A STUDY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN EDUCATmN CONCEPYS BY INDUSTREAL ARTS TEACHER EDUCATORS Dissertafion for the Degree of Ph. D. MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LGWELL SETH ZURBUCH 1973 4" -.: «wag-'7, 7 Thisjs to certify 'tligt' tl}e ‘ I l'f_...-“ ',"'- _ . . “.3 o-thesr§'§nl1tle§, an}:- _ 1 ., A STUDY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN EDUCATION CONCEPTS BY INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHER EDUCATORS presented by LOWELL SETH ZURBUCH has been accepted towards fulfillment ' of the requirements for a PILD. degree in INDUSTRIAL E " Angst; tun Q"? AEVLIHI'T 2...... .. I v".~.' . . ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN EDUCATION CONCEPTS BY INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHER EDUCATORS By Lowell Seth Zurbuch This is a study which might be best described as both historical and descriptive research. It concerns it- self with a recent development in American education known as open education and its implications for industrial arts education. The purpose of the study, as cited in Chapter I, was twofold -- to examine the literature to determine whether industrial arts leaders in the past accepted open education concepts and also to investigate whether industrial arts teacher educators presently hold open education attitudes toward learning and knowledge. The hypotheses were that many of the founders of industrial arts held open education beliefs and that industrial arts teacher educators continue to accept open education concepts. The result of such information would seem to offer important curricular ramifications. Chapter II examines open education which has devel- oped from informal education practices particularly found in elementary schools within Leicestershire County, Great Britain. Open educators feel disposed that there be consistency between their educational beliefs and practices. Lowell Seth Zurbuch It is claimed such beliefs are supported by the work of Jean Piaget and other eminent psychologists. Faith or trust in a student's natural desire to learn appears to lie at the heart of open education. Classroom strategy attempts to operationalize a belief that children learn at different rates and in different styles befitting their individuality. Accordingly the idiosyncratic nature of learning is respected in an open classroom. In addition Chapter II examines ear- lier philosophic support for open education concepts through the writings of Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, and Bode. Chapter III explores manual training, manual arts, and industrial arts literature to examine how open educa- tion concepts have been addressed in the past. There was found to be a great deal of discussion of issues which directly impinge upon open education concepts. Chapter IV serves to describe procedures used to investigate whether industrial arts teacher educators cur- rently accept open education concepts. A Likert type question- naire with twenty-nine statements designed by Dr. Roland Barth at Harvard University was selected for the purpose of this study. The Barth scale was found to be valid by Anthony Coletta at the University of Connecticut. The population selected for this study is the American Council on Indus- trial Arts Teacher Education (ACIATE) from which a sample size of 300 was drawn from the l,096 membership. The ACIATE is comprised of industrial arts professors throughout the United States. The response was 83.6%. Lowell Seth Zurbuch Analysis of the data is found in Chapter V. Exami- nation of the data discloses that the ACIATE accepts open education concepts. Such acceptance appears to be unaffected by age, years of teaching, or geographic region. A factor labeled by Coletta "Learning Facilitators" was most accepted while another of seven factors labeled "Curriculum Flexi- bility" received a "no strong feeling" response. The study concludes with Chapter VI which offers a summary, draws conclusions, and provides implications for re- search. The primary conclusion was that industrial arts teach- er educators held and continue to hold open education beliefs. It would seem industrial arts is at its best when content is drawn from technology as demonstrated by numerous curricular experiments and its methodology from open education. A STUDY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN EDUCATION CONCEPTS BY INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHER EDUCATORS By Lowell Seth Zurbuch A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum I973 Dedicated to my late father, Francis G. Zurbuch, who was my greatest teacher -- not by lofty precepts but rather by the example he set. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A study such as this is not an individual accomplish- ment but rather a cooperative venture. The words "thank you“ are most appropriate but also inadequate. Special appreciation is due Dr. C. Blair MacLean, my advisor, who provided a generous amount of guidance and encouragement throughout the doctoral program. He has proven to be the type of person who extended himself beyond his normal duties. Special appreciation is accorded to Dr. George Ferns, who also contributed so much to make the doctoral ex- perience both meaningful and pleasant. The kindness he and his family extended to my family is most appreciated. Dr. Donald Meaders is likewise deserving of acknowl- edgment. His uncanny insight into educational issues surely helped strengthen this study. Indeed his conscientiousness and scholarship are admired. In similar fashion, appreciation is extended to Dr. Robert Schlater, who as an "outsider" from my cognate field often apologized for his "innocent" questions, which in fact proved so perceptive. Appreciation is due Mary Kennedy, Geoffrey Yager, and Dr. Andrew Porter of the Office of Research Consultation for their valuable assistance for the statistical aspects of this study. Mrs. Virginia Wiseman of the Graduate Student Affairs Office is surely deserving acknowledgment. Her assistance has been invaluable. Dr. Robert Hittick is deserving recognition for his cooperation with the computer graphics programming. Appreciation is extended to Drs. Roland Barth, Charles Rathbone, and Anthony Coletta and Phi Delta Kappan for assistance and permission to use the Barth scale. Acknowledgment is also directed to the membership of the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, who participated in this study. Credit is in turn due Professors Richard Bentley and David Mohan at Kent State University for graphic arts assis- tance. Dr. Charles Chandler at Kent State University like- wise is acknowledged for his offer to serve as historical research critic. Appreciation is also extended to Mrs. Gladys Reid, who typed the final copy. A A special word of appreciation is extended to my family. To my mother, Mrs. Francis Zurbuch, and mother and father-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. James Slagle, for their unceas- ing support and encouragement. Likewise special appreciation is due my daughter, Mary Louise, who as a child was willing to forego many family iv activities. In retrospect her years in Spartan Village and various superb day care centers offered a cherished experi- ence for meeting children from throughout the world. It is fitting to conclude with very special appreciation for my wife, Bonnie Lee. She has graciously sacrificed so much in order that the doctorate might become a reality. She be- came the breadwinner during the residency, typed the manu- script and duplicate final copies, and somehow made time to serve as mother and wife. May my appreciation be demon- strated in a way more meaningful than this public statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES. I. THE PROBLEM AND PURPOSES OF THE STUDY. Introduction Problem Statement. Hypotheses . . Importance of the Study. Limitations of the Study Definitions of Terms Industrial Arts. Open Education . Organization of the Remainder of the Study. II. REVIEW OF OPEN EDUCATION LITERATURE Introduction . Open Education . . General Criticisms of Traditional Education. . Specific Criticisms of Traditional Education. . Control. Evaluation Lesson Plans . Training versus Education. Facilities and Media British Primary Schools Open Education in the United States: Theoretical Basis of Open Education. . . Open Education in Operation. Future of Open Education . Philosophic Support for Open Education John Amos Comenius . Jean Jacques Rousseau. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi Friedrich Froebel. vi Page ix —l LDCDNUWWOJN—J ll III. IV. John Dewey . . Boyd Henry Bode. Summary. . EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS OF PREVIOUS INDUS- TRIAL ARTS LEADERS . . . . Introduction . . . Organization Rationale . Manual Training Influenced by the Russian System Manual Training Influenced by the. Sloyd System . . . Manual Arts and Industrial Arts. Errors of the Past . . Progression via Influences General Theories Democratic Education Curriculum Methods. . . Trade and Job Analysis Lesson Plans Student Evaluation Individual Needs . Interest and Creativity. Teacher's Role . Summary. . DESIGN OF THE STUDY. Introduction Population . Sampling Procedure . Instrument Description Validity . . Reliability. . Factor Analysis. Data Collection. Data Processing. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Testing the Hypotheses Reliability. . . Factor Analysis. . . Correlation between open Education Acceptance and Age . . Correlation between Open Education Acceptance and Years of Teaching Analysis of Variance by Geographic Regions. . . . . . . Summary. vii l79 l79 I79 180 l89 I94 l94 l97 20l 207 212 2l6 220 229 229 233 236 239 242 245 245 245 246 247 248 249 250 250 251 253 253 273 273 277 278 278 285 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . Summary . Conclusions . Implications for Research BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES A. DC Letter of Permission from to Use Barth Scale. Letter of Permission from Ka an to Use Barth Scale . Barth Scale Questionnaire to ACIATE Dr. Barth Phi Delta Mailed. . Letter Mailed to ACIATE Non- Respondents viii 286 286 293 297 299 308 309 310 311 Table LIST OF TABLES Numerical Assignment of Responses to Barth Scale. . . . Barth Scale Factors Ranked by Mean of Means . . . . Means of Acceptance of Open Education Concepts by Geographic Regions Analysis of Variance for Difference by Geographic Regions for Open Education Acceptance . . . . . . . . . ix Page 254 274 279 279 Figure 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES ACIATE Aggregate ACIATE Responses Assumption 1 ACIATE Responses Assumption 2 ACIATE Responses Assumption 3 ACIATE Responses Assumption 4 ACIATE Responses Assumption 5 ACIATE Responses Assumption 6 ACIATE Responses Assumption 7 ACIATE Responses Assumption 8 ACIATE Responses Assumption 9 ACIATE Responses Assumption lO. ACIATE Responses Assumption ll. ACIATE Responses Assumption l2. ACIATE Responses Assumption l3. Responses to Barth Scale. to Barth Scale to to to to to to to to to to to to Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Page 257 258 259 259 260 260 261 261 262 262 263 263 264 264 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. ACIATE Responses Assumption l4. ACIATE Responses Assumption l5. ACIATE Responses Assumption l6. ACIATE Responses Assumption l7. ACIATE Responses Assumption l8. ACIATE Responses Assumption 19. ACIATE Responses Assumption 20. ACIATE Responses Assumption 21. ACIATE Responses Assumption 22. ACIATE Responses Assumption 23. ACIATE Responses Assumption 24. ACIATE Responses Assumption 26. ACIATE Responses Assumption 28. ACIATE Responses Assumption 25. ACIATE Responses Assumption 27. ACIATE Responses Assumption 29. Cloropleth Display of ACIATE Data via Symap Program. . . Isarithm Display of ACIATE Data via Symap Program. to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth Barth xi Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale 265 265 266 266 267 267 268 268 269 269 270 270 271 271 272 272 281 282 33. 34. Cloropleth Block Diagram of ACIATE Data via Symvu Program. Isarithm Block Diagram of ACIATE Data via Symvu Program . xii 283 284 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND PURPOSES OF THE STUDY For more than a hundred years much complaint has been made of the unmethodical way in which schools are conducted, but it is only within the last thirty that any serious attempt has been made to find a remedy for this state of things. And with what result? Schools remain exactly as they were. If any scholar, either privately or in school, embarked on a course of study, he found himself a butt for the mockery of the ig- norant or the malviolence of the ill-disposed, or finally, being unable to obtain any assis- tance, found his endeavour too laborious, and gave it up. Thus all efforts have hitherto been in vain.1 --Comenius, 1632 Introduction During the past several years a new revolution in education has come to the United States. A variety of terms are used to describe the quiet revolution. In some quarters it is known as informal education, the integrated curriculum, and a variety of other descriptors. Open education appears to be the most popular label in this country. Many of the principles are reminiscent of the progressive education era of nearly fifty years ago. The similarity is impressive between contemporary open education literature and that which has been written in 1John Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius, trans. M. N. Keatinge (New York: Russell & Russell, lQlO), p. 259. l 2 years past concerning industrial arts. Did not many of the founders of industrial arts urge the adoption of what are in effect open education concepts? Has not the best of indus- trial arts for many years been open education? William Van Til identifies advocates of open education as the "compas- sionate critics." He speaks of the compassionate critics as generally being "long on wisdom about children and short on knowledge of the educational leaders who preceded their own generation."2 It is in such a context that this study was under- taken. In other words, this study is not designed to simply laud industrial arts leaders as pioneers of progressivism in American education. Quite to the contrary, this study is an attempt to document present as well as past beliefs about education held by industrial arts leaders. Presumably such information has curricular implications. Therefore this study is described as both historical and descriptive re- search. Problem Statement The problem is to investigate beliefs held by indus- trial arts teacher educators about open education concepts. This study is intended to provide a comparison between the beliefs held by the founders of industrial arts and those of today's industrial arts teacher educators. Consistency or 2William Van Til (ed.), Curriculum: Quest for Relevance (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971), p. 6. 3 redirection from the past can thus be examined to provide curricular implications. Furthermore, this study is designed to attempt to determine whether industrial arts teacher edu- cators vary in their acceptance of open education when com- pared by age, years of teaching, and by geographic region. Before such a description and comparison of past and present beliefs can be reported, it is vital to examine open education concepts. In so doing it would be prudent to ex- amine the philosophical and historical heritage which but- tresses open education. Hypotheses One hypothesis is that industrial arts teacher edu- cators hold beliefs about learning and knowledge which are in agreement with open education concepts. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that industrial arts literature contains evi- dence that many of its founders held what are now regarded as open education beliefs. Importance of the Study While not wishing to overinflate the importance of its contribution, this study is nevertheless important in light of the curricular transformation currently taking place in industrial arts. What educational beliefs are held by industrial arts teacher educators? Is there consistency between the stated beliefs of industrial arts teacher educa- tors and their classroom practices? Do industrial arts teacher educators view learning differently from other 4 teacher educators? These and a host of other similar ques- tions are surely justifiable studies. We simply need to know where we are going, what route we have selected, and whether we are traveling with others. Avoidance of these questions leads to educational bedlam. This study is designed to investigate only a small portion of the foregoing questions. The study is necessarily multi-faceted. A review of the literature is by no means perfunctory but rather central to communicating a belief about the contributions of industrial arts. Such an exami- nation is vital to establish whether industrial arts has an open education heritage. The literature review thus serves as a bench mark against which to evaluate a survey of edu- cational attitudes presently held by industrial arts teacher educators. If industrial arts can be shown to have been founded on open education concepts, it becomes noteworthy whether or not industrial arts teacher educators remain con— sistent in their open education beliefs. If industrial arts teacher educators are identified through the survey as hold- ing open education beliefs, a question arises whether there is consistency with the industrial arts curricula in our schools. There is also the question of discrepancy between numerous experimental curricular projects in industrial arts which appear to refute Open education and the stated be- liefs of industrial arts teacher educators favoring open edu- cation. Conversely, assuming that industrial arts can be shown as being sympathetic toward open education in the past, 5 it would be important to discover if industrial arts teacher educators now ascribe to a model other than Open education. Such a discovery would signal a new watershed in industrial arts education, perhaps suggesting a redirection. Limitations of the Study This study is designed within a number of predeter- mined limitations. Such parameters are necessary to estab- lish a framework for both the investigator and reader. The first limitation is that the study makes no attempt to as- sert the supremacy of open education concepts. A disclaimer is obviously appropriate inasmuch as open education fits but one model of education. The struggle to describe and estab- lish implacable definitions of learning continues. The prob- lems of defining learning phenomena both frustrate and in- spire educators. The history of the rise and fall of var- ious psychology models in education pr0phetically cautions about the dangers of being steadfast in our positions toward learning. This is not to suggest open education as being without an empirical psychological foundation. Proponents for open education find support in the research of Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, Carl Rogers, Kenneth Wann, and J. McVicker Hunt. The second limitation involves the scope of the in- strument used in this study. The questionnaire examines whether one accepts open education assumptions about learn- ing and knowledge. It does not attempt to describe whether 6 respondents practice open education in their classrooms. Nor does the instrument measure a wider continuum of attitudes toward learning and knowledge beyond open education. A third limitation concerns the validity of the in- strument used for the purposes of this study. The question- naire used was designed by Roland Barth for his doctoral dis- sertation at Harvard University in 1970. The Barth scale has recently been statistically analyzed by Anthony Coletta at the University of Connecticut, and the results of his re- search will be offered in Chapter IV. Nevertheless, one re— mains uncertain whether the nuances of human motives and ac- tions can be predicted. Human behavior is too unpredictable to justify categorical assertions from the results of a questionnaire. Therefore it seems prudent to couch findings as being suggestive rather than being absolutely definitive. A fourth limitation concerns the population selected for the administration of the instrument. The population selected is the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education (ACIATE), which contains most of the professors of industrial arts throughout the United States who are teacher educators. The study doesn't examine the acceptance of open education held by industrial arts majors in college or industrial arts teachers in elementary and secondary schools. Perhaps attitudes toward open education held by the professors can be inferred as being compatible with those of industrial arts majors and elementary-secondary school industrial arts teachers. However, such an inference 7 is beyond the purposes of this study. Aside from the ob- vious advantage of a convenient membership directory, the decision to concentrate on industrial arts professors was made inasmuch as they are assumed as being influential in curricular innovation for the whole of industrial arts. A fifth limitation deals with the time span of the literature review which commences in 1632 with Comenius. Although others, such as Martin Luther and Francis Bacon, are reported to have held open education beliefs, it was deemed sufficient for the purposes of this study to document no earlier than Comenius. The sixth limitation concerns the documentation in the literature review, which is selective rather than ex- haustive. Repetition of views may result from an overly ex- haustive literature review. The tenor of attitudes is ex- pected to be demonstrated by a selective literature review. Judicious decision making when compiling a selective litera- ture search must be followed to assure a realistically accu- rate overview. The seventh limitation is an assumption. Respon- dents to the questionnaire, as industrial arts teacher edu- cators, presumably tended to inject industrial arts into each assumption rather than the whole of education. Definitions of Terms Inasmuch as the terms "industrial arts" and "open education" are frequently used throughout this study, it 8 is most appropriate that definitions be provided the reader, should these terms be unfamiliar. Unfortunately, to a cer- tain extent exact universally accepted definitions are diffi- cult to provide. Therefore several definitions for indus- trial arts are provided for the reader's perusal. Open edu- cation is even more difficult to define. Precise defini- tions appear to be scarce. The reflection of open educa- tion's evolving nature and multi-interpretation appears to cause open education authors to suspend formal definitions in favor of descriptions and examples. Industrial Arts Bonser and Mossman provided an antecedent defini- tion in 1923 by defining industrial arts as “a study of the changes made by man in the forms of materials to increase their values, and of the problems of life related to these changes."3 In 1948 Wilber provided a more expansive and popu- larly accepted definition of industrial arts as "those phases of general education which deal with industry -- its organization, materials, occupations, processes, and pro- ducts -- and with the problems resulting from the industrial "4 I and technological nature of society. 3Frederick G. Bonser and Lois Coffey Mossman, In- dustrial Arts for Elementary Schools (New York: The Mac- millan Company, 19257, p. 6. 4Gordon 0. Wilber, Industrial Arts in General Edu- cation (2d ed.; Scranton, Pennsylvania: InternétTonal Text- BOOE Co., 1954), p. 2. 