight of evidence favored sound methods of teaching."1 It was discovered that "children learned more in quantity and quality with modern methods than with traditional methods."2 Thus, eJCperimental evidence and trial by experience favored the me thodology and philosophies of the professional educators. A3 a P8 sult, such information was imparted to prospective teachers and has since become the universal dictum of many educators. Many professional educators are of the conviction that the chi 1d should serve as the focal point in educational plan- ning as it is for the child that learning experiences are pro- vided &116. should be fulfilled. In regard to the objectives 1‘ t 0 he traditional school, they believe that "starting with __.\ lIbid. 2Ibid. , p. Sh3 . k? (:3 tkne subject-matter as the traditional school did was to start Ivitfld the means and confuse it with the end. We try to avoid that mistake today. . . . The curriculum is those experiences of’ tile child which the school in any way utilizes or attempts to ;ir1fluence."1 Some guiding principles which are included hi tlléi development of actual learning experiences for children 3P8 3 1.- To result in socialized human beings 22. To give consideration to the emotional develOpment of children .3.. To develOp democratic skills, attitudes, and procedures LL- To rive consideration to the health and physical develOpment of children 57- To make provision for the individual differences in children 6‘- To be suitable to tne maturation level of each child 7- To meet the needs, purposes and interests of children 8.. To be educative rather than mis-educative 9«- To enlarge the child's understanding of important concepts 101- To aid in the development of new meanings and expand experiences through the utilization of available local resources, compensation where possible for environmental lacks, and partici- pation in a wide variety of environmental situ- ll. ations 12 ° To utilize some important aspect of thinking ‘ To make possible successful achievement by the child.2 Professors of education answer schola rs' criticisms of tile} "curriculum eXperts" by citing results of studies of \ 1Murray J. Lee and Dorris N. Lee, The ‘hild and His Curr 1° Qtllum, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950: 21bid., p. 20h. different types of public school curricula. According to a recent survey by Harap and Merritt of C'rriculum guides pro- duced in school systems throughout the United States for the three—year period 1951-53, evidence of personnel in curriculum construction refute the charges that the responsibility for determining curriculum content is assigned to an individual. The authors report that "cormiittee procedure in the adminis- tration of curriculum development continued to receive common acceptance. Approximately 82 percent of the curriculum guides were produced by groups consisting of teachers, administrators, 0011315138 professors and, in a few instances, laymen."2 After curricula of different forms have been tested, the authors add that continuous revision of curriculum guides is "a Coopepa tive process involving many teachers not only because it re 811 1ts in the improvement of teaching but also because it is one of the most effective means of professional growth which reaches the largest number of teachers in the school Omani zation."3 Because of the complications involved in revising or CieVGloping school curricula, e.g., selection of courses, data, the nature of pupils' experiences which are included, educators are consequently confronted with a complex problem. The crucial problem is the determination of what to include _\ Quid lHenry Harap, "Trends in the Production of Curriculum 35-133." Educational Leadership, XIII (October, 1955), pp. 2Ibi 3Ibi Cu Q or delete from existing curricula. Scholars leave no doubt that they believe that emphasis of the academic disciplines has priority over electives or activities not concerned with academic content. Host professional educators have offered their viewpoints as to what they consider important regarding both academic and individual or social requirements. Insofar as the selection of academic content in de- veloping the curriculum is concerned, professional educator Spalding expresses the thought that at present, subject matter is selected by . . . the scholar who writes texts or devises curricu- lums on some bases which appeals to his personal pre- judices, or which fits into his system of pre-relativity logic. Further selection is done by the teacher as he determines what acts of the student he will reward and so encourage. Both procedures emphasize the primary nature of things and the secondary nature of relations or qualities. But the latter are actually primary. They exist for the student only as they are his acts. The nature of the subject matter, being secondary, is derived from them. It is the nature of the act which should deteimine what subject matter is to be used by the school. Thus Spaulding considers subject matter to serve as the means to the end rather than the sought-for goal. Unless subject matter can enhance the life of the individual, it is not fulfilling desired goals. Consequently, that material vmich bears greater significance to the individual is selected and the educational concepts of individualism.permeates the ‘_ 1R. Spaulding, "The Curriculum and the Domains of Knowlzdge," Elementary School Journal, LV (March, 1955), pp. 3 9-72- curriculum once more. The diverging viewpoints of scholars and professional educators is clearly illustrated here by tflw emphasis of utilitarianism which identifies the profes- sional educator and is vociferously condemned by the scholar. Spalding leaves no doubts as to the selectivity of subject matter when he concludes: "So it is with the qualities or relationships of subject matter. Unless they become the acts of students, they do not exist for them." Professional educator Seyfert comments ". . . as we expect more of our schools, compromises and adjustments have to be made, except as we learn how to get more return per manhour."2 The problem is that compromising will not meet the wishes of either the scholars or educators entirely. Ad- justments by both groups will have to be made. In the case of the educators, empirical evidence will probably serve as an influencing agent in the determination of the nature and the extent of subject matter which will be included in various curricula. In making this decision, Seyfert states, It is preferable to have a school program.which pro— vides learning experiences that drive toward the full range of fundamentals rather than a program which concentrates attention on a very limited array of fundamentals. One definition of superficial is "not profound or thorough." By this definition it is the curriculum with the narrow range that is super- ficial, not the curriculum which undertakes to come 11bid. 2Warren Seyfert, "What Are the Fundamentals?" The Elementary'School Journal, February, lQSh, p. 32h. to grips with all that is important in living and growing up. me Office of Education similarly warns against the danger cfl'over-emphasis on specialization in today's higher educa- tion curriculum. Considerable attention is being given to the im- -ii. balance in curricula problems and it appears that { 1 nothing short of rather drastic curricular revision and perhaps reorganization of courses and methods of instruction will be necessary in order to create a much larger place for the social sciences and the humanities than they now occupy.2 Professional educators contend that the real problem & in determining the extent of instruction of fundamentals nmst be set aside until the problem of determining what "fun- damentals" are is solved. To most lay critics, the term "fundamentals” means reading, writing and arithmetic. Unless these "fundamentals" are stressed, the popular reaction is a charge of "neglect" directed at public educators. Many teachers emphasize the fact that the "fundamentals" of today extend further than the three R's. In spite of the fact that critics may be aware of the "other fundamentals," they continue to criticize because of their refusal to consider llbid., p. 326. 2U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, The Progress of Public Education in the United States of America, Summary Report of Office of Education to Seventeenth International Conference on Public Education, Geneva, Switzer- land, July 5-13, l9Su. Washington: Government Printing Office, 195k. p. 20. areas other than the 3 R's as recognized subjects. Further- nmre, the education profession "is not wholly of one mind concerning what the 'additional fundamentals' are."1 Mort and Vincent, professional educators, summarize the stand cfi'professional educations by stating, But let no one be deluded that "knowledge of the fundamentals alone, however fine, is going to guarantee either individuals of competence or a people of resourcefulness to cope with the problems of tomorrow's world. Let no one suppose that the "fundamentals," as the term is generaély used in education, are the only fundamentals. While many professional educators believe that the implementation of modern theories and methods have been in- strumental in improving the quality of living, some warn against complacency. Trow is one who argues against such complacency. Education, he believes, needs to be analyzed in order to retain that which is most meortant and discard that which is irrelevant. "Each generation in each culture is called upon to select from the past and present what seems best and most important for the future, and naturally enough there is much honest disagreement as to what is best and most important."3 1William Gray and William Iverson, "What Should Be the Profession's Attitude Toward Lay Criticism of the Schools?" Elementary School Journal, LIII (September, 1952), p0 90 2Mortand Vincent, op. cit., p. S. BTPOW, OE. (ii-to, p. 1500 (7‘ Similarly, in regard to methodology which is criti- cized by scholars as being over-emphasized, professional educators Mort and Vincent avoid complacency and acknowledge, "It is also true that these techniques in all instances are not entirely successful. There has never been, and probably rmver will be, any single technique for teaching, reading writing, arithmetic, or any other subject which in all in- stances and under all conditions is entirely successful."1 Professional educators believe that perhaps the crux of educational criticism regarding curriculum construction concerns (1) the failure on the part of scholars to realize that the curriculum will constantly change with time, and (2) the failure of individuals to recognize that develOpments do occur as a consequence of change. One professional educa- tor aptly explains that "to be suitable for its times, t he curriculum not only must be adapted to the conditions, ideals and problems of the present but must also harmonize with current trends--must look to the future than to the past."2 Other professional educators support this supposition de- claring that advocates of the modern curriculum should realize that out of the growing criticisms of education "is emerging a new and modern curriculum which differs in many fundamental respects from the placidly respected curriculum of a few years 1Mort and Vincent, op. cit., p. 22. 2Harl Douglass, "The Modern Hich School Curriculum," ‘he School Review, LXIII (January, 195)), pp. lb-2h. 4" urn-raw myn"1 In defense of the professional educators, Caswell unmludes that such change "in the curriculum of American schools is not a fad nor is it an indication of a foot-loose, tumtable educational system. Rather it is an essential fea- ture of the social process essential to the realization of the democratic goals to which our country is committed; it is an inevitable application of our prevalent conceptions of the nature of learning; it is a result of living in a culture which does not stand still and of which change is the.most assured characteristic." Scholars are extremely critical of the vocabulary employed in educational circles when explaining curriculum objectives. One critic states that professional educators have developed "a grandiose and bombastic vocabulary" which is "strange and preposterous."3 Bestor cites an example of an over-used cliche, Wie do not teach history. We teach children," and suggests that to teach it to no one "is a manifest impossibility."LL He adds, "but it is a distinct possibility, alas, that educationists, following their own 5 maxim, may succeed in teaching children--nothing." 1Gordon Mackenzie, ”Supervision Confronts A Changing Curriculum," California Journal of Elementary Education, V (February, 1937,, p. 18. 2Hollis Caswell, Curriculumégmprovements in Public School Systems, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950, p. 82. 3Fuller, op. cit., p. 26. uBestor, Educational Wastelands, p. 36. SIbid. ,r Thus, the statement "We do not teach subject matter, um teach children" requires explanation or justification for its use on the part of professional educators and teachers in.general. Perhaps what they intend to convey is the con- cern for emphasis on hgw we teach history and what the in- dividual will gain from.such instruction in relation to his total deve10pment rather than merely emphasizing the subject for its own sake. That the subject matter be the means to an end, rather than thg end may be the intention of educa- tors. Obviously, the cliche is hazy and, unless clarified, can be misleading. A few selected samples of vocabulary from schools of education which many scholars scorn are: child-centered, individual needs, interest factor, growth, group and social adjustment, and readiness. Because of the array of terms, concepts or expressions employed by educators in defining their theories, explanations of the preceding expressions will be considered in some detail. Professional educator Spalding explains that the con- cept of "readiness" "is divided into specifics in many ways." Using the subject of reading as an example, he accounts for a ”physiological readiness" which a child must possess before he can, for example, "move his eyes along a line of print."2 "Experiental Readiness" is that readiness which requires or 1Spalding, "Curriculum and the Domains of Knowledge," p. 370. 