9 The American Industrial Arts Association in 1969 published four statements of purpose considered unique to industrial arts. They are the following: [1.] To develop in each student an insight and understanding of industry and its place in our so- ciet . . . . f2.] TO discover and develop student talents in industrial-technical fields. . . . [3.] TO develop problem-solving abilities re- lated to the materials, processes, and products of industr . . . . [4.5 TO develop in each student skill in the 5 proficient and safe use of tools and machines. . . . Open Education Tatis speaks of open education as an umbrella term for a more flexible approach to education in elementary, sec- ondary, and higher education. She also makes reference to the recent influences of the British infant schools. Her definition Of Open education is the following: Open education is a method of fostering the per- sonal growth and expansion of knowledge of students through (a) expanded and/or flexible facilities such as interest centers within self-contained classrooms, new open-plan schools, or community facilities; (b) trust in the student's desire to learn and ability to choose his own learning experiences; (c) provision of many and varied learning materials; and (d) emphasis on a posi- tive role for the teacher as a facilitator and guide to learning.6 5American Council of Industrial Arts Supervisors, American Industrial Arts Association, Industrial Arts Educa- tion (rev. ed.; Washington, D.C.: American IndustFialvArts Association, Inc., 1969), pp. 4-5. 6Rita Tatis, "Opening Up Education: A Guide to New Vocabulary," The Journal of Teacher Education, XXIII (Spring, 1972 , 91. 10 The Tatis defintion of open education concentrates upon its method which provides operational terms for greater understanding. However, the method of Open education is undergirded with a set of concepts. Perhaps not each con- cept is unique to open education, but, taken collectively, they serve to establish the bailiwick of Open education. Barth's twenty-nine assumptions about learning and knowledge are frequently cited in Open education literature as the concepts which are manifested in the methods of open education. Consequently, for the purposes of this study the Barth scale was administered to a sample drawn on the member- ship Of the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Edu- cation. Several of these assumptions which follow may sug- gest the position held by open educators: Assumption 7: Children have both the competence and the right to make significant decisions con- cerning their own learning. Assumption 14: Children learn and develop in- tellectually not only at their own rate but in their own style. Assumption 20: Those qualities of a person's learning which can be carefully measured are not necessarily the most important. For the purposes of this study the foregoing defi- nitions are considered adequate. A more expansive descrip- tion of industrial arts and open education will be developed in Chapters II and III. 7Roland S. Barth, "So You Want to Change to an Open Classroom," Phi Delta Kappan, LIII (October, 1971), 98-99. 11 Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II contains a review of the literature which develops the direction of the study. The literature review includes two interrelated topics. These include contempo- rary open education and early philosophic support for open education. The open education section of Chapter II provides a rather thorough description of criticisms toward certain educational practices as contrasted against a description of open education beliefs and practices. Criteria for selec- tion of open education authors for reference purposes was accomplished by a rather thorough examination Of the litera- ture. Correspondence and telephone conversations with sev- eral individuals frequently found in the literature provided advice as to including other authors. Furthermore, inter- views with other authorities who demonstrate interest and knowledge about open education Offered suggestions concern- ing appropriate citations for the purposes of this study. The section on philosophic support toward Open edu- cation is organized in a chronological context emphasizing the contributions of selected philOSOphers; namely, Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, and Bode. These philosophers were selected due to the frequency they are cited in progressive education literature, which itself con- tained many of the beliefs common to Open education. Chapter III, the industrial arts literature review, emphasizes beliefs and issues common to both open education 12 and industrial arts. Guidelines for selection of authors in the industrial arts literature review is established by four sets of criteria. (1) Early authors were to be found in Bennett's book.8 (2) Industrial arts authors were also to have been teacher educators. (3) Such authors were recom- mended by interviews and correspondence with numerous author- ities of industrial arts history as having written about issues now considered Open education. (4) Furthermore, the industrial arts leaders included in the literature review were to no longer be active leaders in the field. It should be noted that a serious and sincere attempt was made to search for statements in opposition to open education con- cepts as well as those supportive. Chapter IV is utilized to describe the design Of the study. The population will be described in terms of composition and rationale for its selection. The sample drawn on the population will then be reported. Instrument selection rationale is discussed, including validity and reliability. The data collecting procedures are reported, including instrument preparation, mailing, and contact of non-respondents. Data processing is then described in terms of record keeping and coding technique in preparation for the computer. 8Charles Alpheus Bennett, History of Manual and In- dustrial Education, 1870 to 1917 (Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1937). 13 Chapter V is devoted to the analysis Of the data. As previously identified in the problem statement, the prin- cipal question is whether industrial arts teacher educators are in agreement with open education concepts. Data will be displayed in charts and graphs in addition to verbal de- scriptions. The data will also be analyzed for possible correlations between ages of respondents and acceptance of Open education concepts. The years of teaching of respon- dents will also be examined for correlation with open educa- tion acceptance. An analysis Of variance throughout the eight geographic regions will also be reported. Chapter VI contains a summarization, conclusions drawn, and implications for additional research. The sum- mary provides a brief overview of the study with its pur- poses and procedures. Conclusions will be directed toward the interpretation of the literature search and the signifi- cance of the data collected. The implications for research will cite ramifications this study has generated. Included will be recommendations for initiation of subsequent studies of a tangential nature to this study. A bibliography and appendices follow the conclusion of Chapter VI. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF OPEN EDUCATION LITERATURE Introduction Chapter II is divided into two sections, including an examination of open education and its early philosophic support for open education. The open education section studies criticisms Of traditional education, alternatives Offered by open education, and the potential dangers in- curred by its unwise implementation. The philosophic sec- tion covers a time span from the early 1600's to the late 1930's. Selective references are studied to Offer support for Open education. Open Education As briefly discussed in Chapter I, open education is undergirded by certain beliefs toward learning and knowledge which are evidenced by rather unique classroom practices. Open education finds its heritage in that which can legiti- mately be classified progressive education although contem- porary open education authors credit the current renewal of such beliefs and practices to informal education in Great Britain. 14 15 General Criticisms of Traditional Education Open education advocates level numerous specific criticisms toward traditional education. Included are com- plaints toward matters such as control, docility, teacher domination, and evaluation. Although these and other mat- ters will subsequently be discussed, it is essential to first examine other overriding considerations to more fully appreciate the spirit and impact of Open education. Open educators equate most of our school environ- ments as being impersonal educational factories. The pres- ent system is viewed as society's perception of education and children in general. Open educators acknowledge that popular acceptance and implementation of open education are dependent upon society's approval of open education views. There are social, economic, and political ramifications which our society may or may not accept or be willing to confront. Inasmuch as Open education is so elusive when one seeks a definition, it also becomes difficult to decide which Of many authors speak for all of Open education. Since it is yet evolving, it seems acceptable to Offer the views of many authors critical of our traditional education system. Occasionally an educational critic makes a state- ment which goes beyond the bounds popularly accepted within open education. For example, John Holt and Paul Goodman have made statements in Opposition to compulsory education which may be too radical for other open educators. 16 Charles Silberman's Crisis in the Classroom appears to be a hallmark in the criticism of traditional education. With the support of the Carnegie Corporation, Silberman spent nearly four years visiting schools throughout the United States. He provides his reader with a most frightening and compelling observation when he generalizes about our schools. It is not possible to spend any prolonged period visiting public school classrooms without being appalled by the mutilation visible everywhere -- mutilation of spontaneity, of joy in learning, of pleasure in creating, of sense of self. The pub- lic schools -- those "killers of the dream," to appropriate a phrase of Lillian Smith's -- are the kind of institution one cannot really dislike until one gets to know them well. Because adults take the schools so much for granted, they fail to appreciate what grim, joyless places most Amer- ican schools are, how oppressive and petty are the rules by which they are governed, how intellectu- ally sterile and esthetically barren the atmos- phere, what an appalling lack of civility Obtains on the part Of teachers and principals, what con- tempt theg unconsciously display for children as children. It appears open educators are very critical Of the present educational system popularly found throughout the United States. They argue that the needs of children are being ignored in what may be an unpremeditated fashion by an educational establishment having dissimilar views on the purposes of schools. John Holt has carefully observed children at home and in school. His observations are Often very poignant and filled with insight. 9Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), p. 10. 17 Nobody starts Off stupid. You have only to watch babies and infants, and think seriously about what all Of them learn and do, to see that, except for the most grossly retarded, they show a style of life, and a desire and ability to learn that in an Older person we might well call genius.1 One wonders how children so full of promise as in- fants Often become less successful in our schools. Open educators contend that our schools are based on the mass production system model which has been so successful in in- dustry but very inappropriate for the education of our youth. Our large buildings run children through the curriculum in a most expeditious manner. Schools are not without suc- cess. Each year our schools receive many visitors from other countries to see our mass education experiment first hand. The mass production educational climate has realized a false economy. Open educators contend that our schools are Often doing a good job but must do much better if schools are going to continue to meet the needs of youth and society. There are two goals to which education must attend, declares Silberman. The first is more visible in that poorer schools must be brought up to the level of the best. Such an achievement may not be sufficient, for the best schools we now have are not good enough. Therefore the secondary objective must be to redirect all schools to better meet the needs of youth and society. Such a task 10John Holt, How Children Fail (New York: Dell Publishing CO., Inc., 1970), p. 207. 18 will require tremendous conviction, foresight, and coopera- tion.H Silberman notes that the educational crisis is af- fected by more demands on young peOple than ever before. There are so many decisions to make that the young are often bewildered. The result often leads to a total rejection of culture, morality, and our legal system. The bewilderment also tends to cause the young to equate authority as being 12 It is into such a context that the im- the same as power. pact of change affects education. Our country has especially been affected by all types Of change, not the least Of which is technological. Postman and Weingartner note that there are those who believe that change has always been with us but fail to realize that the rate Of change has changed.13 50 many of the Open educators are angered by an edu- cation which has opted to resemble a single minded factory at a time when the young desperately need to understand the changes taking place. They find it difficult to understand why society has changed, but not our schools.14 Ashley Mon- tagu's description of our schools is typical of other open educators' views. 1‘Silberman, op. cit., p. 4. lZIbid.. pp. 22-25. 13Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity_(New York: Delacorte Press, 1969), pp. 10-11. 141bid., p. xiii. 19 The continuing traditional methods of "education" have really nothing whatever to do with the func- tions and purposes of a genuine education, namely, to nourish and to cause the individual's uniqueness and creativity to grow. On the contrary, what tra- ditional education for the most part succeeds in achieving is the frustration of the individual's uniqueness and creativity. This is customarily achieved by putting the child on an assembly-line in which, instead of being treated as the unique individual he is, he is dealt with as if he were exactly like everyone else. In the factories called schools the child is forced to engorge large quantities of rote-remembered facts, and then at certain calculated ceremonial ordeals called "examinations," he is required to disgorge these facts onto blank sheets of paper thus leav- ing his mind blank forever thereafter.15 The result is not too satisfactory, claim the open educators. John Holt describes the effect of the mass pro- duction schools as forcing children to become producers rather than thinkers. They diligently slog through the tasks which become ends in themselves. In effect the means have become the ends.16 Obviously there are enough outward successes to give credence to the system. However, there are more failures than readily apparent. Holt charges that there are many students who fail becoming what they might have been.]7 These failures include matters of creativity, self-reliance, and joy Of living. An aphorism is suggested by Postman and Weingartner to describe the transformation of school children. "Children enter school as question 15Harold H. Hart (ed.), Summerhill: For and Against (New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc., 1970), p. 51. 15Hoit, How Children Fail, p. 48. 17Ibid., p. 13. 20 n18 marks and leave as periods. Silberman notes that it is strange that so few students rebel against an educational system they secretly despise. He quotes the comments of a high school student. "The main thing is not to take it personal, to understand that it's just a system and it treats you the same way it treats everybody else, like an engine or a machine or something mechanical. Our names get fed into it -- we get fed into it -- when we're five years Old, and—if we catch on and watch our sgep, it spits us out when we're 17 or 8. . . ." One wonders why more students don't reject the sys- tem. Surely there are some students who are basically satis- fied with school although even they find it at times rather insipid. Holt maintains that youth often treat school as a postponement of gratification. Even in the suburbs, school is unspeakably dull, and usually painful, but the middle-class child puts up with it, because his elders dangle a car- rot in front Of him and wave a stick behind him, and he wants the carrot and fears the stick. The slum child, and indeed the failing child in any school, after a while no longer believes in the carrot and no longer fears the stick. You aren't going to get those prizes they dangle in front of you. As for punishments, well, if you're a child, there is only so much that society can do to you, and you soon get used to that. Not only used -- even proud of it; when a child has been, so to speak, ritually cast out Of society a certain num— ber of times, he soon feels that he would rather be outside than inside.2 18Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 60. 19Silberman, .E- 313., p. 155. 20John Holt, The Underachieving School (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Tic., 19697, p. 143. 21 The growing militancy in the schools is unnerving for teachers and administrators. Herbert Kohl speaks of one particular instance. Bright students in many schools I have visited re- cently are the leaders of student movements and feel social action is more important than academic success. This poses a great problem for authori- tarian administrators since the threat of giving poor grades to rebels no longer holds much force. One administrator complained to me that when he threatened to fail some A-track students they told him to go ahead since they didn't care to succeed in his type Of school. He felt disarmed -- and he was. His only resort was to call in the police to control his students.2 Bruno Bettelheim believes that parents view schools as the key to success for their children and thus sacri- fice them to the future. The result is to place children on a competitive treadmill in our schools from which chil- dren can't escape.22 Our success orientated society offers youth in schools few options. Postman and Weingartner con- tend that to question what is going on in the schools re- quires a student to drop out. They believe that acceptance of authority is the price into the "Establishment."23 Consequently, we have produced a process we misname education, says John Holt. He explains why the potential of the infant is not fully realized in our schools. 2IHerbert R. Kohl, The Open Classroom (New York: The New York Review, 1969), p. 44. 22Hart, op. cit., p. 111. 23Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 24. 22 What happens is that it is destroyed, and more than by any other one thing, by the process that we misname education -- a process that goes on in most homes and schools. We adults destroy most of the intellectual and creative capacity of children by the things we do to them or make them do. We destroy this capacity above all by making them afraid, afraid of not doing what other peOple want, of not pleasing, of making mistakes, of failing, of being wron . Thus we make them afraid to gamble, afraid 0 experiment, afraid to try the difficult and the unknown. Even when we do not create chil- dren's fears, when they come to us with fears ready- made and built-in, we use these fears as handles to manipulate them and get them to to [sic] do what we want. Instead Of trying to whittle HOWn their fears, we build them up, Often to monstrous size. For we like children who are a little afraid Of us, docile, deferential children, though not, of course, if they are so obviously afraid that they threaten our image of ourselves as kind, lovable people whom there is no reason to fear. We find ideal the kind of "good“ children who are just enough afraid of us to do ev- erything we want, without making us Seel that fear of us is what is making them do it.2 The social and economic implications of the present school system which disturb the "compassionate critics" need further development. John Holt is one of the most critical. He contends that parents appear to secretly value the baby- sitting function of our schools.25 Exploitation goes even further, claims Holt. He alleges that children are made to feel they must do well by the school. Their performance -- good and bad -- is a reflection upon the school. The gifted students are particularly exploited as they are used as a school's showcase. One of the original purposes of com- pulsory education was to save children from labor in an 24Holt, How Children Fail, p. 208. 25Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 78. 23 evolving industrial empire. Exploitation today takes place in the schools as many children are expected to put in a seventy hour week to meet school Obligations.26 The result of such exploitation, claims Holt, is for fears and anxi- eties to be produced in children beyond a level which adults would themselves accept. The activity in the school thus becomes self-defeating, since children soon forget their d.27 Bruno Bettelheim lessons once the pressure has passe supports Holt's views by noting that growth is a slower pro- cess than some educators seem to realize. Bettelheim urges that educators eschew the urge to initiate too many early academic activities. He contends there is a danger children may become full of facts but unsocialized and unable to live with others.28 Paul Goodman views the schools as a holding action to keep the young away from interrupting the "delicate social machine." He acknowledges that such may be unavoidable but that schools should at least prepare the young for later en- trance into the adult mainstream. He counters that Ivan Berg's study at Columbia indicates that dropouts are as successful as high school graduates. Goodman thus concludes that "schools seem to run for their own sake."29 25Ibid., p. 37. 2711011;, How Children Fail, p. 91. 28Hart, 9p. cit., p. 117. 291bid., p. 210. 24 Goodman's views are echoed by Erich Fromm when he charges that each dropout is a nay vote against our schools. He asks whether there isn't a correlation between dropouts and juvenile delinquency. Schools must share responsibility 30 In this context for the social environment we live in. Holt criticizes school systems which have in effect spent enormous sums ultimately causing children to hate school only to spend additional monies to lure the dropouts back into the fold. If schools had done right by students in the first place, there could be incredible savings of all types. In effect Holt is suggesting that our schools hold a higher regard for our most valuable natural resource, our young people.31 Concomitant to the attitude toward dropouts is a dogma developed that poor city children, especially black children, cannot be taught. Holt believes that such a dogma eases the consciences of educators.32 Silberman reinforces Holt's position by asserting "the defects and failures of the slum schools are but an exaggerated version of what's wrong with all schools." Aside suffering from a banal cur- riculum which is often totally irrelevant to the needs of ghetto youth there also enters the "hidden curriculum." The children of the more affluent benefit from a home environment 301bid., p. 252. 3'IHolt, The Underachieving School, p. 183. 321bid., p. 158. 