21bid., p. 372. necessitates an experiencing of learned concepts which the printed word symbolizes. There is "emotional readiness" which is a prerequisite to learning reading and exists only when the child is secure, happy and content in school. Another division of readiness is determined on the basis of "subject matter." Spalding explains, "One hears of tests of reading readiness, arithmetic readiness, language readi- ness and the like."1 Thus, the concept of ”readiness" falls into many divisions and is a "relation or a pattern of rela- tions which an individual exhibits as he acts."2 He accounts for the fact that whatever an individual can do, at any time, is determined to a large extent by what "he is then, just as much as it was so determined at the start of the series."3 The error in the notion of requiring a given group of students to acquire a standard of subject matter is further illustrated by Trow when he remarks, "the point is, of course, that there is a wide range of ability in any one grade, what- ever the promotion policy of the school--usually about a six- year range."h Thus the array of variables to consider in readiness, plus the multitude of abilities in a given class— room, are more readily taken account of by the application of 1Ibid. 21bid. 31bid., p. 373. hTrow, op. cit., p. 1&9. ‘J C) methods based on readiness concepts rather than by academic standards emphasized by scholars. Because of the varying capabilities which exist in nwst classrooms, educators have devised curricula which are "child centered" to meet these "individual needs" (or dif- ferences). This goal is partially accomplished by emphasizing those classroom experiences which are of interest to students, yet keeping in mind that learning is of primary importance. It is believed, that if curricula appeal to the interests of students, learning will be enhanced. The concept of needs can be considered vertically synonymous with individual differences, i.e., for as indi- viduals develop needs peculiar to their personalities, methods of achieving or satisfying these desires result in behavior patterns which differentiate them from their peers, hence they become "individually different." Value orientations of in- dividuals naturally differ, consequently so do their needs. It is virtually impossible for two individuals to assimilate identical value patterns since neither can be exposed to iden- tical experiences in life. Thus, no two persons will ever possess identical value orientations; and while there are some needs universal to all individuals, the particular char- acter and degree of needs will vary from person to person. If this is true, there exists in public schools a multitude of different needs. Since it has been established that the greatest amount of learning occurs when the needs and interests "‘ 4 p4 cfindividuals can be determined and accounted for, educators sue constantly seeking to exploitewery intelligible means possible to achieve this end. Scholars consider that emphasis upon the fulfillment of all needs interferes with sound educational objectives and they regard attention directed toward need fulfillment »&_n as interfering with developing sound educational goals. One { critic laments the development of educational goals which em- phasize the expressed needs of children. Although educators nmy consider needs to be important, he asserts that the "happy L incidental insights" of children are unaccompanied by any w "clear-cut conception of the ends of education."1 Even if students are capable of verbalizing their immediate needs, another critic wonders, ". . . who are the people to decide upon the 'real' needs of your child, or mine?"2 Obviously, the ability of children to determine needs and the decision as to which needs are most important presents a complex problem. One scholar criticizes such attention to fulfilling the demands of children by stating ". . . while neo-pedagogues palaver more and more about the 'real-needs' of youngsters, the pupils are learning less and less [Ebout the disciplidgg ."3 To the scholars, the consequences of centering education upon 1Smith, "The Failure of American Education," p. 66. 2Lynd, o . cit., p. lu. 31bid. fluid-determined goals are fatal. Curricula which are con- cmrned with the task of fulfilling the wishes, needs or whims cfi'youngsters are restricting students from an essential life cfl‘compulsions. One scholar believes that life "is dominated iw'competition, and the adult is constantly having to submit to examinations with his fellows; but these are conditions was” Idnch the thorough-going modernist will not permit in his r classroom."1 Lynd believes that a student who has been indoc- trinated with this type of education "will find when he graduates into the adult world, that the idea of being 'in L competition only with yourself' bears little relation to that ‘2 world."2 Reports from the Office of Education clarify the edu- cator's stand on the issue of developing students who can "hold their own" in the adult world. Curricula of various types are contrived with "continuing efforts made throughout the States to make the curriculum as realistic as possible."3 Thus, "in the interest of wider understanding, experiments are at present under way to study how, in this almost uni- lingual Nation, children may be taught to speak and read a foreign language."h The experts further add that "teachers lSmith, And hadlyngaph, p. hl. 21bid. 3Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. 7. 14’Ibid. Iumt develop greater insight into children's needs and the rmeds of the society in which the children live." Thus educators have described how programs of education are fo- cused not so much upon the consideration of needs in relation to immediate or local areas but rather to universal problems. Accounting for the criticisms of de-emphasizing subject mat- ter under such programs, educators explain, Subject matter is better fitied to the child's needs and better methods are used for teaching children in small sub-class groups and indi- vidually. The increasing knowledge has changed high-school curricula by introducing courses \ that cut across traditional subject-matter lines.2 Professors of Education and education experts appear to be confident in their attempts at providing students who can both responsibly fill their social roles as adults and grasp the basic fundamentals emphasized by scholars. On the other hand, scholars are dubious of such methods, questioning the ability of students to determine their goals based on genuine needs, the qualifications of educators to distinguish betweemzlnost useful needs and, finally, the danger that pro- cedures in use might prohibit the child from experiencing actual.;nmoblems which he may encounter as an adult. Unless educators can accomplish the aforementioned demands, the consequences, scholars believe, can be fatal. 15mith, The Diminished Mind, p. 2. 21bid., p. u. While many professional educators believe that indi— xfldual needs can be recognized by appealing to the interests cfi‘students, many scholars assert that the poorly defined gpals of education are a direct result from the overemphasis on interest. They are also concerned about the danger of talents that might lay dormant or missed by chancing develop- i nwnt to occur solely on interest. Scholars are of the con- r viction that professional educators assume that children will eventually cross those lines which promote the development of well-rounded individuals. Bell insists that "intelligence i must be discovered and then trained; it does not mature by ‘ chance or develop as the by-product of a skill."1 Unless the individual is challenged and made aware of such responsi- bilities, he may "yet remain unintelligent, incompetent to recognize comparative values, unable to make considered choices or to guide other men into choices requisite for happiness or 2 even for human continuance." The over-emphasis on a student's ability to recognize such factors they believe, will never result in the fruition of such expectations. Bestor's views parallel those of Bell when he insists that the interest factor should not be left up to the student alone. The school, he insists, "must develop these incen- tives."3 He further emphasizes his stand stating, lBell, op. cit., p. 60. 21bid. 3Bestor, Educational Wastelands, p. MB. The arousing and sustaining of interest, however, is only a means to an end. It is eash enough to keep children amused, if that is all one wishes. . . . The test of a school, after all, is how much students learn. Granted that they will learn little unless they are interested and happy: nevertheless the fact that they are interested and happy is no proof in it- self that they are learning. Hence a pre-occupation with arousing interest may--indeed, frequently does-- lead to the introduction into the classroom of pro- jects totally without educative value. The fallacy that extra-curricular activities are as important as the curriculum itself is frequently asserted by re- gressive educators. Perhaps Bestor has presented a point which requires the attention of the educator. Widespread criticism of the educative value of "experience" or "do" activities with Empebdl intentions of eventual or incidental learning are rmt uncommon to the educator. Many teachers assume that there exists equal educative value in any type of activity experience. Teachers frequently fail to direct their atten- tion to the quality of classroom experiences. Attention should be focused on the selection of activities which offer nwst educative value. There are teachers who assume that each child will salvage from class experiences learnings which will meet individual "felt needs.“ And, because they (educators) argue that teachers are dealing with individual differences, one cannot expect these teachers to follow a rigorously defined outline because of heterogeneous groups. Even though there is an acceptance of the notion that teachers must be concerned With individual differences, some objectives or goals should _ lIbid. ‘xJ bexealized by students at the conclusion of a specific course cufstudy. Quite often educators generalize stating that a sumdent may develop latent values from "educational experiences" vduch are perhaps manifested at a time when he develOps an imp fiediate need for them. It is needless to add that educators huflst that a child will gain from educational experiences tint which is most significant to him. Pupils should be held acmnumable for "significant learnings" which have been ex- ;nessed as vital by pupils at the onset of a unit of study. A typical criticism advanced against the doctrine of interest is cited by Mortimer Smith who suggests what Lfltimate consequences educators might expect. In regard to freeing the child from academic impositions and appealing solely to child interests, he states, "by doing so, our schools are helping as much as any institution among us to produce automatons ripe for exploitation by clever and un- scrupulous men--politicians, movie magnates, labor leaders, newspaper publishers--who recognize and take advantage of the new herd instinct for uniformity."1 Educators have discovered that interest can be used as a stimulant in promoting learning. Interests of youngsters can be explored and recognized and there are areas which they enter into with an enthusiasm which characterizes their play. Manifest interests can be projected or related to various studies which teachers expect students to explore. The 1 Smith, And Madly Teach, p. 93. if enmnt of directing interests of students to areas of study mathat an optimum learning situation can be created is hugely determined by the skill and observation of the teacher uncharge. Whenever this can be accomplished, "teachers know ‘flmt they have a powerful force working with them." Profes- shnml educators Mort and Vincent believe that if a youngster mfimrs into a specific study of science, for example, with 12m same interest and enthusiasm which characterize play, educators can be quite certain that this is indicative of the direction in which students' talents are growing. If such interest persists into "deeper concentration and ramification of the study, that fact is a pretty good gauge of the extent of his growth in this direction."2 Hence, the implementation of student interest in devising units of study not only encour- ages learning, but the opportunity to recognize individual aptitude can also be discovered. Kort and Vincent criticize scholars as "inefficient" when they concentrate solely on training the mind. In the case of teaching students of the primary grades, they believe it is far more sound to emphasize such factors as security, happiness and a sense of belonging rather than plunging "right into the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic."3 They further assert that such learning can never be learned "so lMort and Vincent, op. cit., p. 63. 