25 which compensates for and reinforces school activities. Such incidental learning may mean the difference between failure and success in schools.33 Holt is thus led to sug- gest that we should discontinue clamoring for integrated education by the present methods. Such pressure only polar- izes our society. Instead we should see all schools as un- satisfactory and in need of attention. He feels that inte- grated education is best realized by integrated housing.34 Erich Fromm thus summarizes the general failure of our schools. In turn he notes that the schools are but a reflection Of society as a whole. Our economic system is geared to produce men who fit its needs: men who cooperate smoothly, men who want to consume more and more, men whose tastes are standardized, men who can be easily influenced, men whose needs can be anticipated, and men whose needs can be manipulated. By the very nature of this process, our system also creates men who are anxious, men who are bored, men who feel inordinately lonely, men who have few convictions, men who have scant values, and most deplorably, men who have no joy in living. For most individuals today ggperience little alive— ness within themselves. Silberman thereby directs our attention from what is to what should be. He goes back to a conclusion of Wil- ford M. Aikin, who directed the famous Eight-Year Study which was concluded in 1942. Aikin wrote, "It is not enough to create better conditions for learning. It is equally 33Silberman, op. cit., pp. 113-114. 34Hoit, The Underachieving_School, p. 161. 35Hart, op. cit., p. 252. 26 necessary to determine what American youth most need to learn.“36 John Holt summarizes the charges against traditional education. His summary appears to be representative of the views of most open educators. Behind much Of what we do in school lie some ideas, that could be expressed roughly as follows: (1) Of the vast body of human knowledge, there are certain bits and pieces that can be called essential, that everyone should know; (2) the ex- tent to which a person can be considered educated, qualified to live intelligently in today's world and be a useful member of society, depends on the amount of this essential knowledge that he carries about with him; (3) it is the duty Of schools, therefore, to get as much of this essential knowl- edge as possible intO the minds of children. Thus we find ourselves trying to poke certain facts, recipes, and ideas down the gullets of every child in school, whether the morsel interests him or not, even if it frightens him or sickens him, and even if there are other thgggs that he is much more in- terested in learning. Traditional education has survived for a variety of reasons. For many teachers and society in general tradi- tional education fits a correct model for education. Silber- man believes that traditional education has survived because of unquestioned assumptions. Survival of traditional edu— cation and its underlying assumptions is viewed more as a factor of the slow pace of times past than inherent credi- bility. Radical changes sweeping our society have led to a reexamining of traditional education.38 36Silberman, op. cit., p. 349. 37Holt, How Children Fail, pp. 215-215. 38Silberman, op. cit., p. 207. 27 John Holt believes that the case for traditional education is weaker now than ever before. The certainty of information serving as a basis of traditional education is no longer possible. Knowledge must now be viewed as tempo- ral. Therefore our decisions and actions must be couched in a new rubric. We must realize that complete information is impossible and make decisions accordingly. Likewise, stu- dents should be learning how to make decisions by using in- complete and changing information. Ability to discern the most important facts becomes a valuable asset. The renais- sance man concept is no longer viable. Not only has there been an explosion of knowledge, but obsolete knowledge has also increased at a similar rate. Many Of the facts we adults were taught as children are no longer accepted by the “experts." Our inability to know an entire "body of knowledge" need not be a determent. Holt tells of the work Of Watson and Crick. They entered into a study without what would normally be considered an adequate prerequisite of knowledge. Rather than look upon their “lack of background in the fundamentals" as a limitation, they attacked their problem in a revolutionary fashion. Their "handicap" led to the discovery of the DNA molecule. One wonders whether our conventional outlook toward knowledge and preparation has not led to rather uncreative behavior.39 39Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 171-187. 28 A departure from conventional education views may lead critics to charge that such a departure would lead to a lessening of standards. Postman and Weingartner counter that what pass for high standards are actually low standards, since they are unreal and uncommon in daily life. Adults don't solve problems by the regimented procedures unique to our schools.40 John Holt supports this view by declaring that even graduates from the best of our "high standard" schools are not educated in the true sense of the word. They have been "successful" by being able to conform.41 William Hull, a close friend Of John Holt, speaks of the effect of schools which pride themselves in "high standards." The daily races in the classroom reward a limited and not very valuable range of talents. Given such a system, one should not be surprised that students with real creative potential are increasingly to be found among the deviants. the misfits. The tragedy is that those who are un- willing or unable to meet such narrow perfor- mance demands will have their confidence in their own ability destroyed and will be left with little understanding of their own talents, while those who are successful have their own price to pay. There is an intellectual discrimination in Ameri- can schools that is every bit as vicious and damaging as racial discrimination.42 Holt charges that many of the supposably able stu- dents are not as able as they first appear. They have 4OPostman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 67. 41Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 106. 42Charles H. Rathbone (ed.), Open Education: the Informal Classroom (New York: Citation Press, 1971), p. 56. 29 developed a scheme whereby they are able to manipulate sym- bols and words to impress the unsuspecting. However, these students become resentful when their ploy is discovered by an astute teacher or employer who probes for examples and interpretations of the symbols. In effect such students are able to provide impressive facts but lack a meaning making ability. As a result high standards can become very hol- low.43 In another publication Holt identifies what he con- siders to be the basic reasons for the failures of our schools. He identifies three things society expects from schools. These include passing on traditions, an awareness of the world today, and preparation for employment. Holt believes that trouble results when schools see these as their exclusive bailiwick. These responsibilities must be shared by parents, churches, organizations, corporations, media, and indeed the whole of society. The problem results when one is unable to distinguish between schooling and edu- cation. Schools suffer from a delusion of grandeur by act- ing as though one's entire education only takes place in a school. As a consequence children come to develOp a false separation between work and education.44 Silberman ampli- fies Holt's views by suggesting that a prolonged disengage- ment from society damages the student and society. The 43Ho1t, How Children Fail, pp. 210-212. 44Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 4-5. 30 disengagement causes the student to become too self occupied. Society suffers by losing the services Of its young. The great accomplishments that have gone down in history were often performed by young men and women who were apparently at a zenith in their creativity. Today this is more diffi- cult inasmuch as Our young people are being contained in schools. The extended training period for physicians and the accompanying shortage of doctors is a case in point.45 Eda LeShan supports Silberman's view by discussing Maslow's work. Maslow has taken a position in opposition to the behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. Maslow Objects to the mechanistic information, pouring-in approach Of behaviorism. Rather than continue the extrinsic learning approach, LeShan supports Maslow's desire for schools pursuing an intrinsic approach for self-actualization.46 Adjunct to the question of the school's role in society is the matter of compulsory education. Several writers argue against compulsory education. Their views do not appear to be pOpularly shared by all Open educators, but open educators are apparently sensitive to the question of compulsory education. Paul Goodman and Ivan Illich have been outspoken critics of compulsory education. John Holt has recently joined their ranks. Goodman notes that only within the last 100 years has compulsory education gained 45Silberman, Op. cit., p. 118. 45Hart, pp. cit., pp. 133-135. 31 a foothold. Prior to that time virtually all learning was incidental. Goodman maintains that incidental learning is natural and an excellent method largely ignored by the schools. The original incentive for compulsory education was to protect the young from exploitation in the factories. Now the young are exploited by keeping them away from a so- 47 ciety which doesn't need a larger work force. Ivan Illich's publication, Deschooling_Society, by its very title conveys his views. The overall message is that our society has come to look upon the schools as the single greatest personal and societal improvement institution. As a result adults have taught their children that school success is the key to adult success. Therefore go to school and secure a diploma that says you are educated whether or not you actu- ally are. Illich argues that we must dispense with our ob- session for formal education because Of the damage to values. He insists human needs are not being met. Under the authoritative eye Of the teacher, several orders of value collapse into one. The distinctions between morality, legality, and per- sonal worth are blurred and eventually eliminated. Each transgression is made to be felt as a multi- ple offense. The offender is expected to feel that he has broken a rule, that he has behaved immorally, and that he has let himself down. A pupil who adroitly Obtains assistance on an exam is told that he is an outlaw, morally corrupt, and personally worthless. Classroom attendance removes children from the everyday world of Western culture and plunges them into an environment far more primitive, magi- cal, and deadly serious. School could not create 47Ibid., p. 205. 32 such an enclave within which the rules of ordinary reality are suspended, unless it physically incar- cerated the young during many successive years on sacred territory. The attendance rule makes it possible for the schoolroom to serve as a magic womb, from which the child is delivered periodi- cally at the schoolday's and school year's com- pletion until he is finally expelled into adult life. Neither universal extended childhood nor the smothering atmosphere of the classroom could exist without schools. Yet schools, as compulsory channels for learning, could exist without either and be more repressive and destructive than any- thing we have come to know. Holt describes how his classroom Observations ulti- mately led him to conclude that compulsory education is harmful. He believes that compulsory education demonstrates that schools are jails for children. The public has, in effect, said to our schools, "Lock up our children for six or more hours a day for a hundred and eighty or so days a year, so that they will be out of our hair and out Of trouble -- and, by the way, while you have them locked up, try to educate them." The two de- mands are contradictory and self-canceling. 9 Holt argues that much Of the vandalism and disci- pline problems in schools are caused by students who don't want to be there. Such acts are seen as the only way of striking back. He contends that student-teacher relation- ships suffer from the prison-like school atmosphere. In effect he is saying that attendance can be mandated but interest cannot. As evidence of the infeasibility Of com- pulsory education Holt notes that it is inefficient in that 48Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society (New York: Harrow Books, 1972), pp. 47-48. 49Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 71-72. 33 children can often make up in two days the work missed from a week's absence. Holt believes teachers to be arrogant and unrealistic for decrying a truancy as being a precious learn- ing experience forever lost. He suggests that schools use public libraries as models. Voluntary attendance in a li- brary leads to none of the discipline problems schools ex- perience. A redefinement of schools would imply that atten- dance would have to be earned, not mandated, and that chil- dren would learn what they wanted when they wanted to learn.50 Adoption of open education requires that many ques- tions be answered. One such question has to do with who do the schools serve -- individuals or society. There are those who feel that since society pays the taxes, society should be the benefactor from public education. This is much like the father who complains about his adolescent son. "As long as he lives in my house, he is going to keep his room clean. I'm paying the bills, not him." Unfortunately such a father doesn't realize it is his son's home too. Open educators recognize that it would be both undesirable and unrealistic to ignore society's needs but appear to be in agreement that first priorities must favor individual needs.51 501bid.. pp. 71-74. 5IPostman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 2. 34 One is left to wonder why schools are so bad if in- deed they are. There are a variety of answers. Holt al- leges that Often teachers are to blame. The very teachers who began their profession with a missionary like zeal be- come frustrated when their attempts fail. The frustration results from bucking equally frustrated students who feel incarcerated. Thus the teachers tend to become contemptuous of the very students they once sought to help. Consequently, many teachers become spiteful and sadistic.52 Silberman disagrees with Holt by suggesting that there are inferior teachers but not a disproportionate num- ber in comparison to other professions. Silberman believes the causes are much deeper. He suggests that society doesn't truly care about what actually takes place in class- rooms. In fact society appears to hold teachers in low es- teem, as evidenced by stereotypes paraded through the media. Silberman found by his extensive travels that teachers often work in uninspiring environments. He frequently found de- plorable working conditions. It appears that administrators felt economy could be demonstrated by having teachers in classrooms virtually every period. Little time is provided for reflection and dialogue; thereby teaching becomes a lonely profession. Competence appears to be judged by the results of standardized tests and silence from the teacher 52Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 154. 35 and his charges. It is not unusual, therefore, that classes are conducted so as not to provide a poor reflection on the 3 teacher.5 Very little help comes to the teachers and what does come is only superficial. Teachers have become suspi— cious of "resource personnel" as being members of the ad- ministration spy network. Consequently, teachers become de- fensive and tend to anticipate failure. Unfortunately it too Often becomes a self-fulfilling prOphecy.54 In this context teachers employ a variety of strat- egies in the classroom. One such strategy has been satiri- cally described by Postman and Weingartner as the seductive method. The goal remains the same: to get into the stu- dent's head a series of assertions, definitions, and names as quickl as possible. (This is called "covering content.“ The method turns out to be a set of questions posed by the teacher, text, or machine which is intended to lead the student to produce the right answers -- answers that the teacher, text, or machine, by gum, knew all the time. This is sometimes called "programmed learn- ing." So far, most students have been neither tricked nor intrigued by it. They recognize the Old shell game when they see it, just as they recognize a ggcture given on television as more of the same. John Holt agrees with Postman and Weingartner and adds that planned discussions are Often phony. A preplanned “discussion“ found in a lesson plan book in which key points are to be covered is not a discussion at all but rather a 53Silberman, 9_p_. 931., pp. 141-144. 54Ibid., p. 321. 55Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 28. 36 teacher dominated discourse. In actuality the discussion is more correctly called an “answer pulling" exercise.56 Piaget has decried such practices. He writes, “The principal goal Of education is to create men who are capable Of doing new things, not simply Of repeating what other generations have done -- men who are creative, inventive, and discoverers, . minds that can be critical, can verjfy, and not accept everything they are Offered."5 Postman and Weingartner speak Of the roles in which too many teachers envision themselves. One they know as the “Lamplighter" who wants to illuminate the minds Of students lest they be cast into outer darkness. Another teacher likes to think of himself as a "Gardener" who sets out to cultivate young minds. Still another fancies himself as a “Personnel Manager" whose busy students become industrious. The “Muscle Builder" wages an exercise program against flabby minds. The "Bucket Filler" seeks to fill up the minds of students with his precious message. The essential flaw in the rationale of these teachers is the implication that all students are alike. The differences of children aren't being accommodated in such an environment. In most of the other metaphors there is an as- sumption Of "sameness" in all learners. The “garden" to be cultivated, the darkness to be lighted, the foundation to be built upon, the clay to be molded -- there is always the im- plication that all learning will occur in the same way. The flowers will be the same color, the light will reveal the same room, the clay will take the same shape, and so on. Moreover, 56Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 107. 57Silberman, op, cit., p. 219. 37 such metaphors imply boundaries, a limit to learning. How many flowers can a garden hold? How much water can a bucket take? What happens to the learner after his mind has been molded? How large can a building be, even if constructed on a solid foundation?5 Specific Criticisms of Traditional Education In addition to the general criticisms, Open educa- tors lodge a number of specific criticisms toward tradi- tional education. The following discussion serves to iden- tify more specific complaints. Control Open educators criticize the controls which schools attempt to impose. The teachers as well as students suffer from such controls. It is more pervasive than control of speech and movement. Control extends to time, curriculum, and indeed what to think. John Holt speaks to the issue of control. He de- cries teachers' obsessions with order and discipline. It is his contention that such a model Of education and the re- sulting problems are in large measure the consequence of compulsory education. Their model Of education and the classroom is an assembly line in a factory. Down the line come the children, a row of empty jugs; beside the ‘line, each in his place, stand the teachers, pouring into these jugs out of containers marked English, math, etc., prescribed quantities of knowledge. The pouring is easy -- anyone can do 58Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity. pp. 82-91. 38 that; anyone can do the things they tell you to do in the teachers' manuals. The real problem, the teacher's real job, is to get children to sit still on the conveyor belt while he does the pouring. This is why these teachers, like almost all teachers, think that learning is a by-product of order, that if you can gust create the order, the learning must follow.5 Herbert Kohl SUpports Holt's Observations by criti- cizing the almost fanatic mania for control. His poignant descriptions identify the scope of petty bureaucratic de- tails apparently designed to control children. Rather than consider order as a result Of learning, teachers become pre- occupied by trying to first maintain order. Consequently, more time and energy is given to control than to education. The entire staff of the school was obsessed by "control," and beneath the rhetoric of faculty meetings was the clear implication that students were a recklegs, unpredictable, immoral, and dan- gerous enemy. 0 A battle wages in our schools. It is no longer un- common to find police officers patrolling hallways in insti- tutions purporting to be centers of learning. The schools have indeed become tinderboxes. Silberman cites the results of a poll taken in 1969 at an annual high school principals' convention. Of the principals sampled, some 60% admitted to having had “significant student protests in their schools "61 during the past school year. Do the schools have to be 59Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 142-143. 60Kohl, op. cit., p. 13. 61Silberman, _p. cit., p. 13. 39 camps of insurrection? Open educators appear to be united in their beliefs that schools can be vastly better if they become vastly different. They contend that the present school structure must change as well as our attitudes toward children and education. Not only must teacher attitudes change, but also those of parents and the society in general. The prospects for new attitudes do not appear to be too prom- ising. Silberman speaks Of the results of a poll taken in 1969 by Louis Harris. Almost two-thirds of the parents of high school students polled believe that "maintaining disci- pline is more important than student self-inquiry." Twenty- seven percent Of the teachers polled felt the same as the parents.62 Not all Of the controls result in violence, but the effects are nevertheless damaging. It is as though student behavior is restricted to a narrow band in order to be con- sidered "normal." Anthony Kallet notes that teachers think of children who fall outside of the narrowly conceived normal band as being "problems," the result of which is Often a self—fulfilling prophecy.63 Other controls are more unobtrusive but nevertheless damaging. The injudicious use of a student's past records is a case in point. Kohl speaks of a teacher speaking to a new student. "You're Off to a good start this year." The 521bid., p. 145. 63Rathbone, _p. cit., p. 27. 4O implication for the student is that a poor start was ex- pected. Attempts toward homogeneous grouping have a similar effect. Disguises seldom work. "Bluebirds" know what is expected of them and tend not to perform above expecta- tions.64 Open educators are also adamant toward schools which are Obsessed with controls of talking and movement. They reject the implication that learning is passive. Silberman notes, “The cardinal sin, strange as it may seem in an in- u65 stitution of learning, is talking. He tells of an ex- perience during a school visitation to secure information for his book. In lecturing the assembled students on the need for and virtue Of absolute silence, an elementary school principal expostulates on the wonders Of a school for the "deaf and dumb" he had recently visited. The silence was just wonderful, he tells the as- sembly; the children could all get their work done because of the total silence. The goal is explic- it: tO turn normal children into youngsters be- having as though they were missing two Of their faculties.6 Control of time is another hallmark of traditional education to which Open educators object. They view learn- ing which starts and stops on cue from a bell as being un- real. Such tactics are considered to favor administrative efficiency rather than pedagogy. Rather than rely upon 54Koh1. _p. cit., pp. 17-19. 65Silberman, op. cit., p. 145. 