2 Ibid. 31bid., p. 16. It) vwll at anv other time: how to get along together, how to Ham turns, how to borrow and return, how to respect proper- 1 . ty. . .." Through such behavior, teachers can determine at 'mnch point teaching basic skills will yield most efficient results. One professional educator states that critics seem twin tcrxde a virtue out of work that is especially hard and dis‘asteful."2 Any coercion placed upon the student "to per- L form inherently disagreeable tasks is supposed to train him Ibr the rigors of life outside of school.”3 He contends that n this is one area of education wher> scholars have failed to lmep informed as to discoveries of recent years regarding the nature of learning and conditions under which learning takes place most effectively. He explains, "it is now a commonly recognized principle that learning is most effective when the task is accepted by the learner as being worthwhile and when its accomplishment is accompanied by a feeling of genuine achievement."u In answer to critics who believe that students not exposed to the rigors of competition do not acquire the prerequisite for adult adjustment, Alberty insists, "students ~ lghig. 2Melby, Freedom and Public Education, p. 235. Big-lg. aw. vumk hard at tasks which have significance in their lives. Em modern school, therefore, organizes its program in terms cfi‘the problems and functions of present-day living, instead (u‘in terms of the dead past."1 Regardless of the endorsements of practices which ap- gmal to student interest, hort and Vincent caution educators ~uw of the possible dangers which are probable when activities I based on student interest "cease to have meaning and reason , and purpose: only when the teacher has lost control of the tool with which he is working. . . ." does such training 1;" "lack educative value" and become reduced to a low denomina- tor of mere misguided play. Educators are prone to interpret student achievement whether it be social, physical or academic in terms of Growth. Since it has been established that individuals learn and progress at different rates, growth naturally varies within such areas from person to person. The educational concept of growth is perhaps most clearly explained by Millard, child growth and development specialist, who considers growth asxa "phase of total de- velopment . . . when discussion is concerned with the total. organism in a perspective of change Ehei] the word development is used."3 Therefore, growth, in such a framework refers to F --“-— lIbid., p. 237. 2Mort and Vincent, op. cit., p. 63. 3Cecil Millard, Child Growth and Development, Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1951, p. 10. .4‘, kb dwnge "in partial aspect, although change in one part is Lmually accompanied by change in other parts of the total hkflvidual."1 Total development occurs when there "is a amquential pattern of change involving a multitude of growth {necesses."2 Millard points out that growth processes vary from each other--some requiring longer periods of time, «emu whereas other processes require a lesser period insofar as r the total deveIOpmental picture is concerned.3 Many people , attribute a quantitative characteristic to change. Millard points out, "we seldom refer to unseen change, though it too L nmy be considered a growth process.“L Growth is continuous ‘V and "all children grow in a manner determined by the relation- ship between their potentiality and the 'richness' of its motivating conditions."s Hence, not only will the various growth processes of an individual vary, but so will persons differ from each other as their growth processes develop ac- cording to individual "potentiality and richness of motivating condition."o, Thus growth, in different areas may be so pronounced as to be obvious whereas in other phases of development it may hardly be discernible. The most exacting method of proving —* 31bid., p. 17. LLlbld. SIbld. 6Ibld. sudlachievement can be contrived by means of various diag- rmstic or achievement tests where individual performance is pflctted and compared to national norms established for per- mnm of given ages and grade levels. In spite of such evi- mnme, Millard cautions educators who place unquestionable faith in test scores. He states, r-ii1 Continuous testing of individual children indicates that scores on tests have no meaning except in terms of each child's unique developmental pattern. Nor | can one determine from a single test score whether a child's progress is good or inferiOr. Consequently, emphasis on standards and grade goals in evaluating the child's progress is good or inferior. Consequently, emphasis on standards and grade goals in evaluating the L_-, child's a hievements is in general based on miscon- captions. Educators explain that there are phases of develop- smnt which cannot be measured by standardized tests, e.g., attitude, social adjustment, moral and spiritual development tests, etc. Students who may perform poorly within the aca- demic realm are encouraged to pursue activities in areas (though they may not be academic) which offer other oppor- tunities that may lead to individual achievement. Any de- velopment in such non-academic areas is difficult to measure but is often accounted for as probable growth; hence, the student may have advanced even though his success may be more of a general, experiential nature rather than being purely academic. Too often any change in behavior along socially ac- ceptable lines is described in terms of "pupil growth." he —_.__ JIbIdo, p. 280 cwer-use of this expression causes critics to ponder over its actual value. One scholar states We have been going along now for some time on the theory that education consists simply of experience and change and "growth," and this theory has not, as far as I can see, furthered the millenium to any startling degree. Perhaps we need to set up som ends for education; perhaps we need to ask, "Growth towards what?" Smith is discouraged with the vague definition of "desirable" and "satisfactory" growth. He contends that to go beyond a definition of these terms would involve dealing Ldth absolutes which "is something the pragmatist refuses to do even though he runs into a logical absurdity; if you declare something to be desirable and satisfactory, you are implying an ought to be, you are declaring that there are some desirable ends."2 .Millard takes account of this question by stating that growth is cyclic and the completion of Cycles of various phases of growth within the individual and from other indi- viduals is dependent on the speed of individual maturation. There exist different degrees of maturity for various kinds of learnings. He further contends that the development of the individual as a whole is a complex process in which there are innumerable kinds of growth maturing in a coordinative relation- ship with each other. Each sequence follows the 15mith, And Madly Teach, p. 105. 2Smith, The Diminished hind, p. 80 3Millard, op. cit., p. as. same general pattern with well-defined beginning and end points. Simple growth begins early and ends early; more complex growth takes a longer period of time. 'fifls point is clearly illustrated in the graph on page 83. He concludes, stating that any teacher who attempts to'fibrce" or impose material on Children "in advance of es- sential general maturity is not only inefficient but is setting r up an inhibitory situation which may immediately affect the child‘s personality in such a way as to confuse learning when the time for its natural introduction arrives."2 Implementing the evidence provided by Millard re- garding the various processes involved in development, educa- tors direct their attention to the development of the "Whole Child," i.e., the physical, academic, social and spiritual growth processes. Unlike the subject matter emphasis which scholars deem as the primary function in education, educators are satisfied if the individual displays within the limits of his capacities, growth in only a few of the aforementioned areas. Bestor condemns this attitude regarding it as "a sheer intellectual confusion" which is justified by "sentimental phrases" when reference is directed toward "educating the whole child."3 He adds, "If this means anything, it means simple that different kinds of training must be co-ordinated 11bid. ’ p. 18. 21bid., pp. 22-23. 3Ibid. Equivalent Ages 180 160 my 120 100 80 60 6 80 100 120 m0 160 1- o Chronological Age in Months Fig. 1. Mental, physical, and learning growth patterns: Case 80F. VimA. -- Weight Age A.A. -- Arithmetic Age Id.A. -- Mental Age H.A. -- Height Age IL.AJ -- Language Arts Age R.A. -- Reading Age S.S.A. -- Social Science Age Source: . Cecil Millard, Child Growth and Deve10pment Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1§51, p._16. MJthat the child's development will not be on-sided and un- mflanced." He concludes, "to educate the 'whole' child does notnman that different functions and activities cannot be (malt with separately and systematically."1 Eklund, professional educator, agrees that each gfiwwth phase 0 the child is directly related to his total —+¢g development and he explains that educators not only deal vnth each process individually, but also in reference to the _ total personality. He bases his convictions on the child development theory that due recognition should be given to the development of individual growth processes which con- stitute the "whole" when he asserts, While we should like to deal constantly with an integrated personality, we must realize that a child's mental, physical and emotional develop- ment do not necessarily proceed at the same pace. To meet satisfactorily the many variations, each phase of this development must be studied in its own context, taough each phase is closely related to the others. Scholars contend that the philosophies of educational theorists regarding the development of individuality are con- tradictory to their emphasis on group adjustment. Most indi- viduals agree that the health of a society is directly related to the increasing adjustment of individuals to each other. In cases of doubt, decisions based on the consensus of the group are advocated. Individuals who are encouraged to express Ibid. 2Melby, Freedom and Public Education, p. 263. as flm r individualistic needs may encounter difficulty when the opinions of the group do not coincide with individualistic opinion. Sociologist David Riesman drscribes the dichotomy in educational philOSOphies contending that in one instance educators attempt to have the child eliress his "felt needs" but on the other hand they are of the opinion that the child r is expected to behave in accordance with the norms and standards advocated by his prosp. Thus the cursti on is raised, "Can educators actually meet 'felt needs'?"1 Riesman advances the notion that due to the emphasis {&_i.. on socialization, public schools have failed in emphasizing the skills of intellect because of "overplaying the skills of gregariousness and amiabilityh—lEEJL-skill democracy."2 He adds that the student is encouraged to develop "other directed"3 attitudes so that he may assume his position in a society where the "concern of the group is less with what it produces than with its internal group relations."u The extent of individual assimilation of group desires and wishes 1David Riesman, The Lonelngrowd, New York: Doubleday and Co., Indo, 1953’ po 830 21bid., p. Bu. 3Riesman' s hypothesis in The Lonely1w Crowd concerns the distinction between the "inner directed individuals, 1. e., persons whose actions and behavior are more individualized or self determined from those who are ”other directed" or whose character is primarily influenced and thus formed by the in- fluence ofo opinions of their "peers or contemporaries" more so than the 'inner directed."v uIbid” p. 85. o7 hwariably leads to greater social adjustment. Riesman be- lieves that such attitudes are paradoxical to the educative thundes of individual expression of personal needs. Indi- viduality is, under such circumstances, thwarted rather than advanced or protected.1 As a result, students who desire to nmnifest behaviorisms pertinent to personal interest are con- “sir stantly reminded that such behaviors need be deemed socially r I acceptable else they should be suppressed for the good of the individual gag the group. Furthermore, it is improbable If that student behavior can be based purely on personal inter- est. The teacher's role is often that of an opinion leader whose "emotional energies are channeled into the area of group relations."2 Such procedures may account for a more organized and efficient social group, but discourage the idea that the educator is able to meet the varying needs of individuals in a given classroom. Smith's concept of the lack of individuality in class- room.situations parallels that of Riesman when he emphasizes that education is for the individual and this fact should be remembered before educators submerge individuality to the dictates of social groups. He emphasizes that "education is a personal, individual experience. Its purpose is the imp provement of persons and only secondarily the improvement of society."3 11b1d., p. 80. 2Ibid., p. 85. 3Smith, Egg Diminished Mind, p. 7. 9d 88 Hence it seems that scholars believe that educational 'umory tends more and more to lean toward a mass conception ‘mneh results in a type of society where deviation from es- tablished patterns from the ”commonality” is frowned upon or (fiscouraged. Such training, they believe, not only discourages the cultivation of an intellectual curiosity, but sociological theory of such nature is also apt to ”produce docile indi- viduals animated by a desire for group conformity and social solidarity."1 Smith wonders "if the majority of American youth is dull and hence malleable, why can't doctrinaires, if they can achieve strategic positions, mold youth in any desired shape, towards any ideology?"2 Bestor concludes posing the thought concerning educators, that not only do they EducatorE "take the child, but to take him for the purpose of molding for what they think is a good society."3 Professors of education contend that they are cognizant of the virtuous elements requisite for the development of "good, moral and upstanding" character. Yet, they believe that no individual may alienate himself from.aocial pressures which are responsible for the formation of many aspects of the individual personality. Educators insist that each child must build for hxmself the highest conception that he can. As he progresses in accomplishing such, he automatically llbide, p. 5”. 