66Ibid., p. 128. 41 spontaneity, learning is expected to take place when sched- uled.67 Schooling such as this produces a sub-culture in schools in which students have designed survival strategies. John Holt appears to be the foremost spokesman. His class- room observations Offer insight as to what actually goes on in classrooms, not from a teacher's perspective but from the student's. Children's fear of being wrong has led to a variety of strategies. A common strategy is "minimax," which minimizes failure probability while maximizing chances for success. Students quickly learn to be sensitive for clues for the right answer guessing game. Teachers' ques- tions and movements often provide clues. One wonders what causes such strategies. Holt offers an explanation. . . . I find myself coming to realize that what ham- pers their thinking, what drives them into these narrow and defensive strategies, is a feeling that they must please the grownups at all costs. The really able thinkers in our class turn out to be, without exception, children who don't feel so strongly the need to please grownups. Some Of them are good students, some not so good; but good or not, they don't work to please us, but to please themselves. Here is Walter, just the opposite, very eager to do whatever people want him to do, and very good at doing it. (By conventional standards he was a very able pupil, so much so that people called him bril- liant, which he most assuredly was not.) Children may tend to believe they are in school so they won't be stupid when they grow up. Apparently they 57Ibid., pp. 123-124. 58Hoit, How Children Fail, p. 40. 42 believe that only through the school can they be delivered from their stupidity. Such a low self-esteem results when children haven't been taught that history is filled with contributions from individuals without any formal education. It is most unfortunate that some students equate stupidity with ignorance. One can be ignorant Of many facts and yet use a minimum of facts in a most intelligent manner. Children have been led to believe that every ques- tion has an answer and the only good answer is a "yes" an- swer. They haven't been taught that "no" answers can be most valuable. The less successful students find relief in any answer even though they secretly suspect an error. The uncertainty is maddening. Holt contends that infants don't employ such defensive traits. He believes schools must assume the blame. When I started, I thought that some people were just born smarter than others and that not much could be done about it. This seems to be the Official line of most Of the psychologists. It isn't hard to believe, if all your contacts with students are in the class- room Or the psychological testing room. But if you live at a small school, seeing students in class, in the dorms, in their private lives, at their recrea- tions, sports, and manual work, you can't escape the conclusion that some people are much smarter part Of the time than they are at other times. Why? Why should a boy or girl, who under some circumstances is witty, observant, imaginative, analytical, in a word, intelligent, come into the classroom and, as if by magic, turn into a complete dolt?69 Consequently, Holt urges student teachers to con- centrate observations toward students rather than the 69Ibid., pp. 25-26. 43 "master teacher." Only by watching students over a long pe- riod of time can a teacher really discover what is actually taking place in the classroom. Schools and teachers seem generally to be as blind to children's strategies as I was. Other- wise, they would teach their courses and assign their tasks so that students who really thought about the meaning of the subject would have the best chance of succeeding, while those who tried to do the tasks by illegitimate means, without thinking or understanding, would be foiled. But the reverse seems to be the case. Schools give every encouragement to producers, the kids whose idea is to get “right answers" by any and all means. In a system that runs on "right answers," they can hardly help it. And these schools are Often very discouraging places for thinkers. Until recently it had not occurred To me that poor students thought differently about their work than good students; I assumed they thought the same way, only less skillfully. Now it begins to look as if the expectation and fear of failure, if strong enough, may lead children to act and think in a special way, to adopt strategies djf- ferent from those of more confident children. 0 Holt suggests that teachers begin to see the school experience in the same perspective as the students. Stu- dents tend to concentrate on completing day to day tasks while the teacher has more of a global outlook.7] He argues that such narrow strategies are conceived in fear, boredom, and confusion. They are afraid, above all else, Of failing, Of disappointing or displeasing the many anxious adults around them, whose limitless hopes and expectations for them hang over their heads like a cloud. They are bored because the things they are given and told to do in school are so trivial, so dull, and 701bid., p. 48. 7lIbid., p. 45. 44 make such limited and narrow demands on the wide spec- trum of their intelligence, capabilities, and talents. They are confused because most of the torrent of words that pours over them in school makes little or no sense. Evaluation Open educators are united in their Opposition to the grading procedures found in most schools. They differ in their choice of alternatives. John Holt is strongly opposed to the grading system. He compares the behavior Of an in- fant against a school age child and suggests tests have damaging effects. Pre-school age children learn extremely well without formal tests. They employ self-testing proce- dures whereby comparisons are constantly made between one's performance and reality. The child compares his actions against Older children and adults. He thus adjusts his be- havior until he too has mastered his objective. Even when alone, the child constantly is experimenting and analyzing until the task is mastered. Holt challenges those who argue that child's play obviously does not require formal testing like high levels of learning. Both he and Goodman argue that humans learn to talk, which is an extremely difficult task, without the aid of formal testing. There are teachers who contend their tests serve to assess learning whereby additional learning can be facili- tated. Holt contends this justification is about 95% untrue. He sees tests being used to threaten children into improved 721bid., p.16. 45 discipline and greater learning. Holt also contends that grades are used to hand out rewards and punishments in keep- ing with the demands of the coercive educational system. If such a purpose is unavoidable, Holt believes the schools should be honest and admit to the public such is the case.73 Postman and Weingartner support Holt's views by suggesting that grades "tend to pollute the learning environ- ment." The authors ask why must grades be recorded and made public if indeed grades are necessary for learning. Grades tend to haunt students and damage self concept. As such, grades describe one's past but are a poor forecast of one's future.74 Postman and Weingartner suggest that student grades should not be made public unless teacher evaluations likewise are made public.75 Holt charges, "Tests arouse the fear and satisfy the greed." He also believes that students come to concentrate on the grade rather than on learning. The student-teacher relationship becomes a duel rather than a common search for truth. As such, "fair teachers" are those whose test ques- tions are predictable.76 73Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 53-55. 74Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner, The Soft Revolution (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., I971), pp. 113-114. 75Ibid., p. 114. 75Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 56. 46 Ivan Illich also speaks out in support of Holt's views. Illich's views toward grades are likewise adamant. The institutionalized values school instills are quantified ones. School initiates young people into a world where everything can be measured, including their imaginations, and, indeed, man himself. But personal growth is not a measurable en- tity. It is growth in disciplined dissidence, which cannot be measured against any rod, or any curriculum, not compared to someone else's achievement.77 Holt offers other criticisms Of the grading system. He also opposes tests because they favor the guesser while penalizing the slower more analytical student. In addition, Holt questions whether tests accurately measure what they purport. Language limitations hamper test construction and interpretation. To avoid giving away answers a certain ele- ment Of ambiguity tends to result. Even those tests which are purported to be Objective contain an element of sub- jectivity in that it is at the teacher's discretion which questions are asked. Holt also Objects to tests for they destroy self-reliance. Tests inhibit self-examination traits found displayed by an infant. Holt charges that it is most unfortunate when students must rely so much on their teacher for verification.78 William Hull offers Opposition to standardized tests. He contends standardized tests tend to become the classroom 77Illich, op. cit., p. 57. 78Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 59-60. 47 dogma. As such, eXplOitation of students and teachers re- sults. Learning suffers as priorities shift to preparation for tests rather than preparation for life. Competition re— sults whereby comparisons are drawn to satisfy the narcis- sistic demands of the more able students and their parents. Hull writes about other effects caused by such educational "standards." I have Observed some Of the changes taking place in a school where parents and teachers have become increasingly concerned about standards. It is very easy, in the absence of a compelling counter-example, to be caught up in a concern for a limited kind of academic excellence, a concern that manifests itself in setting carefully prescribed "production" sched- ules. A few people recognize that these schedules reflect standards meaningless to the child as he really is and are aware of how destructive they can be for children. Most educators, however, take them seriously and are ready to evaluate their own effectiveness as teachers, and that of their col- leagues, on the basis of “Objective" tests admin- istered to the chilggen after completing masses of detailed busy work. John Holt sees much of schooling as miseducation. He describes how natural curiosity Of childhood is destroyed by fear and confusion. Consequently, frustrated teachers come to develop strategies on how to motivate children as though motivation is not an inherent trait. Holt summa- rizes the educational establishment's failures in a com— pelling manner. We encourage them to feel that the end and aim of all they do in school is nothing more than to get a good mark on a test, or to impress someone with what they seem to know. We kill, not only their 79Rathbone, _p. cit., pp. 43-44. 48 curiosity, but their feeling that it is a good and admirable thing to be curious, so that by the age Of ten most of them will not ask questions, and will show a good deal of scorn for the few who do. In many ways, we break down children's convic- tions that things make sense, or their hope that things may prove to make sense. We do it, first of all, by breaking up life into arbitrary and disconnected hunks of subject matter, which we then try to "integrate" by such artificial and irrelevant devices as having children sing Swiss folk songs while they are studying the geography of Switzerland, or do arithmetic problems about rail-splitting while they are studying the boy- hood Of Lincoln. Furthermore, we continually con- front them with what is senseless, ambiguous, and contradictory; worse, we do it without knowing that we are doing it, so that, hearing nonsense shoved at them as if it were sense, they come to feel that the source of their confusion lies not in the material but in their own stupidity.80 Not all open educators are as critical of evaluation as John Holt. Charles Silberman believes evaluation is im- portant but must be more intelligently administered and in- terpreted. What is wrong with the present system is not the use of grades per se, but the fact that the award- ing Of a grade has been divorced from the larger function Of evaluation, thereby preventing it from fulfilling its proper educational purpose. An evaluation is_an important part of the teaching-learning process. Tests, examinations, term papers, projects, etc., are useful to stu- dents, teachers, and administrators alike. . But teachers and administrators rarely view ex- aminations in these lights; if students do poorly, the reflection is on them, not on the teacher or the school. Evaluation is even more important, of course, to the student himself. Tests should warn him when he is falling below minimum standards of per- formance. . . Schools rarely use tests for these purposes, either, except, perhaps, as a storm signal. It is 80Holt, How Children Fail, p. 209. 49 a rare high school, for example, in which a stu— dent ever sees his final examination paper again, once he has handed it in; in most schools, there is no feedback at all. . . . The procedure thus makes it clear to students that the purpose of testing is not evaluation but rating -- to pro- duce grades that enable the school to rank stu- dents and sort th§m in various ways for adminis- trative purposes. 1 Lesson Plans Open educators also Object to the frequent misuse of lesson plans. Herbert Kohl voices numerous oppositions to such use of lesson plansl He contends that lesson plans en- force an unnatural rigidity upon students as much as time schedules.82 Roland Barth augments Kohl's beliefs by sug- gesting in traditional education time is the child's master, not servant.83 Silberman speaks of the lesson plan as a sort of contract to which the teacher feels a deep Obliga- tion. Deviations from the lesson plan to further altruistic purposes for students tend to result in teacher discomfort. It is as though getting Off on a tangent is verboten. Sil- berman suggests that lesson plans provide teachers with se- curity from decision making once the plan has been designed. As such, the lesson plan becomes tyrannical by mandating an 84 Obsession with routine. John Holt asks that teachers 815i1berman,9_p.£113., pp. 347-348. 82Kohl, pp. 313., p. 48. 83Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 129. pp. 84Silberman, cit., p. 125. 50 cease thinking of the lesson plan as a sacred document.85 Kohl discusses the effect of undue reliance upon the lesson plan as being a "teacher trap." He reminisces his first year of teaching by describing a conversation with a second year teacher. She tried to reassure him by suggesting "after the first year teaching is just like being a secretary."86 Kohl summarizes his feeling about the regulation of time through the use of the lesson plan. Time in most schools is considered a precious quantity, and teachers are upset when they feel time is wasted. But the conventional notion Of "wasted time" is deceptive. In fact time is wasted in school by all sorts Of things -- taking attendance, lining up, collecting papers, re- hearsing rules and routines. It is also Often wasted by going through material that bores every- one and is attended to only by pupils who are the most dependent on the teacher. . . . It is a fic- tion that students must follow a set number of procedures in a set time in order to learn to read, think, and make decisions, just as it is a fiction that babies learn to walk and talk by following a prescribed pattern. There is no one way to learn, nor are there specific stories or experiments all young people must go through. The notion that learning is or- derly and ought to be identical for all pupils is wrong and in many ways pernicious. It leads to the notion Of remedial work -- i.e., the idea that students who have not followed the temporal sequence set by the teacher have somehow failed and need remedial attention. Remedy for what?87 Silberman's views on the lesson plan appear to be representative Of other Open educators. He contends the 85Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 99. 86Kohl, _p. cit., p. 28. 87Tbid., p. 52. 51 teacher's use of lesson plans illustrates a confusion of means with ends. All over the United States, that last week of NO- vember 1963, teachers reported the same complaint: "I can't get the children to concentrate on their work; all they want to do is talk about the assas- sination." The idea that the children might learn more from discussing President Kennedy's assassina- tion -- or that like most adults, they were simply too obsessed with the horrible event to think about anything else -- simply didn't occur to thegg teach- ers. It wasn't in that week's lesson plan. Training versus Education Open educators voice opposition to traditional edu- cation which is narrowly conceived. Such is regarded as training rather than education. Training is viewed as the acquisition Of facts and skills while education implies a reasoning ability to order one's life. Silberman writes of the futility Of a narrow view of education. Moreover, students need to learn far more than the basic skills. For children who may still be in the labor force in the year 2030, nothing could be more wildly impractical than an education designed to prepare them for specific vocations or professions or to facilitate their adjustment to the world as it is. To be “practical," an education should prepare them for work that does not yet exist and whose na- ture cannot even be imagined. This can only be done by teaching them how to learn, by giving them the kind of intellectual discipline that will enable them to apply man's accumulated wisdom to new prob- lems as t ey arise -- the kind of wisdom that will en- able them to recognize new problems as they arise. More important, education should prepare people not just to earn a living but to live a life -- a creative, humane, and sensitive life. This means that the sgaools must provide a liberal, humanizing education. 88Silberman, pp, cit., p. 124. 89Ihid., pp. 113-114. 52 Presumably Silberman is not advocating a narrowly conceived liberal education lacking utilitarian value to which Sidney Marland Objects. Marland argues against the "general curriculum“ which he considers as depriving grad- uates from adequate preparation for adult life. Uncertainty over the proper preparation for as yet nonexisting occupa- tions should not cause educators to acquiesce. Students deserve preparation for existing occupations as well as fu- ture occupations. Obsolete knowledge and skills become less Of a problem if our society comes to see education as con- tinuous. The social stigma attached to occupational re— training must cease as society comes to regard such retrain- ing as a natural result Of technology.90 Facilities and Media Open educators appear to be unanimous in their op- position to the present facilities and educational media commonly found in traditional schools. They Object to static ostentatious classrooms with displays personally prepared by the teacher. An implied look-but-don't-touch reverence for displays severely limits media effectiveness. Open edu- cators are also united in their opposition to furniture arrangements commonly found in schools. They contend that chairs all facing a teacher's desk strongly implies a student subservience to an authoritarian teacher. The companion 90Keith Goldhammer and Robert E. Taylor, Career Education: Perspective and Promise (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill’POETishinglCO., 1972), p. 35. 53 implication is that students are dependent upon the teacher as the source of information. Consequently, Open educators ask why classrooms have fronts.9] Over reliance on textbooks and media "packages" is seen as a handicap for both teachers and students. John Holt charges that textbooks are bland results of conserva- tive textbook selection committees. He alleges that text- books avoid controversial topics so as not to cast our folk heroes and nation in bad light. Such distortions Holt sug- gests result in information management. Holt contends that over reliance on textbooks also limits teachers and students in much the same fashion as lesson plans. The textbook it- self becomes a sacred lesson plan. Books become enemies which students seek to avoid. The discomfort from being forced to read aloud frustrates children. Mispronunciations lead to public ridicule. Consequently, children are driven from rather than toward books. Holt suggests teachers make students read aloud because there is lack of faith in stu- dent competence. He contends teachers are too anxious by correcting each student's mispronunciation. Students can read and enjoy books which are supposably above their com- prehension by simply skipping the difficult parts. In time their vocabulary will grow, and the difficult parts will become comprehensible. Holt contends that rather uncre— ative English teachers cause children to lose sight of the enjoyment and creative aspects of English as a tool of 9IKOhl, _p. cit., pp. 34-37. 54 communication. He suggests the mania for correct spelling be curtailed and that private themes be encouraged.92 William Hull believes that increased monies for edu- cational packages have brought mixed blessings. Workbooks, for example, make efficient use of time, but students come to see completion of the tasks as ends rather than as means. Likewise, students and teachers come to depend upon work- books and lose a sense Of self-direction. Verification of truth consequently comes from the succeeding pages in pro- grammed instruction booklets. In effect, instructional media are closed ended so as to ultimately lead students to pre- determined truth. Open educators resent such an element of coercion.93 Postman and Weingartner voice Opposition to those educators who have viewed educational media as a panacea to solve educational ills. Such people depend heavily on the continuing ir- relevance Of most school curricula. But this is not to say that they oppose educational innovation. On the contrary. They usually can be relied upon to give unflagging support to instructional tele- vision, team teaching, green chalk boards, movable chairs, more textbooks, teaching machines, the use of Overhead projectors, and other innovations that play no role in effecting significant learning. Operating in these matters is a kind of variation of Parkinson's Law of Triviality: The enthusiasm that community leaders display for an educational innovation is in inverse propogxion to its signifi— cance to the learning process. 92Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 84-91. 93Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 48. 94Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 57. 55 Charles Silberman agrees with Postman and Weingart- ner by lamenting the results when any form of media is con- sidered "only a pipeline." Not tO observe the demands and employ the uniquenesses of media is to invite disaster. Failures inherent to the media occur less frequently than inferior human decision making.95 Apparently teachers still resist and fear media. Holt notes a speaker who chides his audiences with, "Any teacher who can be replaced by a machine should he."96 William Hull calls attention to yet another facet of curriculum reform. He contends that such reform is de- sirable but may be superficial if it ignores more pervasive ramifications. Even well intended curriculum reform tends to become short lived if support is not universal. Atti- tudes must change as well as content. Hull believes the use of curriculum specialists is admirable but may lead to the danger of isolation. Curriculum reform will amount to very little, how- ever, if it is bounded by the assumption that the specialist's job is to set out the content in well organized form so that it may then be taught by determined teachers. It appears Open educators are taking a wait and see attitude toward computer assisted instruction (CAI). Pres- ent economic limitations cause CAI to assume an all but 95Silberman, pp. cit., p. 165. 