21bid. 3Bestor, Educational Wastelandg, p. 55. 89 involves himself with other people and can determine from social reactions whether his standards meet a desirable pmrsonal-social standard. Kilpatrick maintains that indi- vidual goals should be approached and solved according to the ”highest standard which will stand severe criticisms."1 imere should be a constant intention to improve such skills n—T and with individuals working together to reach this goal, { ". . . the highest and best ideals will prevail. history _ shows that this definition of the good life is true."2 Ernest Melby, former dean of education at New York l University, is of the conviction that individual talents are ‘ sought out cooperatively and ”an environment is established which will help develop these'talents."3 Kilpatrick follows Dewey in negating the emphasis placed upon learning specific moral principles which supposedly are responsible for the development of respectable character and goes on to supply a group norm for morality. He states, The old theory had the idea that there were fixed and eternal principles which man must find and obey. The new goes on the idea that we never reach perfection for fixedness except in a limited way; progress is possible, so far as we can tell, along any given line. . . . We now believe that the child thinks within his area of control from a very early age. Then that area will enlarge and increase and skill will increase. . . . ‘He have to guide. How do we guide? . . . We must talk it over together because the group ought to do better 1Mort and Vincent, A Look At Our Schools, p. 31. 21bid. ' 3neiby, Story of the Phoney Three-R Fight, p. at. 90 thinking than the best member of the group working alone. Even the best man can profit by what the others are thinking, and if he does a good job of thinking, the group will do better. The notion advanced thus far emphasizes the extent cu'value from.auggestions propounded by group members rather than placing sole reliance on the individual. According to educators, such thinking is consistent with both the principles of individual differences and group planning. Under such cir- cumstances, the slower student may benefit from.his advanced peers and even precocious individuals may share ideas. Such procedures should result in a greater dissemination of knowledge and result in increased social and academic learning. Another educational point of view regards society as recognizing the need for possible allowance in establishing individual standards. But the determination of what proper boundaries exist for such implementation ”must in an inter- dependent society be based.on collective judgment." For an optimum of individual adjustment, the individual must realize the extent to which.he may exercise individual opinion and yet adjust to wishes of the group with which he intends to identify'himself. Factors which.individua1s must be aware of in order to adapt socially depend on (1) the nature of iMort and Vincent, op. cit., p. 30. 2Page Smith, "The Sins of Contemporary Education," The Education Digejs_t_, .XXI (March, 1955), pp. 1-14. ‘um problem, (2) personalities involved, and (3) social de- mands existing at the time. ' Before scholars and educators become convinced of their assertions regarding the issue of individuality versus group conformity, Harman reminds them When we consider group behavior we must always re- ~~~m member that the phenomena we are discussing have had r their origin in individuals and will have their ul- timate effect upon individuals. This does not mean that interaction among individuals is unimportant or that the leader need not study group phenomena. . . . . One often hears peOple talk about the "spirit of the group" as though it were something different from the spirit of the individuals who make up the group. Although it is true that individuals may be- have quite differently under group conditions-~such as those of a lynch mob--than they would singly, none-theless t is still the individual who is doing the behaving. 1“)" Smith, Stanley and Shores, professional educators, advance the notion of existing individuality in a group structure. They explain that recognizing the bounds of group interests and activities, "every attempt is made to allow individual purposes and competencies their full development."2 If an appeal is made to student interest‘lgn an activity-type curriculum, for exampE the individual would not be compelled to follow the wishes of the group. Instead, he could eXplore those areas which are of immediate interest to him. If for some reason a student were disinterested in group or individual lFranklyn Haiman, Group Leadership and Democratic Action, Boston: houghton Mifflin ce., 1931, p. 190. 20thanel Smith, William Stanley and Harlan Shores, Fundamentals of Curriculum.Develgpment, New York: World Book Co., 1955, p. H68- 92 activities then behavior would be diagnosed to determine reasons for disinterest or isolation. Contrary to emphasis on individual recognition, Sxflologist hare advances a theory based upon research whicn involves the interaction of individuals within social groups. km verifies the theory of "de-individuation" which is de- g_g1 scribed as a "state of affairs in a group where members do not pay attention to other individuals gug individuals, and, _ correspondingly do not feel that they are being singled out by others."1 The theory postulated herein is the "reduction of inner restraints" in members who have the opportunity to participate in experiences from which they are usually re- strained. Hare adds, "It was further hypothesized that this is a satisfying state of affairs and its occurrence would tend to increase the attractiveness of the group."2 Hence, professional educators direct attention toward both schools of thought, i.e., individuality and group con- formity. Either philosOphy is applied as it best contributes to the total development of the person. The implementation of a variety of teaching methods is important to the teacher who concerns himself with the problems of providing experiences suitable to the different personalities in a classroom. Recent theories of education emphasize the incorpora- tion of sociological concepts in the school curriculum. lPaul Hare, Edgar Borgatta and Robert Bales, Small Grou s, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955: P. 299. 21bid. ’ 93 Educators hope to provide a type of education which will enable students to contribute to social stability by understanding themselves and the world around them. Since transmission of knowledge involves social interaction, students are taught to be cognizant of social demands and best ways to adapt to them. The study of students' behavior in group ,.MH processes enables the teacher to help students solve or pre- r vent social difficulties that they might experience. Social psychologist Kluckhohn emphasizes that much evidence pertinent to individual behavior can be obtained from a study of the individual in the group. The patterns of behavior with which an individual identifies himself, pat- tern deviation or pattern transgression offer clues as to personality formation, and the assimilation of socially approved behavior offer vast amounts of information in the study of "differential participation" of the individual. Still recognizing the factorof individuality in social adjustment, Kluckhohn reiterates that it is chiefly the traditional patterns which parents, educators, statesmen, etc., retain and teach by example or persuasion and ”by an accepted, culturally defined system of rewards and punish- ments. The process of inculcating and learning these patterns, 1 until they become "second nature," is termed "socialization." Kluckhohn believes that it is processes such as these which lIbid., pp. uz-k3. 91+ reward the child by teaching him to do many things toward which he is groping.1 The proper integration and application of the afore- nmntioned concepts (interest, growth, needs, group adjustment, individual differences and socialization) should enhance indi- vidual development if their demands are realized by the edu- ,l_ cator. Yet more acknowledgment of such concepts will not r suffice. Educators are responsible for applying them to edu- cational experiences which will provide an optimum of educa- tional learnings. Programs devised to account for the variable L factors in individual development are labeled "Life Adjust- ‘ ment." Students educated under the life adjustment program are given the opportunity to study in a fashion which takes account of the proper relationship of subject matter to ex- periences which the students and teacher deem as important to the demands of everyday living. Such attention directed to student desires and interests invariably leads to the es- tablishment of a ”child-centered" curriculum. One popular reason forwarded by educators as responsible for the estab- lishment of such curricula was the increased dropout of students from school. Prior to the inauguration of such programs, students "saw little or no relationship between subjects they were studying and the life problems of which they were more or less acutely aware."2 Samples of a "child- lIbid. 2Bestor, Educational Wastelangg, p. 92. centered curriculum which deal with "real life" problems, nught include problems of a current, political nature, educa- tion.for family living, consumer economics, job information, social problems of a communital or personal nature, or studies of the relationship of academic areas to matters determined as meortant by student interest. r Such procedures are naturally condemned by scholars as "non-academic" and "mediocre,“ and they maintain that such a program places an over-reliance on the interests of students who are not able to determine educational objectives. Perhaps { E most outstanding of all are criticisms concerning (1) over- emphasis on the contemporaneity of social or political issues by the implementation of procedures which neglected detailed historical study for example, hence, ignoring academic con- tent, and (2) an over-emphasis on individual and personal problems which scholars believe do not prepare students ade- quately for experiences which might occur outside of their immediate or experiential realm. Bestor aptly illustrates this point, stating, "Absent is any idea that the nation is inidanger and that it may require of its future citizens some .very hard thinking, not about their personal problems first of all, but about the means of national survival."1 He is especially discouraged with the development of content in such "adjustment" curricula since primary attention is based on 11bid., p. 99. 90 individual needs and interest while the development of “what" and "amount" of subject matter is never definitely ascer- tained."1 Scholars assert that educators no longer desire a curriculum of the sequential arts and sciences, of the sys- tematic methods of thinking, or of organized bodies of factual information which have been accepted and perfected by many generations of educators. Instead, they contend that educators propose curricula based on activities of life ad- justment pertinent to issues and questions which revolve around personal interest-centered activities. Wheat, a con- servative educator, insists that life adjustment of real worth is "not apart from, but through traditional education," and the issue which both scholars and educators confront is not the choice between a program of life adjustment and traditional education, "but instead the issue of how to bring the two programs into proper balance."2 Bestor is of the conviction that if these is any value in a life adjustment program, the problem.lies in the overemphasis on some parts -of the curriculum and a neglect of other areas. He states, "they [iife adjustment programs consist in the abnormal over-development of certain features of the school program llbid. 2U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Education,_§rggress of Public Education in the gnited States of America, lQSFgSE, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956, p. 9. 97 and the withering of other and more important features."1 Solving life problems can be accomplished via the academic approach where the individual can "discover the enduring con- solations of literature, and philosophy and art, a world, into which he can build an order of his own through systematic, sequential, creative thought."2 Attempting to provide suit- able experiences and thus account for a peak of adjustment, educators tend to de-emphasize subject matter and are criti- cized for impinging upon family responsibility when they enter into the realm of personal problems. Smith argues "Surely those who are fit to teach can look after their own mental and emotional health, and surely much that is called health instruction constitutes an impertinent invasion of the responsibilities of parents."3l Hence it is obvious that not only do scholars view educators as negligent in developing academic content in life adjustment curricula, but they consider them guilty of invading the realm of parental responsibility. In conclusion, Smith considers the superior student to be neglected because the life adjustment curriculum is geared toward solving problems of the commonalty which comprise the greater per- centage of school enrollment. If programs are geared toward lBestor, The Restoration of Learning, p. 120. 2 . . Ibid., p. 136. 3amith, Public Schools in Crisis, p. 1u3. 98 "invalidate most of the assumptions that such levels, they have underlain American democracy, and enthrone once again the ancient doctrine that a clear majority of the people are destined from birth to be beware of wood and drawers of water.’ In an attempt to explain the pedagogical position regarding the suppression of academic content in the "Life Adjustment" curriculum, professional educator Broudy readily admits that suppression of the intellectual outcomes of schooling in favor of emotional, personal and civic adjust- ment have been substantiated by the evidence of current edu- cational psychology which emphasizes personality adjustment rather than the acquisition of skill and knowledge.2 He adds, cautioning the critic against charges of instrumen- talism and pragmatism that "it is to be doubted that this emphasis . . . whatever its merits . . . stems directly or solely from Instrumentalism as a theory."3 One might suspect that Broudy himself would have strong reServations concerning such curricula. Regarding educational concern in tackling problems of other social institutions, Mort and Vincent emphasize that growth and guidance in such areas as the home, community, farm, church and other less formal social institutions were heavily instrumental in "forging" character of the youngster. 1Smith, The Diminished Mind, pp. 2h-25. 2Broudy, Educational Theory, IV, p. 197. 31bid. l 99 This desirable situation has changed and growth and guidance which once occurred in these institutions no longer assume the same degree of influence that they formerly did. Such twing the case, the authors wonder ". . . what agency should try to fill the breach?"1 In justifying the behavior of public education which takes account of such shortcomings, they explain, "Wherever the public has been asked, they too think that the schools should be held responsible for dis- playing those desirable functions for which they are better equipped."2 Due consideration directed to the individual problems of the student enables the educator to handle the variety of capabilities and vocational interests of each individual. Rigid curriculum patterns do not allow for the varied poten— tial and interests existing in classrooms. Hence, advocates of the Life Adjustment concept attempt to individualize curri- culum opportunities to such demands. Some professional edu- cators wonder how scholars handle the diversity which exists in community backgrounds which range from."the isolated and insulated mountain valley school, through multitudinous types of.small and medium-sized communities, to large metrOpolitan centers, each different and unique in background and economic and cultural pattern."3 Not only because of the range of m 1Mort and Vincent, op. cit., pp. 65-69. 2Ibid. 3Vern Thayer, Public Education and Its Criticg, New York: Macmillan Co., 193h, pp. 1154116. 100 comnunital backgrounds, but moreover, within such diverse Fmtterns there are students who vary considerably in inter- ests and abilities as well as emotional and social disposi- tion. If such differences are to be ignored by withholding cmportunities for students to investigate and prepare them- selves best for their individual adjustment, such attitudes as well as the assumption of one pattern of education for all "may yield a high percentage of educational casualities."l Thayer concludes, To assume that the media of education for the future artisan and mechanic, business man and scientist, or even the members of the many professions and semi- professions should be of one pattern--the pattern required for admission to the professions of yester- day--is an outmoded principle to apply to education. It is too simple, analagous, in a way, to Secretary WilsOn's dictum that "What is beat for General Motors is best for the country." Not disregarding the extent of academic and social content in the life adjustment curriculum, professional edu- cator Bobbitt cites the essentials of such a curriculum, (1) language activities; social intercommunication; (2) health activities; (3) citizenship activities; (h) general social activities--meeting and mingling with others; (5) spare-time activities, amusements, recreations; (o) keeping oneself.mentally fit-- analagous to health activities of keeping oneself physically fit; (7) religious activities; (6) paren- tal activities, the upbringing of children, the maintenance of a proper home life; (9) unspecial- ized or non-vocational practical activities; (10) the labors of one's calling. 11bid. 21bid., p. 115. 3Ibid., p. 281. lOl Considering Bobbitt's essentials of a well-rounded curriculum, it is quite obvious that the modern curriculum contains provisions for the develOpment of the social as well as academic skills which have been heretofore ignored by gflanners of the subject-matter centered curriculum. The Life Adjustment movement has been aimed at de- veloping a "modern functional program for those who will not go either (I) to college, or (2) into occupations for which they can be trained specifically in high school."1 It is estimated that b0 percent of high school boys and girls fall into this category. Designers of this program relate that not only has the movement remedied many educational short- mmungs, but there is an increasing belief by the public that the program.for the "60 percent might well be an ex- cellent program.for all American youth."2 Countless demands placed upon schools concerning issues of a social as well as academic nature, have prompted mnudculum planners to develop types of curricula which will best:meet the needs of a rapidly changing society. An in- flux of unprecedented educational enrollments has presented a multitude of educational problems which rests in the hands of educators. The issue of additional students which is 1U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, The Progress of Public Education in the United States of America, 02. Cite, p. 70 21bid. 102 accompanied by a complexity of problems resulting from.adu- eating the masses, challenges educators. The responsibility of adequately preparing college-bound students with a sound education as well as encouraging academically incompetent students to remain in school as long as is possible presents problems hardly ever encountered by educators of a few decades ago. The curricula of yesterday would hardly suffice to meet these challenging situations. As society changes, so do the demands of its members, hence, it is inevitable that numerable changes will be instituted in the contemporary curriculum. 103 CHAPTER IV PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL THEORY TO A JUNIOR HIGH CORE-TYPE CURRICULUM In this chapter an attempt will be made to describe a course of study in the Social Studies program of a modern junior high school. A core-type curriculum will be con- sidered and should illustrate an implementation of educa- tional theories and methodology which professional educators utilize as a basis for constructing social studies programs. Criticisms of scholars directed specifically to educational theory and methodology will be considered as these relate to this illustrative program. The presentation of such an ex- ample should provide ample opportunity for educators and scholars to present educational views regarding the extent of educative value which might result from such a program. A study of the various types of curricula should reveal that, contrary to the popular misconceptions of the layman, there exists no purely modern or general progressive type of curriculum. Smith, Stanley and Shores cite three Rein types of curricula which could be found in almost any American school. They are the Subject Curriculum, the Ac- tivity Curriculum and the Core Curriculum.1 Any of the aforementioned types of curricula can vary considerably from K; .. 1Smith, Stanley and Shores, op. cit., p. #50. ‘- n.1_ w .— “ | i H 5‘, l _ - - III 10b, school to school or program to program within school systems. The interpretation as to style and emphasis of the various aspects of such programs is determined to a large extent by school systems and furthermore can vary in form depending on the manner which they are implemented by individual teachers. The "Core" type curriculum will be considered. The junior ingh school program described and criticized here will be (”I‘ one variant of a core program. The United States Office of Education cites four possible types of core programs used by 519 schools through- out the United States. The following styles of core clearly k illustrate the extent or degree of interpretation which "core" may undergo. Type A--Each subject retains its identity in the core; that is, subjects combined in the core are correlated but not fused. For example, the teaching cm'American literature may be correlated with the teaching of American history. Type B--Subject lines are broken down. Subjects included in the core are fused into a unified whole around a central theme, e.g., "Our American Heritage" may be the central theme for a core unifying history. and literature, and possibly art and music. Type C--Subjects are brought in only as needed. The core consists of a number of broad preplanned problems usually related to a central theme. Problems are based on predetermined areas of pupil needs, both immediate felt needs and needs as society sees them. Members of the class may or may not have a choice from among several problems; they will, however, choose ac- tivities within the problems. Type D--Subjects are brought in only as needed in "C" above. There are no predetermined problem areas 105 to be studied. Pupils and teacher are free to select problems upon which they wish to work.1 The type of program which will be considered in this project is curriculum type "C". Smith, Stanley and Shores list two distinctive features which distinguish the core program from other forms of curric- ulum organization. The first distinguishing characteristic _m g, is the emphasis on a "Core of Social Values."2 The authors explain that the "universal elements of a culture give the society its stability and unity."3 The core of such "uni- f versals" consists of basic values or rules which people accept 4r- to govern their activities. Those values which constitute the "stable and vital" aspects of the universals comprise the heart of the core. Problems concerning the value content of social problems are recognized and a consideration is directed to the moral and cultural implications involved. The authors contend that "it is the chief characteristic of the core curriculum, as a pure type, that the democratic value-system is not only taught as the standard of judgment but also de- liberately criticized and reconstructed so as to bring it into life with the social realities of today."u Emphasis of the core is directed to educational experiences which 1United States Department of Health,Education and Welfare, Core Curriculum Deve10pment Problems and Practices Bulletin, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952, p. 8. 2Smith, Stanley and Shores, op. cit., p. nos. 31bid. "Ibid., p. u69. 106 emphasize the self-realization of a healthy society fostered in a democratic manner. The second distinctive feature of the core curriculum is that "the structure of the core curriculum is fixed by 1 Sub- broad social problems or by themes of social living." ject matter courses are not considered as entities in them- selves but exist for the purpose of extracting information in solving problems related to effective social living. A core program would differ from an activity curriculum in that guidance of the teacher would aid students in suggesting, locating and defining and selecting problems. Unlike an ac- tivity program which depends primarily upon the interests of students, the core utilizes but does not depend solely on expressed student interest. It must be understood, that students have a share in determining organization and seleca tion of areas to be studied. Smith, Stanley and Shores be- lieve that the involvement of pupils in teacher-pupil planning provides them with "valuable training gained through practice in the definition and structuring of problems for study."2 Some of the essential and intended characteristics of the core program are common learnings which should be realized and practiced by all members of society regardless of ability, social status, or vocational plans.3 Even the 1Ibid., p. u71. 21bide , pe LL73. 31b1d. 107 atypical student who is withdrawn from the group should be provided with the opportunity to experience such learnings. Another essential characteristic of the core curricu- lum is the teacher-pupil planning relationship where student and teacher receive valuable experience in planning and sharing ideas. The teacher functions as a guiding element and thus enables students to reach their planned goals successfully. "As a bearer of expert knowledge and the moral authority of the larger society, the teacher insists upon the clarifica- tion of goal seeking and value orientation by processes of critical thought and by reference to the imperatives of a democratic society."1 Subject matter is by no means ignored and skills are taught as they bear significance in the light of problems studied. Thus, reading, spelling, writing, arithmetic, geography are applied to specific situations when their ap- plication bears special reference to an experience, hence displaying the relation of subject matter to real life problems. In order for the core program to operate at peak ef- ficiency, flexibility in curriculum organization is mandatory. Such flexibility allows for the inclusion and develOpment of pupil interest and needs. If individual interests vary as the course of study of a project progresses, the program should be sufficiently flexible to allow for individual devi- ation. Under such circumstances, the student should explore g 1Ibid., p. A75. if areas relevant to the program which are of primary interest to him. Individual opinions of professional educators re- garding the nature of educational objectives of a modern school curriculum may vary, but most beliefs expounded by these men are fundamentally similar. One professional edu- cator states the functions of modern education to include (1) the development of the fundamental academic skills; (2) provisions for general education (whicn includes an understanding and appreciation of our cultural heri- tage); (3) providing problems which involve preparation for living in a complex social order, i.e., health education, training for home and family living, wise use of leisure time, etc.; (A) ample provisions for "exploratory experiences" which enable students to choose vocational goals; (5) recognizing precocious students; (6) provision for vocational training; and (7) adequite preparation for college preparatory students. He concludes by asserting that "good schools no longer resort to blanket prescriptions of educational programs, but attempt through guidance practices to arrange a program for each pupil which will lead to his maximum growth in areas suitable for his particular interests and abilities."2 Unlike a traditional classroom where seating arrange- ments may be determined alphabetically, the atmosphere of the core classroom displays exhibits and projects of students which have resulted from group or individual activity. Seating arrangements may be circular so that all members face each 1Robert H. Beck, The Three R's Plus, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956, pp. 82-83. 