96Holt, The Underachieving School, p. 189. 97Rathbone, _p, cit., p. 57. 56 negligible influence on education. Nevertheless, Open edu- cators are aware Of the individual instruction claims Of CAI proponents. There is fear that individualized instruction may be viewed in a narrow context. Silberman cautions against the seemingly inherent limitations of the present generation of computers. In short, what is crucial to the system called In- dividually Prescribed Instruction is not the ad- jective “individually" but the verb "prescribed"; and what the individual does must be prescribed in terms so narrow as to leave no room whatsoever for the exercise Of individuality. The system simply cannot accommodate a student who wants to strike out on his own. If any number Of students attempted to do so -- if, for example, they decided to satisfy their curiosity about American history by reading everything they could find in their school or home or local public library instead of limiting them- selves tO the prepared programs, the whole system would break down! Another concern is expressed that CAI may lead to more student docility. Open educators are already upset over the existing passive school environment, which may be compounded by individually prescribed instruction (IPI). Indeed, the approach to instructional technology that most researchers are following is likely to com- pound what is most wrong with American education -- its failure to develop sensitive, autonomous, think- ing, humane individuals. TO program a computer, for example, one must define the instructional objectives in precise, measurable, “behavioral“ terms; one must be able to specify the "behavior" to be produced with far greater preciggon than is needed in the conven- tional classroom. 98Silberman,pp. cit., p. 200. 991bid., p. 196. 57 The result -- the ultimate irony -- is that IPI forces students to a passive, almost docile, role under the name of individualization. Limitations inherent by the mechanistic nature of the computer may encourage CAI to foster training but dis- regard greater responsibilities for education. The early warnings of William James concerning dangers of short term Observations are seen by Silberman as being applicable to CAI. Silberman warned that CAI tends to cater to training while disregarding education. In education, on the other hand, the student's achievement is defined by what he does -- and he is -- after the lessons have all ended. . Education can, and almost certainly should, in- clude training; in almost every field, there are skills that have to be mastered, concepts that have to be learned. But the converse does not hold; ed- ucation cannot be subsumed under training.101 Silberman believes that more efficient use of time is not the most pressing problem facing education. Our most pressing educational problem, in short, is not how to increase the efficiency of the schools; it is how to create and maintain a hu- mane society. A society whose schools are inhumane is not likely to be humane itself.102 British Primary Schools Impetus for a rebirth in educational reform appears to have occurred in the United States from two sources, dis- enchantment with traditional education already discussed and 10016i6., p. 201. 1011bid., p. 202. lOZIbid., p. 203. 58 informal education practices existing in England. Awareness Of the British informal schools was provided by Joseph Feath- erstone's series Of New Republic magazine articles in 1967 and Charles Silberman's Crisis in the Classroom, which was published in 1970. A. S. Neill's Summerhill seems to have been the only link between most American educators and Eng- lish educational reform prior to the late 1960's.103 English educational reform is known by a number of terms which include "informal education," "integrated curric- ulum," "free school," "open school," and "Leicestershire Plan." "Informal education" appears to be the most popular British term having a similar meaning as the American term, “open education.“ Informal education is largely confined to the infant schools for five through seven year Olds and the junior schools for eight through eleven year olds. British secondary schools tend to remain traditional. Approximately one third Of the infant schools throughout England are in- fluenced by informal education principles with about 25% directly participating. The junior schools for older chil- dren have not adapted informal education as extensively as the infant schools.104 Informal education has been rather extensively practiced in Leicestershire County for many years. Thus 103Vito Perrone, Open Education: Promise and Prob- lems (Bloomington: The Phi Delta Kappa Educational FOunda- tion, 1972), pp. 10-12. 104Silberman, pp, cit., pp. 207-213- 59 visitors from the United States who promote Open education have come to look upon Leicestershire as a demonstration model for the practicability Of open education. The size and tenure Of the Leicestershire program is sufficient so as to be suggestive of implementation elsewhere. Unlike the United States, informal education, as akin to progressive education, has enjoyed a long uninter- rupted life. Informal education in England goes back at least to the early 1930's when progressive education was at a high ebb in the United States. For a variety of rea- sons, informal education did not suffer the same fate as progressive education. Silberman suggests that English colleges of education have supported educational reform to a greater extent than that found in the United States.105 He also brings up other interesting influences which fostered informal education. Upward social mobility has been less available in England. Thus schools have been rather immune from pressures from parents seeing schools as corridors to success. As a result control Of English schools has been left to educators. Autonomy has also been fostered by cen- tralized control. Unlike American schools the British de- liberately avoid large schools. They prefer elementary schools to have enrollments between 100 and 300.106 Also, by a strange quirk World War II encouraged informal education 60 by forcing teachers and students to live together as evacuees during bombing attacks. Teachers were thus able to observe children over greater periods of time and thereby have a greater understanding of learning.107 Administration of British schools differs consider- ably from our schools. British administrators serving a role comparable to our principals are known as heads. The centralized administration of British schools provides heads with autonomy of which principals would envy. Such an auto- nomy is furthered by the public's benign neglect of the schools. Therefore heads have been able to devote their energies to education rather than public appeasement. Heads tend to be recruited for their high degree Of teaching com- petence and thus enjoy teaching as frequently as possible. It is not unusual, therefore, that heads try to minimize administrative duties to enable them to devote up to 75% of their time to teaching. By their actions heads demonstrate a belief that nearly anyone can administer but teaching is an art to be respected. As a result heads encourage a team teaching approach rather than an academic pecking order. Students thus benefit from a head providing individualized instruction while in the same room the regular teacher assists other children. Consequently, classroom isolation gives way to a greater sense of community.108 1°7Ihid.. pp. 213-214. 108Ibid., pp. 273-277. 61 British schools receive an ancillary service from the HMI (Her Majesty's Inspectors), which have no comparable equal in the United States. Until the beginning of this century the HMI were used as inspectors to administer and supervise national tests from which payments to local schools resulted. Schools took on a uniformity as teachers became obsessed with test preparation rather than education. Silberman draws an interesting comparison between the British standardized tests and the move in the United States whereby schools contract with firms for "payment for results.“ The British drOpped their version of the system as undesirable over seventy years ago. Now the HMI serve as advisors rather than inspectors. As such, the HMI perform a highly valuable in-service training function by being able to share their experiences as they visit throughout the country. Teachers have come to trust the HMI as not being part of a spy network for judging teacher performance. Inasmuch as HMI cannot order heads to make changes, the more effective method of gentle persuasion is employed.109 England's Hadow Report of 1934 formalized many in- formal education principles by interpreting educational psy- chology.no One sentence from the report provides insight into its essence. "The curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and experience rather than of knowledge to 109Ihid., pp. 273-279. llOIbid.. p. 214. 62 be acquired and facts to be stored.“ Charles Rathbone reacts to the possibility of misinterpretation of the Hadow Report. Read in isolation, the passage has sometimes been taken to imply that children could not learn from imaginative experience and that activity and experi- ence did not lead to the acquisition of knowledge. The context makes it plain that the actual implica- tion is almost the opposite of this. It is that activity and experience, both physical and mental, are often the best means of gaining knowledge and acquiring facts. This is more generally recognized today but still needs to be said. We certainly would not wish to undervalue knowledge and facts, but facts are best retained when they are used and understood, when right attitudes to learning are created, when children learn to learn. Instruction in many pri- mary schools continues to bewilder children because it outruns their experience.111 Educators seeking reform have come to look upon the British report from the Central Advisory Council for Edu- cation as the hallmark Of informal education. Published in 1966, the report has come to be known as the Plowden Report by being named for Lady Bridget Plowden, who served as com- mittee chairman. The Plowden Report serves to identify be- liefs and establish goals for informal education. Several excerpts from the Plowden Report serve to demonstrate the spirit and beliefs of informal education. A school is not merely a teaching shop, it must transmit values and attitudes. It is a community in which children learn to live first and foremost as children and not as future adults. In family life children learn to live with peOple of all ages. The school sets out deliberately to devise the right en- vironment for children, to allow them to be them- selves and to develop in the way and at the pace HIRathbone, pp. cit., PP- 142'143- 63 appropriate to them. . . . It insists that knowl- edge does not gall into neatly separate compart- ments . . . 1 Society is right to expect that importance will be attached to these virtues in all schools. Children need them and need knowledge, if they are to gain satisfaction from their education. What we repudiate is the view that they were automatically fostered by the old kind of ele- mentary education.1 England's National Union of Teachers published a reaction to the Plowden Report. The Union virtually repre- sents all the primary teachers throughout the country. Their reception was quite positive toward the Plowden Report. Moreover, and most importantly, we believe that both the needs of our children and the needs of the country as a whole, demand no less than the implementation of the Report, subject only to such modifications, and we trust that the Secre- tary of State will use all his best endeavours to secure from his Cabinet colleagues the finan- cial resources t2 enable this to be carried out without de1ay.11 Visitors to the Leicestershire primary school are impressed. Silberman describes his visits. To begin with, the classroom does not look like a classroom. It is, rather, a workshop in which "interest areas" take the place of the familiar rows of desks and chairs 112Central Advisory Council for Education (England), Children and Their Primary Schools, Vol. I: The Report, A Report Prepared by the Central Advisory Council for Educa- tion (England) Commonly Known as the Plowden Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967), p. 187. 113Ibid., p. 188. 114National Union of Teachers, Plowden/the Union's Comments on Some of the Major Issues of the Plowden Report, A‘Report Prepared by the National Union of Teachers (EOndon: Hamilton House, 1969), p. 2. 64 In any case, not even the most informal Ameri- can kindergartens . . . have the incredible rich- ness and variety of materials found in the average informal English infant or junior school classroom.115 Indeed, a visitor accustomed only to formal classrooms is likely to be disoriented by the sound and movement of an informal classroom even more than by its physical arrangements.H6 She seems always to be in motion, and always to be in contact with the children -- talking, listening, watching, comforting, chiding, suggesting, encourag- ing -- although from time to time she stops for a minute to jot down a comment }n the record book she keeps for each child What impresses an American the most, however, is the combination of great joy and spontaneity and activity with equally great self-control and order. The joyfulness is pervasive: in almost every classroom visited, virtually every child ap- peared happy and engaged. One simply does not see bored or restless or unhappy youngsters, or young- sters with the glazed look so common in American schools. The joy is matched by an equally impressive self- discipline and relaxed self- confidence. . . It is not the children who are disruptive, it is the formal plgssroom that is disruptive -- of childhood itself. The children's self-discipline and self-direc- tion is accompanied by a relaxed and easy self-con- fidence; everywhere I went, the children were open and friendly without being brash.119 Informal educators see play as a great learning facilitator for young children. They contend that play is the work of childhood by which children are able to order 115Silberman, pp. 913-: P- 221- ”5113151., p. 223. ll7_1_pjp., p. 225. 113;p1p,, pp. 228-229. ”91bid., p. 235. 65 their lives, their relationships, and their world. "Messing about" provides experiences for children to explore the cre- ative possibilities available in materials.120 It would be totally inaccurate to imply that informal educators simply supervise play as children "do their own thing." Silberman emphasizes it would be a mistake to as- sume informal educators feel one piece of learning is as valuable as another. Silberman suggests that informal edu- cators reject John Holt's “romantic notion" that children should be turned completely free to learn whatever they wish.121 Informal educators see themselves as facilitators rather than educational taskmasters. As such, informal edu- cators do not insist that all students learn exactly the same thing by the same methods at the same time. Flex- ibility and respect for students are central to informal education. Learning is viewed as being natural, and through guidance children are assisted in discovering more about their world. To this end teachers create classroom environ- ments with an incredible wealth of resources. It is not un- common for activities to spill over into hallways and other available areas. Also there is little need for each child to have a seat and desk. Informal educators also frequently take their students on field trips. Silberman notes that informal educators maximize unplanned activities in an 120Rathbohe, cit., pp. 139-142. pp. IZISilberman, pp. cit., pp. 210-211. 66 environment which they created. He summarizes informal edu- cators' attitudes toward the curriculum.122 And so most informal teachers and heads also reject the view that "one piece of learning is as good as any other.“ Their responsibility, as they see it, is to create an environment that will stimu- late children's interest in and evoke their curi- osity about all the things they should be interested in and curious about: reading, writing, talking, counting, weighing, measuring; art, music, dance, sculpture; the beauty and wonder of the world about them; relationships with adults and with other children° and above all, the process of learning itself.”3 It appears that informal educators believe children need to learn many of the same things which traditional edu- cators seek, but informal educators have developed entirely different approaches due to uhique attitudes toward children. At times the methods are quite similar. For example, many informal educators utilize drill when apprOpriate.124 It should be emphasized, however, that informal educators de- sire materials and methods, such as the Diene's laboratory sequences and Madison Project mathematics, which are open- ended. Materials and methods which stimulate further in- quiry and unexpected questioning are considered more valu- able than techniques incorporating pre-planned answers.125 The message is clear that informal educators view children's learning and motivation as being a natural phenomenon not requiring adult intervention. 1221919., pp. 237-240. 123_1_b_1_g_., p. 240. 124M” p. 244. 125Rathbone,_p.pj__t_., pp. 48-51. 67 To realize their goals, Leicestershire primary schools utilize two complementary tactics, family grouping and the integrated day. Reminiscent of the old American one room school house, family grouping involves children of dif- ferent ages learning together and teaching each other. Im- plicit in such an arrangement is the belief that teaching and learning are not vertical processes but rather lateral. Margaret Mead's belief that our society is now too complex to rely upon vertical transmission is interpreted by Silber- man as being central in informal education.126 Family group- ing also means that a child will likely have the same teacher as long as he is enrolled in a particular school. Therefore teachers have a better opportunity to know their students as individuals. To simply know the name of each child is not enough.127 The integrated day is a reaction against the tradi- tional time table regulation. The traditional scheduling of disciplines is broken down as children integrate various disciplines as activities and situations evolve. It is not uncommon for children to remain with a particular study for half a day or longer provided their interest is maintained. Such flexibility is not structured and pre-planned in the * 126Silberman, pp. pp. cit., p. 30. 127Rathbone, i , c t. p. 52. 68 same context as modular scheduling. In other words, informal educators capitalize on serendipity.”8 Great importance is attached to the arts and physi- cal education as well as the familiar 3 R's. The arts are viewed in a very broad interpretation including crafts and woodworking. Informal educators believe a child's education is incomplete if only the 3 R's are studied.129 Another activity unique to British primary schools is Movement which resembles an integration of dance, drama, and physical education. The objective of Movement is to de- velop an aesthetic sensitivity in children. In its most fundamental sense, Movement is an attempt to educate children in the use of their bodies -- to provide them with an ease, grace, and agility of bodily movement that can carry over into sports, crafts, and dance. . . The procedure is a fascinating blend of formal and informal instruction. As a rule, an entire class participates under the teacher's direction; but precisely how the teacher's directions are carried out is—TEft to each child. There is, after all, no right way or wrong way to move as if you were a snowflake, or a leaf fluttering down from a tree, which arg the kinds of things children may be asked to do. The advocates of Movement are persuaded that the activity has a profound effect on other activi- ties. "You don't dance to get rid of something, you dance to be aware of something," Martha Graham says, and the awareness that Movement evokes seems to carry over into the children's writing, painting, and sculpture. 128Mary Brown and Norman Precious, The Integrated Day in the Primary School (New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1973), pp. 3-17. 129Silberman, pp. cit., p. 251. 13OIbid.. pp. 253-254. 13116id., p. 255. 69 One of the integral elements of British education has for many years been the 11+ exam which students took upon the completion of junior schools. Results from the 11+ exam determined which students went on to receive col- lege preparation in secondary schools. Educators have come to see in the 11+ exam an undesirable influence, as teachers tended to prepare their students for the exam rather than emphasize more important matters. In effect the 11+ was designed to serve as a means but had become an end in it- self. Consequently, many schools have begun eliminating the 11+ exam.132 An extension from the abolition of the 11+ exam is an implementation of a two-tier secondary program in Lei- cestershire. The Leicestershire Plan replaced the previous dual secondary school system. Schools outside the Leices- tershire Plan provide high status grammar schools for chil- dren scoring high on the 11+ exam and offer the lesser pres- tigious secondary modern school for less fortunate stu- dents. The Leicestershire Plan is two-tier in that with- out the 11+ exam students enter comprehensive high schools for two years which is then followed by a grammar school utilizing a new meaning. Consequently, enrollments are kept low by dividing secondary education into two-tiers which pleases English educators who prefer schools being more personal. While the Leicestershire Plan represents 13216id... p. 231. 70 secondary level innovation, informal education appears to lack the clout found common in primary schools.133 The question of evaluation arises as the British in- formal schools are compared with traditional schools. Com- parative testing has not been as thorough as one might wish. Keeping in mind the expanding influence of informal educa- tion, the Plowden Report provides implications to the reader. Successive investigations into reading ability undertaken by the Department of Education from 1948 to 1964 . . . , make it clear that, despite the dismal reports that appear from time to time in the press, the standard of reading in the country as a whole has been going up steadily since the war. Children of eleven have advanced by an average of 17 months since the first report was made, and back- wardness now has a difgirent connotation from that which it had in 1948. Silberman discusses studies by Professor Lovell and Dorothy Gardner. Lovell compared matched groups of stu- dents from informal and formal schools. Lovell's conclu- sions neither give strong support nor criticize informal education. "Overall there is no evidence whatever of any de- terioration of reading standards in informal Junior Schools. Although there is no evidence that these schools bring superior standards in reading," Pro- fessor Lovell continues, "they may well benefit their pupils in other ways." 5 1”Rathbone, _p. cit., pp. 40-42. 134Central Advisory Council for Education (England), pp. cit., p. 212. 