2Ibid. 109 other or tables may be arranged in small rectangular groups. Such procedures should enhance a free flow of discussion among students. Most often, teachers have their social study core groups assigned to them for homeroom purposes which provides opportunities for students and teachers to discuss any personal or academic problems. Teachers have ac- _ F' cess to cumulative folders which contain academic social and physical growth of pupils dating back to the primary grades. They are involved with all phases of individual development and often social problems have priority over academic assign- ments. Scholars criticize the emphasis on teacher-pupil relationships which often involve studies of social problems. They believe that such attention to personal matters often interferes with the teacher's development of the academic program. Such matters, they assume, are the concern of parents. Educators insist, as was previously mentioned, that affairs once considered the problem of the home are not al- ways taken care of. The teacher's understanding of personal- student relations can often bring problems to light by dis- cussion and eventually, a solution may result. Unless such issues are given due attention, the learning of academic skills will suffer setbaCks due to time spent upon problems which would otherwise be directed to the study of academic skills. At pre-school conferences, teachers receive curriculum objectives with suggested course outlines which they are I llC expected to cover within the course of the academic year. The actual development of such programs involves teacher- pupil planning. A seventh grade outline might include (1) A Study of Our State, (2) Orientation to Junior High School, (3) Enjoying the Outdoors, (h) A Study of Peeple of Other Lands, and (5) Individual Health and Social Problems. The range of projects takes into account the physical, social, academic, and moral factors which educators assume to be necessary for the development of a sound and responsible citizen. One of the general purposes of the social studies program is to provide opportunities for students to familiar- ize themselves with possible "problems of living" which they may experience. The relationship of government or civics to a local community problem is one example of relating academic content to some "problems of living" which a student may en- counter under a program of this nature. Within the framework of social studies, the areas of history, civics, sociology, economics and geography are found to be related to basic problems which face youth today. In order to obtain signifi- cant and desirable results, close attention must be directed to those areas from which data is extracted and applied toward the solution of such problems. Each "problem" draws freely upon history, for example, to the extent that it provides meaning to the progression and nature of the issue under dis- cussion. Some typical understandings from the social studies areas might appear as follows: Histor : Survey of the social, economic, and political progression of America, emphasizing the development of democracy as a desirable framework for abundant living. Attention should be given facts and details to the extent that a deeper un— derstanding and appreciation of contemporary living will be achieved. Study of the past is useful to the extent that it enriches and clarifies the present. Geography: Basic knowledge of geographic con- cepts and terms necessary to an understanding of the growth of American culture. Survey of land and water areas of the world with emphasis on how prob- lems stemming therefrom effect the world situation. Economics: Basic understanding of the term "free enterprise," and how it affects our lives. This to be interpreted in terms of the student's own experiences with handling of money; progressing grad- ually to concepts of family finance, and from there to the larger concepts of national economy. Sociology: Understandings necessary to achieve desirable relationships between peoples on a racial, national, and personal basis. Development of modes of behavior commensurate with the ideals of democracy. Civics: Understanding and appreciation of the responsibilities of citizenship. Function of machinery of government on local, state and national levels. Promotion of civic ideals, attitudes, and 1 habits that will operate in the lives of the students. Framers of social studies programs believe that material from academic areas should be extracted and applied to experiences which would enable students to see a relation- ship of subject-learned to actual situations. They do not believe in emphasizing a specialization in each subject. The reasoning underlying this belief is founded on the notion that 1East Lansing High School, "Seventh Grade Resource Units," an unpublished article, East Lansing, Michigan, lQSh., p. h. 112 academic skills are not handled as separate entities by in- dividuals when they are implemented in everyday experiences. Furthermore, the dissemination of various academic skills among individuals involves a social interaction. Hence, teachers occupy themselves with the responsibilities of demonstrating how subjects are interielated in the educational scheme, and how best to apply knowlecge to social situations. rmfim . It seems that the goals of a social studies program best I fulfill the task of emphasizing the interrelationships and applicability of the academic disciplines. Insofar as the h'Jh deletion of any academic area is concerned, such may be the ~44. case only when its omission from context will result in a nmre effective unit. Prior to an analysis of the English aspect of the curriculum, attention will be directed to probable criticisms of scholars regarding the development of the social studies program thus far. Scholars violently protest the inclusion of areas of study which deal with "School Orientation," "Individual Health Problems," or "Enjoying the Outdoors." Such areas, they insist, are secondary to the emphasis on subject matter and are matters to be handled out of the school. Such areas of emphasis, which are directed toward personal and social ad- justment, are substituted for academic areas which are re- sponsible for the cultivation of intellectualism. Scholars add that curricula of this nature are involved with "fads and frills," "watered down with mediocrity" or geared toward 113 the enhancement of intellectual retardation. If scholars consider a sound educational program to include the academic areas, professional educators, through the selection of aca- demic content in developing social studies programs have met this objective. The discrepancy which exists in spite of this fact is the neglect of emphasis on subject matter con- tent of hich scholars accuse professional educators. As was expressed earlier in this thesis, the educative value derived from either the subject matter or core curriculum differs markedly in the judgment of scholar and educator. Unless either school of thought relinquishes, even to a small degree, their firm educational stands, it is almost impossible to take into account the views of both factions in developing a school program. Scholars are not only critical of the neglect of subject matter in such curriculums, but they resent the manipu- lation of academic content when it is included in the course of study. The "extraction" of factual data pertinent to "problems” is abhorred by scholars since they contend that much of the "problem devising” originates from within the student. Subject matter is often slighted because of the ignorance and lack of insight into historical background on the part of the students. Scholars are also critical of the over-emphasis on the contemporaneity of problems studied, i.e., current events, or local problems in which merely the periphery of history is studied. Such methodology, they 1r 11b, complain, ignores the importance and implication of his- torical documentation. The development of language arts in the core program involves a consideration of the English language and its constituents. The social sciences and English language are, perhaps, the two major areas of the social studies core pro- gram sometimes referred to as English—Social Studies. Edu- cators render the assumption that communication is an integral tool of self-expression which is the primary objective of the language arts phase of social studies. In order to develop peak efficiency in communication, every available means of com- munication should be experienced as a medium of self-expression. As a result of experiences, problems of self-expression should become identified and realized by the student. As a student progresses in his studies he should grow in his understanding and use of communication skills. The expected result should assure the development of a "rich and abundant life."1 Some specific purposes which are intended as part of the core program are: A. To develop a critical appreciation and understanding of the many and varied means of communication. B. To develop skills of reading which are es- sential to successful participation in our society. C. To promote qualitative growth in the skills of writing. D. To perceive and develop the many techniques of speaking. 1Ibid., p. 8. 115 E. To improve the methods of listening as the receptive part of speaking. The scope of areas in the English phase of the core covers the gamut of language arts. Special considerations are directeo to writing which involves the study of sentence structure, and its components, composition and spelling. The area of reading emphasizes the use and location of source materials, methods of improving reading through attention directed to comprehension, speed and vocabulary. Areas of speech which are emphasized to facilitate communication in- clude training in listening, conversation, forums, panels, formalized speeches of a demonstrative, informative, per- suasive and impromptu nature. Students are also provided with ample opportunity for creativity in the realm of dramatics. Quite similar to the procedures of the social science phase of the core program is the development of language arts skills within the context of problem areas. Educators assert that the separation of learning from effective use in life-like situations is to say that learning without application is pos- sible and desirable. Whenever appropriate, instruction in skill development is related to the unit which students are studying. Students are subjected to the array of academic Skills which teachers are obligated to teach since the aca- demic skills are a part of curriculum objectives. bid. ’.'. ”sum 116 The development of such an English program should hardly be subjected to academic criticisms of neglect of subject matter areas. Not only are the fundamental compon- ents of the English language covered, but a realization of these skills through practical application would seem to take into account all desirable factors. As was stated earlier, scholars are of the conviction that what educators refer to as "language arts" or "English" is actually a melange of radio acting, how to answer a tele- phone, lessons in manners and the like. Teachers assume that an awareness of the value of formal study occurs when the student develops a need for such learnings. Too often areas not considered as essential or pertinent to a unit of study maylae ignored or even slighted. Bestor has often expressed the idea that the attempt to integrate or interrelate areas of the social sciences with English in social studies programs has resulted in a hodgepodge of knowledge. Each subject, he believes, must be treated as a separate unit and in a fashion which would allow for logical analysis. The studying of historical or fundamental processes of a discipline must oc- cur first, before students can expect to possess the facility to relate the skill to other areas. Such methods, he assumes, are possible only for those who have studied the subject from its beginnings, a judgment in which he is joined by other scholars. 117 After the basic objectives for a grade level are understood by the teacher, the process of teacher-pupil planning takes place. As a member of a group, the teacher makes suggestions about projects that the class might under- take, and yet does not force her suggestions upon the group. When it is time to select a new unit, pupils look at the list of topics they might cover and may suggest additional problems which are of primary concern to them. Interest may be stimulated by suggestions advanced from the preceding units. After the list is drawn up, students may pair off into groups, and select a major tOpic. In some instances precocious individuals may desire to pursue more than one area of study. Such selections are based in part on indi- vidual interest and are assigned in accordance with student ability. If interest in a selected topic wanes or another area of interest relevant to the unit under study evolves, attention is re-directed toward solving the alternate problem. It is the teacher's responsibility to point out to students the areas where they need experience and to provide situa- tions whereby individual students can succeed according to their individual abilities. Such procedures allow for recog- nition of individual interests and differences. Scholars frown upon student participation in planning with teachers. They believe that due to limited backgrounds, students are not cognizant of the actual purposes of education. 118 Teachers, they believe, are "missing the boat" when they as- sume students are capable of determining what learnings should be covered in a given assignment. If students do develop the habit of pursuing courses of study peculiar to their own interests, they invariably are due for a sad reawakening. Students, scholars assert, will be confronted by problems ”“”‘ not of their own choice in the adult world. Such education, scholars contend, pacifies the student and does not adequately prepare him for the rigors of our competitive society. The responsibility of the teacher for student growth 4 in all learning phases is not lessened because the class is operating democratically. There are many areas of growth to be concerned with in addition to the skills that are stressed in a more traditional classroom. To enable students to plan and work together, to make wise decisions, and to evaluate themselves and their work, is a sizeable undertaking. Students who have selected problems as a result of teacher-pupil planning begin to explore possible resources which might provide them with suitable information. Upon occasion, students may prepare exhibits, demonstrations or participate in group-planned skits which help to illustrate or clarify their phase of research. The sheer process of *working in groups which involves group sharing and democratic procedure is an important function of group activity. In no instance is an attitude of laissez-faire permitted. Because <1f the activity which might result from different projects 119 studied, members of each group are aware of and held to their responsibilities and assignments. The extent of educative value derived from class projects, e.g., constructing bulletin boards, preparing de- tailed charts, maps or graphs, or preparing skits is evaluated negatively by scholars. They wonder if the amount of time spent on individual enterprise is warranted by the amount of material learned. Educators are not especially concerned with the quantitative aspects of factual data which might be ac- quired. They are concerned with emphasizing social develop- ment as well as academic content. Specifically, sharing, learning to abide by group decision and leadership development are a few of the non-academic skills which educators attempt to develop in students. Scholars also warn against imple- menting methods which encourage over-dependency on group ad- justment. Overemphasis on group adjustment results in a group dependency and an eventual loss of individuality. They believe that superior students are prone to set standards in accordance with the dictates of the commonalty and conse- quently are deprived of developing individual potential. Edu- cators declare that working in group situations not only de- velops democratic skills, but the study of the individual in group atmospheres provides opportunity for individual obser- vation. Individual problems of group relations or interactions are more obvious under such circumstances, hence the teacher is able to diagnose and attack problems before they assume Jr J 120 greater dimensions. Talents of precocious students are recog- nized and opportunities are provided for full development of individual potential. The general process of group activity, scholars assert, does not warrant time devoted and the develop— ment of social and democratic attitudes can be realized as well, if not better, via the study of established disciplines. The unbounded faith which scholars place in a subject-centered curriculum and its supposed effect upon developing the intel- lectual and social areas of the student leaves little consider- ation to other educational programs regardless of the contri- butions that they might make. In Spite of periodic class and personal evaluations by teachers and pupils, scholars refuse to attribute much educative value to a core-type program. Constant evaluation on the part of teachers and students brings to light the amount of growth in both the social and academic areas. Teachers employ procedures which help students gain skill in evaluating themselves and their work. Some typical questions that might be considered are, "How much did I learn?" "Did I cooperate with others in my group?" "Did I solve the problem I was working on?" "Did I choose a good topic?" or "Has my written report improved over earlier papers?" fPhe teacher might reiterate some of the earlier established (ibjectives and review them with students to determine the ex- ‘tent of achievement that may have occurred. A student with social problems who may not have advanced substantially within 'bhe academic realm but has learned to work in a group or has ‘r 121 solved his personal problems to some degree, will be en- couraged for his growth along such lines. If growth in any area has occurred, then some improvement must have been ex- perienced. Perhaps in future class projects students could capitalize on previous errors and learnings and make further strides in classwork. The competent teacher will watch for development in such varied growth processes of his students in further assignments. Scholars are of the conviction that the expression "growth" is hazy since teachers do not establish quantitative standards for students to achieve. In doing this, they ignore the fact that individual differences make such demands impossible. Scholars wonder if anything is really being ac- complished. When referring to the area of growth, they in- terject, "Growth towards what?" Since not all growth pro- cesses are discernible, or can be realized at the time of evaluation, even slight changes in behavior are attributed to some type of growth. Throughout the development of the social studies core unit, the following disagreements between scholars and [xrofessional educators were recurrent. Scholars are of the ccnrviction that true learning occurs when an appeal is made 'to developing intellectual capacities to an optimum. This can be achieved primarily via the academic disciplines. Scholars attest that subject matter serves as a means to cieveloping intellectual ideals which are of primary concern. 122 Professional educators believe that students enjoy and want to learn. Emphasis is placed on "experiencing" or realizing the applicability of learned material to real life situations. Keanwhile, scholars criticize professional educators for pre- cccupying themselves with the task of emphasizing relation- ships of academic skills to everyday experiences. As a result, they insist that professional educators spend time on "prac- tical or meaningful" experiences which might be better directed to the study of academic content. This, they believe is fur- ther evidenced by the over-concern of professional educators regarding individual and social adjustment of the individual with reference to the group. Scholars are of the conviction that social awareness has been emphasized to such extremes that time once spent on the study of academic skills is now replaced by studies of social problems. The study of social problems involves the emphasis upon group adjustment, which scholars believe leads to a conformity and a loss of indi- vidualism. Professional educators believe that students in- crease their learning when an appeal is made to individual interests. Students may COOperate with others in groups 'whose members maintain interests similar to theirs. Many class activities of this nature result from teacher-pupil planning which scholars criticize indicating that it is impossible for students to possess an awareness of what they are required to accomplish. Conclusion of units of study which involve teacher- pupil evaluations are criticized by scholars who insist that educators' notions of educational accomplishments are vague and distorted because of their reliance in evaluations on undeterminable objectives such as "growth." Educators are of the opinion that modern advances in personality study recognize that individual develOpment cannot always be measured on.a quantitative continuum. As was established in the introduction of this dis- sertation, the conflict in viewpoints centers on the issue of what the individual purposes of education should be. Un- less an attempt to achieve a common point of view is made by both factions, a "meeting of the minds' on other issues is undoubtedly impossible. [“ “..“—1 if 121, CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Throughout this dissertation attention has been fo- cused upon the divergent educational philOSOphies of two r schools of thought: scholars and professional educators. In many situations, scholars‘ criticisms are genuine and sincere. At the same time, it is also obvious that there are instances when criticisms are based either on a lack of ‘y_w; evidence or upon attempts of scholars to justify their own unexamined positions by repudiating educational theories or methods. In many instances, scholars are inclined to advance unwarranted criticisms regarding educational neglect of various academic areas. If scholars would familiarize them selves with existing educational methods, they should dis- cover that educational goals which they criticize as absent in educational programs are often part of the objectives 'which.professional educators advance. Criticisms which are 'based on emotional appeal, often employ the technique of :nanw calling and often prevent an intelligent evaluation of exiucational methods. Consequently, any progress in estab- Ilishing common points of view between scholars and profes- syional educators is hindered. Scholars‘ prejudices toward tfiie field of education as a recognized science tends to becloud 125 due recognition of educational procedures or accomplishments which professional educators advance. Their refutation of education as an accepted field of study often affects their evaluations of the methods or contributions which professional educators make. This fact is proven by the limited insight into educational issues which is evidenced by the nature of scholars' criticisms. The assertion that members of the field of education fail to recognize other educational view- points in developing educational programs left scholars wide Open for criticism. No research had been cited by scholars to determine whether the educative value of a liberal education was superior to the type of education promoted by the modern curriculum. Scholars believe that a liberal—type education is responsible for the cultivation of intelligence within the individual. It was also discovered that the value which scholars ascribe to a subject-centered curriculum had hardly been subjected to the empirical testing which characterizes the treatment of disciplines in the modern curriculum. Because professional educators refuse to direct edu- cational objectives upon purely intellectual ends, scholars are convinced that methods employed in developing the public school curriculum are anti-intellectual. They also are of the opinion that colleges of education, under the direction of professors of education who maintain views contrary to the sole emphasis of intellectualism, are by the nature of their theories and methods, anti-intellectual. Thus, it is /' 126 the conviction of scholars that courses of study based upon the'emphasis of academic skills tend to impart intellectual values to their recipients. Current types of curricula, they believe, could never hope to achieve this end as long as emphasis upon socialization factors in preference to aca- demic content continues. In essence, scholars believe that subject matter training is synonymous to the acquisition of intellectualism. Criticisms of the curricula of teacher training in- stitutions was, upon occasion, even supported by professional educators. In order to develop consistency within colleges of education, professional educators should evaluate methods courses periodically to determine whether or not they are accomplishing the goals for which they have been established. This may involve a more critical evaluation of departments of education, and should prevent problems of professional educators from growing to great dimensions. In order to minimize educational conflict, it would be to the profession's advantage that pedagogical deficiencies be discovered by its members and solved rather than providing Opportunities for individuals seeking to exploit education by capitalizing on educational shortcomings. Repeated comparative test results by Selective Service agencies or tests administered to students by independent colleges have revealed that education majors usually rank in the lower percentile when they are compared to college students 1" 127 representing other fields of study. Because a major portion of courses in teacher preparatory curricula fall into the academic areas, education majors should be expected to per- form better than they do on the comparative testing examina- tions. An examination of general ability and aptitude