135Silberman, pp. cit., PP- 258’259- 71 Miss Gardner's study provided results which suggested informal education students were stronger than formal educa- tion students in reading, persistence, general information, handwriting, and cooperative behavior. Students from tradi- tional schools were found to be stronger in arithmetic. Sil- berman suggests that the introduction of the Nuffield Math Project since 1963 may shift the balance toward informal ed- ucation. Other results were rather interesting. Some of the most interesting differences among the two groups in the Gardner study showed up not in the test results themselves but in what the testers had to report about the way children went about taking the tests. . . . These kinds of dif- ferences showed up in a great many tests; in gen- eral, children from informal schools were more re- laxed, showed less anxiety and more initiative, independence, and self-confidence, and had an easier rpggtionship with their peers and with the testers. William Hull notes that when students move from the Leicestershire schools to another district requiring the 11+ exam, usually little difficulty is encountered. A short period of review and special preparation is usually ade- quate. Such a rough measure suggests that students study- ing in informal schools are to no particular disadvantage even when compared with students studying in formal schools which are alleged to center around the 11+ exam.137 Silberman identifies the criticisms by formal edu- cation as illuminating the extent Of basic disagreements over the purpose of education. 135Ibid., p. 261. 137Rathbone, _p. cit., p. 55. 72 Nowhere is this revealed more clearly than in the grounds on which the opponents of informal educa- tion have attacked the primary schools. "The new fashionable anarchy," as one group of polemicists call the informal approach, "flies in the face of human nature, for it holds that children and stu- dents will work from natural inclination rather than the desire for reward." This is precisely what informal educators do believe; . . . and therefore refuse to see their role as training people to fil§8the existing slots in society and the economy. Industrial educators may find a great similarity between Silberman's foregoing quote and recent statements by Rupert Evans. It is Evans' contention that vocational education must place its first priority on individual needs rather than on industrial manpower needs. Evans wrote, "The objective of vocational education should be the development of the individual, not the needs of the labor market."139 The general tenor from American open educators is that the British informal schools have developed attitudes and practices which may alleviate the shortcomings of Ameri- can schools. Wiliam Hull summarizes his impressions after visiting Leicestershire schools and draws several compari- sons against traditional American schools. One quickly comes to assume that primary education everywhere would have evolved along similar lines 138$ilberman, pp. cit., pp. 231-232. 139Rupert N. Evans, Garth L. Mangum, and Otto Pragan, Education for Employment: the background and po- tential of thE 1968 vocational education amendments (Ann AFbor, Michigan: Institute of Labor and IndustriET Rela- tions, University of Michigan and Wayne State University, 1969), p. 64. 73 were it not crippled by false values and assump- tions.140 Leicestershire helps Ameripans to see just how sick their schools really are. 41 Charles Silberman's summary of the British informal schools appears to be representative of the views of other open educators. Central to the informal English primary schools, then, is a view of childhood as something precious in its own right, something to be cherished for it- self and not merely as preparation for later life: there is a quality of caring, a concern for children qua children, that tends to be missing in American schools. It is not that Americans like children less -- certainly we indulge them more -- but rather that we tend to see childhood as a corridor through which children should pass as rapidly as possible on the way to adulthood. Hence our schools are designed not to let children be children, but to speed them on the way to adult life.142 Open Education in the United States It is not surprising to find that open education in the United States adopts principles of British informal education. Silberman contends, however, that it would be a mistake for the United States to transplant in toto the British version of informal education. Inasmuch as informal education is more an attitude toward education rather than a method, no well defined model is available to be brought to our country. British informal educators try to avoid allowing informal education to become a dogma used to 140Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 31. l4lIbid., p. 57. 142Silberman, _p. cit., p. 230. 74 replace traditional dogma. Therefore it is not surprising to find informal educators according themselves flexibility comparable to that enjoyed by their students. One who be- lieves there are numerous ways to learn is disposed to feel there are numerous ways to teach. In other words, informal education is not a paradigm to be standardized. Silberman offers an even more overriding argument against an unaltered informal education transplant to the United States. Inasmuch as informal education has developed within the British culture, it would be inappropriate to introduce informal education to the United States without al- terations to better reflect American cultural differences.143 One is disposed to ask how open education differs from progressive education and how Open education hopes to succeed while progressive education failed. Insight into progressive education is amply provided by Lawrence Cremin's The Transformation of the Schools, which is a most exhaus- tive and scholarly investigation of progressive education. Cremin clearly disagrees that progressive education failed. He contends that while progressive education submerged, its impact upon education remains profound.144 Open educators tend to avoid comparisons between open education and pro- gressive education. The infrequent analyzations of progres- sive education shortcomings are Often simplistic. John 14316id., p. 272. 144Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York: Vintage Books, 1964), pp. 352-353. 75 Holt believes progressive education failed because it tried to discreetly coerce children into predetermined learning. The would-be progressives, who until recently had great influence over most American public school education, did not recognize this -- and still do not. They thought, or at least talked and wrote as if they thought, that there were good ways and bad ways to coerce children (the bad ones mean, harsh, cruel, the good ones gentle, persuasive, subtle, kindly), and that if they avoided the bad and stuck to the good they would do no harm. This was one of their greatest mistakes, and the main reason why the revolution they hoped to ac- complish never took hold. The idea of painless, non-threatening coercion is an illusion. Fear is the inseparable companion of coercion, and its inescapable consequence. If you think it your duty to make children do what you want, whether they will or not, then it fol- lows inexorably that you must make them afraid of what will happen to them if they don't do what you want. You can do this in the old-fashioned way, openly and avowedly, with the threat of harsh words, infringement of liberty, or physical punish- ment. Or you can do it in the modern way, subtly, smoothly, quietly, by withholding the acceptance and approval which you and others have trained the children to depend on; or by making them feel that some retribution awaits them in the future, too vague to imagine but too implacable to escape.145 Cremin believes the demise of the progressive edu- cation movement was much more complex than that suggested by Holt. Seven reasons for the decline of progressive edu- cation are advanced by Cremin. He suggests that progressive education was damaged by being distorted by various compet- ing factions. Another detriment arose from greater atten- tion to what progressives opposed rather than to what they proposed. Cremin also suggests that "integrated studies" demanded more knowledge and time than most teachers could 145Holt, How Children Fail, pp. 221-222. 76 provide. He also suggests progressives suffered "intellec- tual bankruptcy" by being unable to formulate successive plans. The postwar swing to conservatism also hindered pro- gressive education. During the 1930's progressive educators severely hurt their cause by solely concentrating on profes- sional support while ignoring the public. However, Cremin suggests that the most serious shortcoming of progressive education was an inability to recognize and adapt to the dramatic postwar social changes. The phenomenal knowledge explosion brought demands that the schools return to being the transmitters of knowledge.146 Silberman is well aware of Cremin's study and ap- pears to offer a rational explanation of the shortcomings of progressive education. It is Silberman's contention that progressive educators were trapped by the Either-Or fallacy of which John Dewey warned. Silberman explains progressive educators failed by believing schools must either be child- centered or subject-centered.147 Numerous Open educators look upon their mission as fostering a legitimate version of progressive education. William Hull writes of the British informal schools, "What seems to have been achieved in some of these schools is the logical extension and development of ideas tried in the United States by a few schools during the era of 146Cremin, pp. cit., pp. 348-352. 147Silberman, pp. cit., p. 180. 77 progressive education."148 One senses in certain authors subtle clues suggesting their intent as not being an advocate of the weaknesses of progressive education. Rather clearly open educators desire implementation of only the best of progressive education by utilizing recent information gleaned through educational psychology. A statement by Postman and Weingartner is a case in point. There is no way to help a learner to be dis- ciplined, active, and thoroughly engaged unless ‘pp perceives a problem to be a problem or what- ever is to-be-learned as worth learning, and un- less he plays an active role in determining the process of solution. That is the plain, unvar- nished truth, and if it sounds like warmed-over "progreiiive education," it is not any less true for it. 9 Silberman provides his reader with a comparison be- tween British informal education and progressive education. Presumably one can infer open educators subscribe to the same beliefs in this matter as their British counterparts. What chiefly distinguishes the contemporary English informal schools, then, from the American child-centered progressive schools of the 19205 and '30s, which they resemble in many ways, or from the kind of education that romantic critics like John Holt, George Dennison, and Paul Good- man now advocate, is the absolute clarity of this understanding, the hard-headed recognition of and indeed insistence on the teacher's central role. It would be impossible for a teacher acting in accord with the Plowden Report to respond as a teacher in New York's Walden School, one of the citadels of American progressivism, did in the 1920's. Asked if he were the teacher, the young man, who was standing with his back to the room, 148Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 31. 149Postman and Weingartner, Teachipg as a Subversive Activity, p. 52. 78 speaking only when children addressed a question to him, replied, "Well, you can call me that; at least I'm here." . . . With rare exceptions, the teachers and adminis- trators with whom I talked and whose informal class- rooms I observed were more than simply "here"; they were very much in charge. "It's easy to be a sweet nothing and just say, 'Oh, that's nice,'" one Lon- don "head" (headmistress) remarked, "but we are here to teach, not just to let children discover."150 What is open education? Even among its advocates a variety of explanation prevail. Certain educators who pro- claim themselves open educators devote themselves to writ- ing about the appearance of Open classrooms. Open education is debased if only thought of in terms of architecture. In- deed, open education can occur in the most unlikely places. An observation by Silberman makes it abundantly clear that British informal education does not thrive because of archi- tecture. The buildings in which these "new“ schools are housed also run the gamut from spanking-new one- story glass-enclosed buildings designed specifi- cally for informal education, to dark and dank three-story buildings erected in Queen Victoria's reign and designed for the most rigid formal schooling.1 Theoretical Basis of Open Education The essence of Open education is deeper. Roland Barth suggests that open education begins with a system of beliefs toward learning and knowledge. Twenty-nine such assumptions were developed by Barth. He has asked informal 150Silberman, pp. cit., pp. 209-210. 1511bid,, pp. 212-213. 79 educators in England and open educators in the United States whom he has met to respond to these assumptions. Barth con- tends that given a five point Likert option, participants have always answered strongly agree or agree to all twenty- nine assumptions.152 Moreover, John Holt gives his endorse- 153 ment to Barth's assumptions. Following are the twenty- nine assumptions developed by Barth. Assumption 1: Children are innately curious and will explore their environment without adult intervention. Assumption 2: Exploratory behavior is self-perpetu- ating. Assumption 3: The child will display natural explora- tory behavior if he is not threatened. Assumption 4: Confidence in self is highly related to capacity for learning and for making important choices affecting one's learning. Assumption 5: Active exploration in a rich environ- ment, offering a wide array of manipulative materials, will facilitate children's learning. Assumption 6: Play is not distinguished from work as the predominant mode of learning in early childhood. Assumption 7: Children have both the competence and the right to make significant decisions concerning their own learning. Assumption 8: Children will be likely to learn if they are given considerable choice in the selection of the materials they wish to work with and in the choice of questions they wish to pursue with respect to those materials. Assumption 9: Given the opportunity, children will choose to engage in activities which will be of high interest to them. 152Telephone interview with Dr. Roland Barth, Prin- cipal, Angier School, Newton, Mass., Jan. 20, 1972. 153Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 3. 8O Assumption 10: If a child is fully involved in and is having fun with an activity, learning is taking place. Assumption 11: When two or more children are inter- ested in exploring the same problem or the same materials, they will often choose to collaborate in some way. Assumption 12: When a child learns something which is important to him, he will wish to share it with others. Assumption 13: Concept formation proceeds very slowly. Assumption 14: Children learn and develop intel- lectually not only at their own rate but in their own style. Assumption 15: Children pass through similar stages of intellectual develOpment, each in his own way and at his own rate and in his own time. Assumption 16: Intellectual growth and development take place through a sequence of concrete experiences followed by abstractions. Assumption 17: Verbal abstractions should follow direct experience with objects and ideas, not pre- cede them or substitute for them. Assumption 18: The preferred source of verification for a child's solution to a problem comes through the materials he is working with. Assumption l9: Errors are necessarily a part of the learning process; they are to be expected and even desired, for they contain information essential for further learning. Assumption 20: Those qualities of a person's learn- ing which can be carefully measured are not neces- sarily the most important. Assumption 21: Objective measures of performance may have a negative effect upon learning. Assumption 22: Learning is best assessed intui- tively, by direct observation. Assumption 23: The best way of evaluating the effect of the school experience on the child is to observe him over a long period of time. 81 Assumption 24: The best measure of a child's work is his work. Assumption 25: The quality of being is more im- portant than the quality of knowing; knowledge is a means of education, not its end. The final test of an education is what a man 1p, not what he knows. Assumption 26: Knowledge is a function of one's personal integration of experience and therefore does not fall into nearly separate categories or "disciplines." Assumption 27: The structure of knowledge is per- sonal and idiosyncratic; it is a function of the synthesis of each individual's experience with the world. Assumption 28: Little or no knowledge exists which it is essential for everyone to acquire. Assumption 29: It is possible, even likely, that an individual may learn and possess knowledge of a phenomenon and yet be unable to display it pub- licly. Knowledge resides with the knower, not in its public expression.”4 In another publication Barth elaborates on his in- terpretation of many of the assumptions. Regarding the first two assumptions on motivation, Barth suggests that adult intervention might increase production but not greater learning. Motivation is viewed as an interaction between the child and his environment which does not automatically require adults to be interpreters or motivators.155 Assumptions three through ten are considered as being factors of conditions for learning. Barth emphasizes the importance of self concept and its effect on learning. He also suggests that the distinction between children's 1548arth, pp. cit., pp. 98-99. 155Rathbone, pp. cit., pp. 119-120. 82 play and work is an "adult artifact.“ Following assumption ten, Barth discusses the crucial matter of coercion and classroom environment manipulation. He notes that although. the large variety of classroom materials suggests freedom, manipulation occurs by the selection process as each teacher equips his or her classroom. Total freedom could only re- sult when the classroom is abandoned in favor of the commu- nity. Barth suggests that material selection criteria for Open education is undecided and requires further atten- tion.156 Barth considers assumptions eleven and twelve as being factors of social learning. He suggests that open educators acknowledge interaction between students as being teacher-student interaction. Such considerations would be reflected in classroom environments which encourage inter- action between students. The issue is vertical versus lateral information transmission.157 Assumptions thirteen through seventeen are factors of intellectual development. Such development takes time and therefore should not be rushed. Barth also notes the differences between thought patterns of adults and children. "Primary experiences" with concrete materials occur before children can label bits of knowledge. "What appears to be 156Ibid., p. 120-126. 157Ibid.. pp. 126-127. 83 conceptual thinking on the part of a child is often verbal association."158 Evaluation is examined in assumptions eighteen through twenty-four. Barth notes a problem facing open edu- cators is how to react to the problem of evaluation. It is not enough to simply criticize traditional education. Open educators are reluctant to use children's correct and incorrect responses for purposes of placement, promotion, testing, or grading. They feel that to use a child's mistakes in these ways is inconsistent and hypocritical. This points up a serious weakness of open education practice to date -- the inability and/or unwillingness to mea- sure in any objective and systematic way the var- ious important outcomes of children's experiences in school.'. . . Reluctance to evaluate may also be due to a decision to spend time facilitating behavior rather than meaggring it, if one must choose between the two. Barth's comments herewith avoid mention of assump- tions twenty-five through twenty-nine which are purported to be factors of knowledge. Nevertheless he seems to have provided his reader with an honest interpretation of the beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses of open education.160 Barth's foregoing factors appear to have been ar- rived at intuitively. Coletta determined other factors when the Barth scale was statistically analyzed as reported in Chapters IV and V.. Advocates agree that trust of students and appre- ciation of their unique individuality are at the heart of 15916id., p. 133. l6016id., pp. 134-136. 84 open education. Through such faith one is disposed to view education in a light different from traditional education. The learner is viewed as his own maker of meaning. Conse- quently, how one learns is as important as what one learns. Independence rather than dependence upon the teacher is en- couraged. Indeed the entire student-teacher relationship is altered as the teacher allows himself to be viewed as a fellow human.]61 Open educators place great emphasis on self concept. Respect for self is more likely to occur when the school pro- vides opportunities for success. Barth begs the question when he writes the following: I Open educators assume that opportunities to explore, to try, and to fail in the absence of threat contribute to a sense of mastery and the development of a child's knowledge. There seems to be some relationship between knowing oneself and self-esteem, and self-esteem is seen to be crucial for learning. Put more strongly, a strong self-concept on the part of the child is the sine ua non of open education; if, and only if, the child respects himself will he be able to be re- sponsible for his own learning. Does this mean that schools are in some fundamental way respon- sible for fostering self-confidence?162 In keeping with the importance of self concept, Sil- berman notes the work of Dr. Marie Hughes in the Philadel- phia Negro slums. Or. Hughes has found that to succeed each child must come to feel he is of worth. Respect for 1511616., pp. 99-115. 15216id., pp. 120-121. 85 children is fostered by interpersonal relations and the classroom activities which each child experiences.163 John Holt offers an interesting suggestion. He sug- gests the dangers when a teacher manipulates a child's self concept. To honor a child's past accomplishments while ex- tolling him to new heights via new tasks is to invite dan- gers. If the new task proves too much, the self concept may suffer. Holt suggests children don't need as much praise as some teachers seem to think. In fact, when we praise him, are we not perhaps horn- ing in on his accomplishment, stealing a little of his glory, edging our way into the limelight, prais- ing ourselves6£or having helped to turn out such a smart ch1ld? Holt asks whether failure is feared so much by rating suc- cess too highly. To facilitate Open education, teachers must fully understand and be able to identify real learning. Specifi- cally, what do successful students do that sets them apart from other less successful students? Once real learning is recognized, Postman and Weingartner suggest that schools should be structured around a model reflective of the "be- havior of good learners."165 John Holt observes that pre-school children display an ability to think which too often flounders in our 163Silberman, pp. cit., p. 312. 154Ho1t, How Children Fail, p. 69. 165Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, p. 31. 