of prospective teachers upon enrollment in college and through their college career should aid professional educators in maintaining higher scholastic standings in the profession by removing incompetent students. An example of scholars' misrepresentation of the objectives of modern educational theorists occurs when they assert that professional educators emphasize the social rather than the intellectual ends in education. Throughout their criticisms, scholars are either unaware or unwilling to accept the sociological theories eXpounded by psychologists and sociologists. Social theorists contend that the inter- change of ideas does not occur in a social vacuum. Scholars fail to give due recognition to the fact that individuals interact when they communicate and consequently do not make any provisions in academic curricula for the develOpment of social awareness. Professional educators attempt to provide students with lifelike situations which should enable them to develop an awareness of social demands and responsibilities. It was discovered that the ability of students to manipulate social experiences so that optimum communication could be effected is to their own and society's advantage. Scholars f g 128 place unbounded faith in the notion that disciplinary training simultaneously meets the demands of academic training and that it provides students with a suitable background in the social skills. This assertion, they eXplain, has proven its value through history in the subject-centered curriculum. Scholars have admitted that they are cognizant of the multi- .miie tude of social problems and demands which individuals experi- { ence in everyday living. In spite of this fact, they fail to make provisions in their curriculum to meet social demands. Hence, scholars cannot hold students responsible for training L which they have never received. It is unreasonable for them to assume that they could impart a social awareness to students when they make no provisions for the development of social skills. Scholars are further aware of the fact that the public school curriculum does contain courses which include the sciences and humanities. Because of modern methods which have proven their superiority over traditional styles of teaching, professional educators refuse to handle academic content in the manner which scholars deem as most desirable. Hence, scholars refuse to acknowledge the fact that students re- ceive adequate training in the academic areas. When they do recognize academic content in the modern curriculum they ex- plain that what teachers teach bears little resemblance to actual courses in the subject-centered curriculum. The im- plementation of educational theory and concepts into the public school curriculum by professional educators not only takes account of the variety of abilities in classrooms which occurs as a result of increased enrollments, but educational techniques when adjusted to individual differences encourage students to remain in school for longer periods of time. Special attention of professional educators is directed to (”mm pupil needs, interests, social develOpment and growth which professional educators deem necessary for individual adjust— . ment. Scholars believe that practices of this nature make inroads on the time which should be devoted to the study of ‘7' subject matter skills. Scholars furthermore are of the con— viction that students are unable to determine goals of educa- tion and that teachers should minimize student opinion in planning assignments. At this point, it is rather conclusive that criticisms of scholars can be expected to continue since professional educators continue to emphasize student partici- pation in unit planning. Furthermore, their opinions reflect a continuing concern for develOping additional means which would develop a social awareness in students to an optimum. Professional educators have discovered that lessons assume greater educative value when students are interested in, or are aware of, what they are studying, why they are studying it, and the significance of subjects studied to their own particular needs. In spite of the fact that educational positions of both schOcls are rather obvious to both groups, the conflict 0 has not lessened. One way of helping alleviate the conflict is the development of an awareness on the part of critics that education as well as other social institutions does change. When newer methods prove their value either by time or experimentation, they will be instituted into the public scnool curriculum. Such reasoning can hardly be repudiated, hence it is the duty of critics to develop an awareness to such change when it does occur. In many in- stances scholars criticized eoucation placing demands upon schools which professional educators were striving to fulfill. If disagreements still cocur, methods of criticizing should be employed so as to be constructive and not expressed in a manner which suggests that they are based on emotional ap- peal or upon limited investigation of areas under criticism. Resentment which has developed because of such practices hinders progress in resolving educational conflict. Since education is a growing field which is experi- encing constant eXperimentation, testing and change, profes- sional educators need to evaluate theory and methodology periodically, discarding the irrelevant and capitalizing upon the more desirable. True, the incorporation of newer methods may encourage further surges of criticism; but with the improvement of communication with scholars and society, education should, through time, establish its position as a recognized, normative science. 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY Book; Barr, A. S., and Burton, W. H. Supervision: Democratic Leadership in the Improvement of Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 19H7. Beck, Robert H. The Three R's Plus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Bell, Iddings Bernard. Crisis in Education. New York: McGraw hill Book Co., 19E9. Bestor, Arthur E. Educational Wastelands. Illinois: Univerl sity of Illinois Press, 1953. Bestor, Arthur E. The Restoration of Learning. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1955. Bertrand, Russell. jggucation and the Social Order. London: Unwin Brothers Ltd., 1932. Butts, Freeman R. A Histogy of Education in American Culture. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1953. Caswell, Hollis L. Curriculum Improvements in Public School Systems. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. Conant, James B. On Understanding Science. New York: New American Library, 1951 Conant, James B. Science and Common Sense. Hartford: Yale Universitwaress, 1952. Haiman, Franklyn S. Group Leadership and Democratic Action. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1951. Hare, Paul, Borgatta. Edgar, and Bales, Robert. Small Groups. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955. , Kluckhohn, Murray and Schneider, David. Personality: In Nature, Society and Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956. 132 Lee, J. Murray, and Lee, Doris May. The Child and his Curricu- lum. Iew'York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1950. Lynd, Albert. anckery in the Public Schools. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1953. MacConnell, Charles 1“1., and others. New Schools for a New Culture. New iork: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Melby, Ernest O. and Puner, Morton. Freedom and Public Education. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1953. Melby, Ernest 0. Story of the Phony Three-R Fight. Anti- Defamation League, 1951. Millard, Cecil V. Child Growth and Development. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1951. Mort, Paul R., and Vincent, William S. A Look at Our Schools. New York: Ronald Press, l9h6. Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1953. Scott, Winifred C., and Hill, Clyde M. Public Education Under Criticism. New uersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. Smith, Mortimer. And Madly Teach. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., l9h9. Smith, Mortimer. The Diminished Mind. Chicago: Henry Regnery CO.’ 19514.. " Smith, Mortimer. Public Schools in Crisis. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1955: ' Smith, 0thanel B., Stanley, William 0,, and Shores, Harlan J. Fundamentals of Curriculum Development. New York: World Book Co., 1956. Thayer, Vern T. Public Education and Its Critics. New York: Macmillan—Co., 195k. 133 Publications of the Government, Learned Societies And Other Ogganizations Russell, William F. How Good Are Our Schools? Twenty-First Annual John Adams Lecture at the University of Cali- fbrnia at Los Angeles, March 2h, l95h. University of California Press, l95h. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Core Curriculum Development Problems and Practices Bulletin. 5Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Progress of Public Education in the Unitgd States of America, 1952:53. Summary Report of the ffice of Education, U. S: Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the Sixteenth International Conference on Public Education, Geneva, Switzerland, July 6-15, 1953, jointly sponsored by the International Bureau of Education and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Progress of PubligIEducation in the United Statgg of America, l953-5L. Summary Report of the Office of Education. Washington: Government Printing Office, 195k. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Prggress of Public Education in the United States of America, 1953754. Summary Report of the Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the Seventeenth International Conference on Public Education, Geneva, Switzerland, July 5-1h, l95h. Jointly spon- sored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the International Bureau of Education. Washington: Government Printing Office, 195k. ‘United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Education. Progress of Public Education _ig the United States of America, 1955-55. Washing- ton: Government Printing Office, 1955: 13h Periodicals Berry, James. "Evaluatin Group Activity," Progressive Education, XXXII July, 1955), 97-102. Broudy, William. "Anti-Intellectualism," Educational Theory, IV (Fall, 195h), 187. Clapp, Harold L. "The Stranglehold on Education," American Association of University Professors, XXXV (Spring, 19h9), BBS-3&8- "The Curriculum and the Domains of Knowledge," Elementary School Journal, LV (March, 1955), 369-72. Curti, Merle. "Intellectuals and Other PeOple," The Education Digest, xx (March, 1955), 7-10. Douglass, Harl. "The Modern High School Curriculum," The School Review, LXIII (January, 1955), 16-2u. Dunkel, Harold. "Quackery_in Education," The Education Digest, XIX (April, l95h), 7-9. "Educationt-Special Report," Newsweek, XXXXIV (December S, 1955) .9 59-67 0 .Gray, William S." "Foundation Stones in the Road to Better Reading, Elementary School Journal, LV (April, 1951), 1427-28 0 Gray, William S., and Iverson, William J. "What Should Be the Profession's Attitude Toward Lay Criticism of the Schools?" Elementary School Journal, LIII (September, 1952) 9 1-1;; Hagar, Walter. "Current Issues in Teacher Education," Educa; tional Leadership, X (October, 1952), 338-ul. Harap, Henry. :Trends in the Production of Curriculum Guides, Educational Leadership, XIII (October, 1955). 35:51- Henry, George and Wood, Daniel. "General Education Within Education," Educational Leadership, IX (March, 1952), 363-65 0 135 Henry, Jean H. "The Trend in Teacher Training," Facts Forum News, (February, 1956), 32-35. Hooper, Laura. "The Child--The Curriculum-~The World of Materials," Childhood Education, XXXI (May, 1955), uu3 Lil-('3 -14-5 0 Kelley, Earl C. "What Are Children Learninr?" Childhood Education, XXXI (September, 1954), 37. Kennan, Richard B. "What Are They Calling You Today?" Childhood Education, XXVIIl (October, 1951), 53-56. Mackenzie, Gordon N. "Supervision Confronts a Changing Curriculum," California Journal of Elementary Edu- cation, V (February, 1937), 18-20. MacLean, Malcolm S. "Are We Discriminating Against Intel- ligence?" The Education Digest, XX (January, 1955), 1.14.. Melby, Ernest 0. "The Pressures on Public Schools," Childhood Education, XXIX (January, 1953). zed—208. Pilley, John. "Evaluation in Teacher Education," Educational Theory, III (January, 1953), 32. Reeder, Edwin H. "The Quarrel Between Professors of Academic Subjects and Professors of Education: An Analysis," American Association of University Professors Bulle- tin, XXXVII7TAutumn, 1951), 505-22. Seyfert, Warren. "What Are the Fundamentals?" The Elementary School Journal, LIV (February, 195a), 32H-32. Skaife, Robert. "The Conflict Continues," The Education Digest, XIX (May, 195M), 1-h. Smith, Othanel B. "New Approaches to Pedagogical Science," Educational Theory, I (May, 1951), 79-86. Smith, Page C. "The Sins of Contemporary Education," The Education Digest, XX (March, 1955), l—h. Trow, William Clark. "Professional Education and the Dis- ciplines: An Open Letter to Professor Bestor," Scientific Monthly, LVII (March, 1953), 1h9-52. "Why Johnny Can't Read," Childhood Education, XXXII (October, "Why Johnny Can't Read " Elementary School Journal, LVI (October, 1955), 91-92. 136 Wynne, John P. "An Opportunity for Professional Organizations to Participate in the Improvement of Accreditation and Certification," Educational Theory, V (January, 1955), 147-52. Zafra, Carlos De. "General Education-~Where It Stands Today," The Clearing House, XXVIII (March, 195A), 387-92. Unpublished Material East Lansing High School, "Seventh Grade Resource Units." Developed in a Staff Workshop, August, 195h. East Lansing Board of Education, East Lansing, Michigan. if” R 2.5!! USE OEQLY. Circulation dept. Date Demco~293 -_-_-——-—— “Q. & " ummmumu ||l||| mu myyuywluu 3 1293 030