86 schools. It would seem schools should nurture youths' abil- ity to think by providing an even richer environment with which children can react rather than trying to teach artifi- cial problem solving strategies. Holt contends teachers themselves don't employ such unreal methods.166 The good learner is first recognized as one who has faith in his world and himself. Consequently, a healthy self concept is crucial if one is to learn. The world is viewed as a place which is logically organized and thus pre- dictable. Therefore the good learner trusts the world by checking his answers against the facts. He asks himself, "Does my answer make sense? Does it agree with the facts?"]67 The good learner shows a joy of living. He feels and acts alive. By being able to order his world and ex- periences he comes to be his own agent. His joy in learn- ing leads to more learning. Problems are considered a chal- lenge which the good learner appreciates. He is not upset if an answer is not immediately forthcoming. Actually he may wish to offer numerous answers which he considers ten- able. He is also identified by his patience.168 Holt finds the good student much like a creative scientist. Holt 166John Holt, How Children Learn (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1970), p. 9. 157H61t, How Children Fail, p. 71. 153Ihid., pp. 206-207. 87 emphasizes his comparison by noting an article in Scienti- fic American. “The creative scientist analyzes a problem slowly and carefully, then proceeds rapidly with a solu- tion. The less creative man is apt to flounder in disorganized attempts to get a quick answer."169 Holt strongly approves of play as being an integral factor to learning. Just as able students play with ideas, so do creative adults. They say to themselves, "Just for the fun of it, what would happen if . . . ?" The playful- ness of such successful adults is not limited to any partic- ular occupation. They have so much released themselves to play that other motivators become secondary. Consequently they become unable to distinguish between work and play. Holt argues that the precarious uncertainties of today re- quire a whole generation of such "playful" adults.170 Anthony Kallet agrees with Holt by suggesting good learners have their "personal sense of direction." When they encounter a difficult problem, they show no fear such as trying to cover up their uncertainty by "word-jug- gling.]7] Holt contends good learners are aware of the exact nature of the problem and their personal state of mind.172 Consequently, they ask rational questions sug- gestive of purpose. They seem to know which questions and 169_I_p_i_p., p. 71. 170Rathbone, pp. p15,, pp. 9-10. 171121g., pp. 71-73. 1”Holt, How Children Fail, p. 28. 88 answers are of greatest value. The "no" answers are also utilized.173 Holt provides insight by suggesting teachers need to give very careful attention to how one operates on a problem. The true test of intelligence is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do. The intelligent person, young or old, meeting a new situation or problem, opens himself up to it; he tries to take in with mind and senses every- thing he can about it; he thinks about 1p, instead of about himself or what it might cause to happen to him; he grapples with it boldly, imaginatively, resourcefully, and if not confidently at least hopefully; if he fails to master it, he looks with- out shame or fear at his mistakes and learns what he can from them. This is intelligence. Clearly its roots lie in a certain feeling about life, and one's self with respect to life. Just as clearly, unintelligence is not what most psychologists seem to suppose, the same thing as intelligence only less of it. It is an entirely different style of behavior, ariping out of an entirely different set of attitudes. 74 If Holt and the others have correctly identified cer- tain behaviors of good learners, what can teachers do to pro- vide for other students to be more successful? Postman and Weingartner suggest numerous tactics which teachers can em- ploy. However, teacher attitudes must change if there is to be significant improvement in schools. Change of attitude is reflected by change of behavior. Foremost, the teacher must demonstrate an unwilling- ness to tell students what he believes they should know. Telling students what they should know is to rob them of 17316id., p. 51. 174Ihid.. pp. 205-206. 89 discovery for themselves. There is also the question whether one can even know what another individual needs to know. The teacher also utilizes questions as an effective method to further learning. Postman and Weingartner urge that questioning not be employed as a ploy to predetermined answers. Likewise the teacher should be reluctant to be satisfied with the "Right Answer” but searches for plausible answers. The "Right Answer“ too often becomes an end in it- self and thus terminates further study. Consequently, the wise teacher guides his students to search for underlying reasons which in due course lead to new questions.175 Students are to be encouraged to interact with other students as discussions proceed. Rather than judge before the class which student's point of view is most tenable, the wise teacher leaves the decision making to each student where it rightly belongs. Likewise the teacher avoids a discus- sion summary in that summaries too often tend to inhibit further inquiry. The wise teacher does not feel compelled to have his lessons always proceed in a predetermined "logical" fashion. Herbert Kohl seems to be speaking for all of open educators when he asserts, Actually, the whole notion of there being an “orderly sequence" to learning is fallacious. Children's learning is episodic rather than 175Postman and Weingartner, Teachinp_as a Subversive Activity, p. 34. 90 vertical or linear. One can think of it as a spider web rather than as a staircase. Happily, more recent studies by psychologists and other experts are beginning to point this out.176 It is therefore not surprising to find Kohl suggesting the lesson plan be considered "anecdotal." Therefore the teacher plans for what might happen, and the various optional methods whereby such learning might take place rather than what must happen on a particular day. Again it becomes apparent that the open educator must have faith in himself and his stu- dents. The lesson plan is reflective as well as prospective in that the teacher also uses it as a diary to look back and determine progress. Kohl identifies the open educator as one who Operates with "suspended expectations." In other words, the open educator does not have a lesson plan; he has lesson plans for contingencies. Kohl suggests the les- son plans can be a "collaborative venture" between the teacher and students.177 Postman and Weingartner continue by suggesting teachers' lessons should pose problems which initiate activities. Through inductive methods students increase their knowledge and strengthen problem solving com- petencies. Consequently, such a teacher measures success by observing behavioral changes in his students. He closely observes how students proceed to gather facts and solve problems.178 176Kohl, pp. cit., p. 54. ‘77Ihid.. pp. 20-48. 178Postman and Weingartner, Teaching as a Subver- sive Activity, pp. 34-36. 91 Advocates of open education quickly point out that they are not advocating chaotic, permissive classrooms. Al- though they abhor repressive authoritarian classrooms, they equally dislike anarchy in the classroom. Open educators are united in their belief that schools should be democratic in a very real sense. They question a dictatorship-like school environment which allegedly prepares the young for democracy. Advocates of open education find a serious in- consistency in such schools. Likewise open educators dis- agree with those who contend that students should be given .greater freedom only when they are shown to be responsible. Children are born with freedom. It is an inalienable right which can't be given or parceled out. John Holt acknowledges there are those who believe it is unwise for schools to emphasize student freedom. Such critics contend adults actually have little freedom them- selves in that they are controlled by employers, government, and social mores. The conclusion is that children might as well get used to such controls while in school. Holt argues that the essence of democracy is freedom, and unless man is free, he can't experience the fullness of life. He contends that when children feel free as students, they will cherish freedom and fight for it as adults. Democracy only flour- ishes where freedom is prized.179 Therefore faith and trust are sine qua non to open education. However this is by no means to suggest that 179Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 129—130. 92 rules are absent in an open education classroom. Rules must exist, but they must exist for a reason other than the caprice of teachers and administrators. Like a democracy, students have a right to participate in the making of rules when the need for such rules becomes apparent. Open edu- cators contend children are very responsible in this matter. Let there be no mistake: open educators do not take a passive posture in the operation of a class. Teachers participate fully in open classrooms. Children are in school to learn. It is also important to note that open educators do not con- sider such policies as an efficient tactic to coerce chil- dren to learn predetermined content. Open educators sin- cerely believe that children are innately curious and self motivated when interacting with an exciting and rich environ- ment. It is the teacher's role to facilitate learning by helping to make the student aware of such potentials. Ob- viously teacher flexibility must be in evidence. Rathbone makes this point rather clear.180 What this means in terms of actual classroom performance is that Open education de-emphasizes the view of teacher as instructor, possessor of special knowledge, transmitter of answers, filter or mediator between materials and learner, de- terminer of curriculum, orchestrator of large groups of children, evaluator, standard setter; it emphasizes, on the other hand, teacher as trained observer, diagnostician of individual needs, presenter of environments, consultant, collaborator, flexible resource, psychological supporter, general facilitator of the learning requirements of an independent agent. This means 180Rathbone, pp. cit., pp. 99-105. 93 that in open education the teacher is mainly assistant pp not director p: the child's acti- _A- vity.15' The open educator is encouraged to display his likes and dislikes. His personality comes alive by replacing the sterile stereotype students tend to see in too many teachers. The teacher simply stops acting like a “teacher" by being candid and honest with children. Such a teacher feels and shows as much respect for children as fellow adults. Open educators believe in greater humanism in the classroom, as teachers seek to feel greater empathy toward students. Con- sequently, separate cognitive, affective, and psychomotor taxonomies are reunited.182 Open Education in Operation What does an open classroom look like? Not all open classrooms are alike, but the following description is reasonably representative. The typical class day begins with children engaged in ”free activities" which may have been unfinished from the previous day. After approximately an hour, the teacher calls the class together for a plan- ning session during which each child prepares his personal plan. The plan is temporary and subject to change. At this time the teacher offers suggestions and organizes meeting times with individuals and groups in the various interest areas. Based on needs which the teacher senses from 18116i6., pp. 106-107. 1821<6h1, _p. cit., pp. 14-15. 94 observation, students are asked to devote at least a minimum amount of time to the reading, writing, and mathematics area. Children move with their interests. The teacher is also on the move by consulting and keeping notes about the children -- not grades. Activities may take various forms. The follow- ing observation of eight and nine year olds who built a 6'x8'x6' play house may be of interest for industrial educa- tOY‘S.]83 The children visited a lumber yard and arranged to get some old plywood. They developed quite elaborate plans which involved measurement and geometry. An architect demonstrated model making, which the chil- dren then tried. They viewed a variety of films on house building. A tape-recorded lesson provided ad- ditional information on the use of tools -- the lever, plane, and gear -- and two retired carpenters in the community gave some practical demonstrations. Individual children pursued many different inter- ests in relation to the house-building project. They wrote letters telling others of their experience. They took up individual projects including Indian homes, termites, trees, creatures that live in trees, homes around the world, workers who build homes, old and modern tools, skyscrapers, and doll houses. Such projects quite naturally move across the artifical separation of subject matter.184 At the end of the day the children join together to share their experiences often by means of a group presenta- tion. As the year proceeds, children tend to become more responsible for planning their learning.185 The Open classroom, like its British counterpart, looks different from traditional classrooms. The room is 183Perrone, _p. cit., pp. 18-19. 184Ibid., p.19. 185Ibid.. pp. 18-20. 95 flexible with a great variety Of interest areas and resources. Open educators utilize prepared materials but voice an oppo- sition to "packages" focused on a predetermined route. Mate- rials from the local community are utilized. Local materials help to minimize some of the problems created by commercial materials. Vito Perrone explains some problems caused by overuse of commercial materials. Parents visiting a classroom and viewing vast stores of expensive commercial equipment and materials must resign themselves to being able to contribute little to a significant learning environment at home. And children will be less likely to involve themselves in really creative enterprises at home, which may grow out of or into experiences at school, if there is not greater oygglap of materials inside and out- side the school. As Charles Silberman notes, open education is having an impact by being implemented in various schools throughout the United States. Open education is found in New York's Harlem; Philadelphia; Tucson; Washington; Cambridge, Massa- chusetts; Patterson, New Jersey; San Antonio, Texas; and many schools throughout North Dakota.187 By far the greatest impact has been at the elementary level. Most often it ap- pears open education evolves gradually on the volition of teachers. Implementation of Open education within North Dakota grew out of a statewide study under the auspices of the state's Legislative Research Committee in 1965. Results of ‘85Ibid., p. 22. 187Silberman, pp. cit., p. 266. 96 the study disclosed that the state ranked fiftieth in the professional preparation of elementary teachers and in over- all opportunities afforded elementary students. Clearly a crisis had developed which required more than upgrading teachers. A consultant to the statewide study had read Jo- seph Featherstone's accounts of the British informal primary schools and thereby suggested North Dakota should consider a similar educational program. After additional study, the decision was made to begin implementation Of open education throughout the state. Approximately thirty school districts had implemented open education by the beginning of the 1969-1970 school year. Such a massive retraining program required an integral par- ticipation by the University of North Dakota. It was de- cided sweeping changes in teacher training and retraining would be more effective by creating a new institution rather than utilize the existing College of Education. Conse- quently, the New School of Behavioral Studies in Education was created. Dr. Vito Perrone, a graduate of Michigan State University, was selected as the Dean of the New School.188 Two types of students are served by the New School, undergraduate juniors who enroll for three years leading to a master's degree and experienced teachers wishing to earn a bachelor's degree. The program is voluntary and requires up to two years during which time experienced teachers l8816id.. pp. 284-288. 97 remain on the main campus. Their temporary absence is filled by New School master's degree candidates in an in- ternship-like capacity.189 Excerpts of a letter to Dean Perrone by one of the "retreads" is an indicator of the pro- gram's success. "I know there are areas in which I have worked with greater reservations perhaps than you would have liked me to. This is not because I disagree with the philosophy but because it is difficult to throw away some of the restraints I have prac- ticed for many years." Difficult or not, her enthusiasm is clear. "As far as teaching is con- cerned, it's been almost like starting a new pro- fession. I feel sorry for the older teachers who are staying at home in the same old rut. If only they knew what they were missing!”90 Silberman suggests that it is premature to judge the success of open education in North Dakota. However, several indicators suggest preliminary successes. Although no total assessment has yet been made, individual partic- ipating schools are showing marked gains in reading, writ- ing, arithmetic, and science. Also noteworthy is the ob- vious improvement in attendance.191 Open education is affecting secondary schools but at a far lesser extent than elementary schools. There are several contrasting explanations offered. There are those who contend that the public may accept open educa- tion at the elementary level but hold that such tactics l9016id., p. 269. 19llbid., pp. 288-289. 98 are inappropriate at the secondary level. Presumably sec- ondary schools should get down to the serious business of education. Play and freedom may be appropriate for young children, but continuance of such policies is inappropriate at the secondary level, argue critics of open education. Max Rafferty writes, "The experience of the great mass of humanity over the centuries, however, has demonstrated that the easiest, most economical way to learn is in organized classes from trained instructors with assigned lessons."192 It is as though the imagined realities of life have caught up with students as coursework credentials for college ad- mission or employment must be met. John Holt contends that it is most unfortunate that young children can taste the freedom and joy of learning in an open classroom but be later subjected to traditional sec- ondary education and thus know it could be so much more.193 Perrone agrees by contending "the assumptions which underlie open education are equally applicable to secondary schools." However, the likelihood of mass implementation of open edu- cation in secondary schools doesn't appear too promising in the near future.194 Holt believes that fortunately children have a great deal of adaptability in that they can adapt to traditional secondary schools from open elementary 192Hart, pp. cit., p. 17. 193Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 13. 194Perrone, pp. cit., p. 35. 99 experiences. Therefore Holt argues that even a brief period of open education is better than none at all.195 Silberman considers our secondary schools to be even more repressive than elementary schools and thus in critical need of humanization. He goes so far as to write off junior high schools as "educational wastelands."196 However, there is a noticeable difference between Silberman and Holt in this matter. Holt believes that Open education practices in elementary schools should be implemented in secondary schools. He argues that adolescence is a crucial period which should not be adversely influenced by the secondary school experience. Adolescents have enough pressures with- out undue school pressures. It is a period of examination as the youth seeks self-identity, interpersonal relation- ships, and preparation for occupational goals. As such, it is a time when the adolescent is busy enough trying to please himself. Traditional schools, however, force him to 197 concentrate on pleasing others. Consequently, for Holt open education principles found in elementary schools must become implemented in secondary schools.198 Silberman places several qualifications on such an action. He argues that adolescents have rather well 195Rathbohe, pp. cit., pp. 13-14. 196Silberman, _p. cit., p. 324. 197Holt, The Underachieving School, pp. 39-40. 1938athhone, _p. cit., pp. 12-13. 100 defined interests which tend to be beyond the influence of their teachers. In addition, adolescents learn in styles arui complexities unlike young children. Silberman cites Piaget's work which indicates between the ages of twelve and fifteen most adolescents display "formal operations" of ab- stract thinking. For this reason Silberman contends adoles- cents are thus ready to learn the richness of our culture. This is not to suggest such transmission of culture be a goal in itself but rather fundamental structures must be emphasized. Even fundamental structures are not enough. Students must be taught the powers of discrimination as they seek the relevant. "In short, students need to study the grammar or syntax of the disciplines, as well as their structure and content."199 A rather noticeable problem seems to have risen for Silberman as he seeks to explore alternatives to traditional education. He asks which disciplines should be selected in which sequence and containing what content. Views on "basic education" by advocates such as Arthur Bestor fail 200 to impress Silberman. Bestor in his 1953 Educational Wastelands received considerable attention from Cremin as being one of the most articulate critics of progressive edu- cation.201 Silberman notes that even the "basic education" 199Silberman, pp. cit., pp. 223-227. 2001bid., p. 328. 20ICremin, _p. cit., pp. 343-346. lOl advocates cannot agree what courses constitute basic educa- tion. He uses the PSSC physics course as an example of dif- ficulties when attempting to design an ideal physics curricu- lum. Silberman provides a rather unsatisfactory conclusion when discussing secondary curriculum. The conflict need not be resolved: it is not essential that teachers and students share the same educational goals only that they have edu- cational goals 202 __—— Silberman acknowledges many schools have relaxed numerous regulations of which he approves. However, he docu- ments numerous schools which publish platitudes about foster- ing "self-directing individuals" while daily policies and practices are indeed their own antitheses. Movements toward modular scheduling and other similar innovations are approved by Silberman. However, he believes such tactics may be di- versionary while avoiding more fundamental attitudes toward education.203 There are only several secondary schools throughout the United States which are receiving publicity for open education implementation. John Adams High School in Portland, Oregon, is cur- rently receiving attention as being a leading example of secondary open education. The program at Adams High grew out of concerns expressed by several Ph.D. candidates at Harvard University several years ago. Robert Schwartz, one of the debate participants, is now the principal at Adams ZOZSilberman, 92, Cit-3 PP- 334'335- 203Ihid.. pp. 340-345. 102 High. The school seeks for students to be more self-reliant as they direct their own planning. Rules and regulations are minimal. The curriculum centers around an interdisci- plinary "general education" course which attacks real life problems by dividing into teams. Team activities are di- rected to the extent to realize concepts of required courses for state required subjects. Students may also enroll in elective courses such as industrial arts in which they work as independently as possible. "Mini-courses" are also cre- ated when student interest warrants. Students also have two free periods each day to do whatever they wish. Some students elect to do nothing. Students have the option to receive credit -- no credit or letter grades. Reactions to the Adams High experiment have been mixed. Some criticism has been directed toward a need for greater rigor in the curriculum. At the very least, students feel Adams High is humanized. If Adams High is successful, it can serve as a model of secondary open education inasmuch as Adams High is a typical high school with an enrollment of 1,600.204 Another school receiving attention for its curricular innovations is the Parkway Program in Philadelphia. Park- way is obviously different from other schools in that it is not a school building. Instead the city of Philadel- phia is the school. Most of the activities occur through- out the business and cultural enterprises located along the 204Postman and Weingartner, The Soft Revolution, pp. 76-78. 103 Benjamin Franklin Parkway. A floor of a downtown building serves as administrative offices and meeting site for stu- dents. Consequently, field trips are not brief interludes but rather much of the substance of Parkway. It becomes readily apparent that Parkway signifies an entirely unique approach to secondary education. It is, therefore, not surprising that Parkway stu- dents have considerable responsibility in planning their education. The only direct structure is the obligation to meet the statewide course requirements. Therefore teachers along with university interns meet with small groups of students. Meeting locations may be teachers' homes or other appropriate sites. Evaluations are considered inte- gral and are of the pass-fail standard. Students are expected to also engage in many of the cooperative education opportunities available at various businesses, such as insurance companies, museums, the zoo, social agencies, and the local television station. Student incomes may be derived at some of the cooperating institu- tions. At other sites students assist in projects or simply observe. Obviously the burden for learning is placed upon each student. The Parkway Program is too new to be thoroughly evaluated. A certain amount of intellectual flabbiness is being attended to. However, there appears to be rather strong student support for Parkway. 104 There is a question whether Parkway can serve as a model for other schools. The small enrollment of 500 (1969-1970) and the wealth of opportunities along the Park- way and throughout Philadelphia are contributing factors worth consideration. Silberman acknowledges that the par- ticipating concerns perhaps would not be so receptive if all of Philadelphia's high school students were involved in the Parkway Program. John Bremer, Parkway's director, con- tends that the resources are not so crucial and that the program could be duplicated anywhere. He believes the strength of the Parkway Program lies in its absence of a building which would have forced the creation of a "dis- tinctive social structure."205 The Murray Road Annex High School in Newton, Massa- chusetts, is yet another of the more revolutionary pro- grams. It began by being an elective adjunct to the regu- lar Newton High School. The Murray Road Annex is an old elementary school which had been vacant. Initially the program was very structured for three mornings each week while required subjects were offered. Other times allowed for an Opening up whereby a wide variety Of subjects were pursued on a more informal basis. Murray Road teachers came to realize there was an obvious contradiction in the curriculum in that the spirit of self-education was not truly being fostered. 205Silberman, _p. cit., pp. 349-356. 105 Consequently, a period of self-examination took place as teachers and students formed groups to discuss the curric- ulum with parents, residents, and college admissions offi- cials. Ultimately the formal rigidity found in the morning classes was relaxed. Written evaluations to parents are now in two parts, one from the student and the other from the teacher. As one might expect, a great deal of adjustment to such new found freedom is required of teachers and students alike. Not all can make the adjustment, but fortunately many can.206 Silberman Offers the following quote from a parent as an indicator of the success Murray Road has had for some students. From a parent's evaluation. "When my son was un- happy at Newton High School and doing poorly I could never decide whether he was the problem or if perhaps he was right when he said that much of the school did not teach him anything. I feel now he was sincere. This year he cannot get enough of all he is learning -- he spends every minute singing the praises of Murray Road, but he does not talk about freedom, bull sessions, fooling around—— and indifference but downright, genuine desire to make papers perfect, an absolutely amazing love for every teacher, an incentive which has focused his every bit of energy toward doing better today than yesterday and suddenly a hunger for many tomorrows which will enable him to do more. . . . With less pressure from school routine that was so great at Newton High, my son has pressured himself more, putting study first and working to conclusions. I believe his scope has broadened -- his desire to absorb more and more. . . . If he had stayed at Newton High School, I see the possibility of his wings never spreading. I had no idea so much could unfold in so short a time."20 205Ibid.. pp. 356-364. 207Ibid., p. 359. 106 Future of Open Education Eventually one interested in open education must re- flect upon the future of the movement. It is readily appar- ent that open educators display a sense of uneasiness when they begin to make forecasts. There is reason for concern especially when one looks back toward the plight of progres- sive education. It would appear open educators must become more aware of the history of progressive education. This is a delicate period for open education because many questions need answers. Also many dangers exist for Open education. Charles Rathbone warns that there may be those who try to implement open education without fully understanding its rationale.208 William Hull observes that visitors to British informal schools sense they "do not spring up spontaneously without there having been someone with a pretty good idea of what he was about."209 Surely there is a message here for open education advocates in the United States. Roland Barth is well aware of the need for further examination of the assumptions which underlie open education. He contends that a well run traditional class- room is still better than a poorly implemented open class- room.210 Open education could have as many aberrations as befell progressive education. Jonathan Kozol speaks of 203Rathbone, _p. cit., p. 115. 209Ibid., p. 46. 21011314., pp. 134-136. 107 shortcomings of the free school movement which also have im- plications for Open education in the public schools. Al- though Kozol is a leader of free schools, he contends they often fail because they don't teach. Kozol cautions against teachers who forsake teaching skills that children, specially ghetto youth, need desperately. Student survival in the work-a-day world depends on certain skills which the teacher may take for granted. There's not much that a poor, black l4-year-old can do in cities like New York or Boston if he cannot read and write enough to understand a street sign or to read a phone book. It is too Often the rich college graduate who speaks three languages with native fluency, at the price of 16 years of high- cost, rigorous and sequential education, who is most determined that poor kids should make clay vases, weave Indian headbands, play wit? Polaroid cameras, and climb over geodesic domes. 1 What will it take for open education to survive? John Holt contends that open education cannot survive "un- less it becomes a part of a wider and deeper notion or vi- sion of life and of social change." Holt's belief may be very perceptive in that our schools are not away from pub- lic scrutiny. He acknowledges open education has "long-run political and social consequences" which may or may not be acceptable to the public.212 Consequently, there is the need for time as open education develops and refines itself. Is the public too 2HJohnathan Kozol, "Free Schools Fail Because They Don't TEACH," Epychology Today, V (April, 1972), 32. 212Rathbone, pp. cit., pp. 11-14. 108 impatient by wanting immediate success? Open educators note that the British informal schools took years to develop. Also the British appear to leave their schools alone by trusting in the professional educators to do the right thing. Does the American public have such faith in its edu- cators?213 Both Vito Perrone and Charles Silberman agree that Open education needs structure if it is to meet educational needs of children. Silberman declares the movement should not be viewed as a panacea nor monolithic. Open education is not simply an educational model which can be trans- planted at will.214 As Perrone notes, Open education will have a difficulty if it isn't freely entered. The adminis- trator who announces, "Next year I want you all to imple- ment Open classrooms" is asking for trouble. Open educa- tion must be entered into on one's own volition and at a comfortable pace.215 There is the danger that too many teachers have become trapped by traditional education. It may be like a principal in the Eight-Year Study who con- cluded, "I fear we have come to love our chains."216 There is also an obvious need of a support system if open education is to be viable. The Elementary Science Study of Newton, Massachusetts, and the National Association 213Ibid., p. 11. 214Sinerman, pp. cit., p. 319. 215Perrone, pp. cit., p. 31. 216Silberman, _p. cit., p. 320. 109 of Independent Schools of Boston are helping to promote open education.217 Perrone also acknowledges the Educational De- velopment Center. Colleges and universities must become more active in open education if it is to receive the support it needs. Currently support is found at Wheelock College, New- ton College, University of Connecticut, City College of New York, University of Illinois, University of Colorado, and the University of North Dakota. Institutions of higher edu- cation are needed to provide Open education training and re- training.218 There is also concern for the educational pendulum as a balance between the cognitive and affective is sought. Open educators are well aware, or should be, of the prob- lem.219 Unfortunately sometimes a quirk of fate having nothing to do with education sends the pendulum reeling the other direction. Less astute critics claim the emergence of Sputnik signaled a condemnation of progressive education. Silberman reminds his readers of the quip, "Their German scientists had gotten ahead of our German scientists."220 Philosophic Suppprt for Open Education As witnessed in Chapter I, there is a great deal of philosophic support for open education although many 217Rathbone, _p. ci ., p. xii. 218Perrone, _p. ci ., p. 34. 219Silberman, pp. ci ., p. 322. 22OIbid., p. 169. 110 open educators write as though their views are original. Basic precepts for open education go back to the ancients. Charles Silberman acknowledges Plato wrote about issues which today concern open educators.221 For the purposes of this study it shall be sufficient to examine the works of selected philosophers who best appear to have written in the spirit of open education. Therefore the examination commences with Comenius and concludes with Bode. This section is definitely not exhaustive inasmuch as noted philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead have been omitted. Also, conversely, one could build a philosophic case against open education by examining the works of William Chandler Bagley and others. John Amos Comenius Comenius collected his thoughts on educational reform to produce his magnum opus, The Great Didactic, which ap- pears to have been written in 1632. His writing style against educational practices of his day is similar to John Holt's. For example, Comenius spoke of the schools as "222 "slaughterhouses of the young. On another occasion he castigated the educational system he witnessed. Teachers almost invariably take their pupils as they find them; they turn them, beat them, card them, comb them, drill them into certain forms, and expect them to become a finished and polished product; and if the result does not come up to their expectations (and I ask you how could it?) they are indignant, angry, and 221Ibid., p. 334. 222John Amos Comenius, _p. cit., p. 2. lll furious. And yet we are surprised that some men shrink and recoil from such a system. Far more is it matter for suprise that any one can endure it at all.223 As far as Comenius was concerned, there had been no perfect schools as of his time. He felt that the methods were so severe as to drive many youth from schools. For those who succeeded, a comprehensive education was not real- ized but only "a preposterous and wretched one."224 Like today's open educators, Comenius was not con- tent to criticize the educational system. He felt compelled to offer a viable substitute which he considered more ten- able. Comenius thus set out to describe his educational model. Goals were an obvious prerequisite. Consequently, he began by promoting universal education for both the rich and poor of both sexes.225 Comenius was concerned that there was no particular method employed in the schools. Methods varied from teacher to teacher and from subject to subject. Too often students were expected to sit patiently until their recitation turn came. Comenius was also concerned about depth and breadth of knowledge. He cited how Pythagoras, Archimedes, Agri- cola, and Longolius had spent entire lifetimes in pursuit of their respective disciplines. Thus Comenius reasoned if such strong intellects must spend entire lifetimes to 112 master but one discipline, what futility must exist to ex- pect the same from mass education. (One wonders how Comenius would react to the knowledge explosion in the twentieth cen- tury.) For Comenius the principles, causes, and uses of information are most important. He wrote, For we must take strong and vigorous measures that no man, in his journey through life, may encounter anything so unknown to him that he cannot pass sound judgment upon it apg6turn it to its proper use with- out serTOus error. Comenius was also displeased with the separation of the disciplines. He wanted them taught as an "encyclopedic whole" rather than being "dealt out piece-meal." Students could not understand linkage between subjects, since such linkage was not an integral aspect of their education.227 Just as today's open educators seek greater humanism in schools, Comenius wrote in 1632 about schools being "workshops of humanity."228 Comenius also concerned himself with the matter of coercion. He believed virtually all stu- dents are capable of learning if only their teachers are wise and patient. He believed that the desire to learn is a natural phenomenon not to be inhibited by external dis- tractions. ". . . With many not the capacity to learn but the inclination is lacking, and to compel these against their will is as unpleasant as it is useless."229 The 226Ibid., 22716i 70. 161. 71. N N to oo 0—. CT —I Q. U N N D. U 'U 'U 'U 'U H U- do 0. U 87. 113 teacher's role in Comenius' view was that of benevolent guide rather than taskmaster. He wrote, ". . . the seeds of knowledge, of virtue, and of piety exist in all men . . . , it follows of necessity that they need nothing but a gentle impulse and prudent guidance."230 In effect Comenius addressed the issue of self con- cept. He advised, the teacher must meet their weak natures half- way, must lay no heavy burden on them, must not de- mand anything excessive, but rather have patience, help them, strengthen them, and set them right, that they may not be disheartened. Though such pupils take longer to come to maturity, they will probab}y last all the better, like fruit that ripens late. 1 Comenius turned to the fine and practical arts as a desirable educational method. He believed that students needed a model for self evaluation, grounding in tools of the subject, and practice. Thus Comenius opposed the empha- sis On theory alone. Artisans do not detain their apprentices with theories, but set them to do practical work at an early stage: thus they learn to forge by forging, to carve by carving, to paint by painting, and to dance by dancing. In schools, therefore, let the students learn to write by writing, to talk by talking, to sing by singing, and to reason by reasoning. In this way schools will become work- shops humming with work, and students whose efforts prove successful will experience the truth of the proverb: "We give form to opgéelves and to our materials at the same time." 23°Ihid., p. 84. 23‘Ibid., p. 89. 2321bid., p. 195. 114 Open educators speak of the necessity of concrete experiences as did Comenius. He also appreciated the value of errors in the learning process. Mechanics do not begin by drumming rules into their apprentices. They take them into the workshop and bid them look at the work that has been produced, and then, when they wish to imitate this (for man is an imitative animal), they place tools in their hands and show them how they should be held and used. Then, if they make mistakes, they give them advice and correct them, often more by example than by mere words, and, as the facts show, the novices easily succeed in their imitation. For there is great truth in that saying of gge Germans, "A good leader finds a good follower." Comenius also spoke of school discipline. He opposed the use of force and instead argued for reason through in- terest in students. The teacher was equated to a gardener who "does not apply the pruning knife to plants which are immature."234 Motivation was viewed by Comenius as residing in the individual rather than through fear of reprisal. Comenius accepted the thoughts of Eilhard Lubinus. " . . the young should never be compelled to do any- thing, but their tasks should be of such a kind and should be set them in such a way that they will do them of their own accord, and take pleasure in them. I am therefore of opinion that rods and blows, those weapons of slavery, are quite unsuitable tozggeemen, and should never be used in schools One finds in the words of Comenius so many of the ideas of today's open educators. For such thoughts to have 234Ibid., p. 250. 235Ibid., pp. 253-254. 115 been expressed over 300 years ago, one wonders why educa- tional reform moves so slowly. Jean Jacques Rousseau Like Comenius, Rousseau made frequent statements which can only be interpreted as supporting open education. Of his many works, Rousseau's Epilp, written in 1762, speaks directly to education. Rousseau is primarily remembered for his belief in the natural goodness of man. Thus he holds nature as an integral element in education. He wrote of man, the cor- rupter, who made education necessary. There may be some confusion as to what Rousseau meant by nature as it applies to education. Payne interpreted Rousseau by summarizing, "Education must be natural in the sense that it must be based .236 For on the permanent elements in our constitution. Rousseau, education was somewhat of a triumvirate derived from nature, from men, and from things. Consequently, bal- ance from these elements was considered both delicate and crucial. Moreover, success could be only partial in that 237 Rousseau's em- only education from men is controllable. phasis on nature in education appears to have been misinter- preted by some of his readers. Apparently only selected statements have registered, such as, "God makes all things 236Jean Jacques Rousseau, Rousseau's Emile or Treatise on Education, trans. William H. Payne (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1904), p. 321. 237Ibid., pp. 2-3. 116 good; man meddles with them and they become evil."238 Like- wise, one could prematurely conclude that Rousseau rejected schooling when he wrote, "When our natural tendencies have not been interfered with by human prejudice and human insti- tutions, the happiness alike of children and of men consists "239 in the enjoyment of their liberty. However, this is not to say Rousseau totally rejected schooling by only favoring one's interaction with nature. Rousseau wrote, Yet things would be worse without this educa- tion, and mankind cannot be made by halves. Under existing conditions a man left to himself from birth would be more of a monster than the rest.240 Open educators now argue against sacrificing youth to the future. So did Rousseau. He wrote, What must we think, then, of that barbarous edu- cation which sacrifices the present to an uncertain future, which loads a child with chains of every sort, and begins by making him miserable in order to pre- pare for him, long in advance, some pretended happi- ness which it is probable he will never enjoy? . Who knows how many children perish, the victims of the misdirected wisdom of a father or a teacher? . . . Be humane to all classes and to all ages, to everything noE foreign to mankind. . . . Love childhood . . . 4 Concern for the unwarranted pressures on children is readily apparent. A concern for relevance is also displayed. Rous- seau continued, 238Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara Foxley (New York: Everyman's Library/Dutton, 1911), p. 5. 239Ibid., 49. 2401bid., 5. p. p. 24‘Payne, pp. cit., pp. 44-45. 117 It is absurd to require them to apply themselves to things which are vaguely declared to be for their own good, without knowing what this good is of which they are asspred they will derive pro- fit when grown . . . 42 It is therefore not surprising that Rousseau, like the open educators, sought an education based on experiences rather than solely on theoretical abstractions. He wrote, "I am weary of repeating; let all the lessons of young people take the form of doing rather than talking: let them learn nothing from books which they can learn from experience."243 Rousseau's emphasis toward experience impinged upon instructional resource material. He displayed reservations toward the unnecessary utilization of such material. His fear was that the symbol would command more attention than the reality it sought to represent and thus lead to distor- tion and confusion.244 Payne summarized Rousseau with the following: In teaching geography, maps and globes are use- less machines. Take the child where he can see the glories of the sun's rising and setting, and feel the charms of the morning and the evening. Do not pour into his ears your own descriptions of these natural phenpmena, but allow him to see, and feel, and reflect. 45 Books received as much concern from educators in Rousseau's time as instructional television and computer assisted instruction now receive. Rousseau was extremely 24216id.. pp. 154-155. 243Foxley, pp. cit., p. 214. 244Payne, pp. cit., p. 141. 245Ibid., p. 336. 118 adamant toward books, which he regarded as replacements of memory and reason. Books upon books! What madness! As all Europe is full of books, EurOpeans regard them as neces- sary, forgetting that they are unknown throughout three quarters of the globe. Were not all these books written by men? Why then should a man need them to teach him his duty, and how did he leagn his duty before these books were in existence? 46 There was one book, however, which captured Rous- seau's respect. He found in Robinson Crusoe a most perfect model which supplies the "best treatise on an education according to nature."247 Rousseau also was concerned with the process of growth in children. Like Open educators, the key to Rousseau was faith and trust. He wrote, Silly children grow into ordinary men. . . . It is the most difficult thing in the world to distin- guish between genuine stupidity, and that apparent and deceitful stupidity which is the sign of a strong character. 8 Children were for Rousseau a rich natural resource not to be neglected or abused. Hold childhood in reverence, and do not be in any hurry to judge it for good or ill. Leave ex- ceptional cases to show themselves, let their quali- ties be tested and confirmed, before special methods are adopted. Give nature time to work before you take over her business, lest you interfere with her dealings. 246Foxley, pp. cit., p. 267. 247Ihid., p. 147. 24816id., p. 70. 249Ihid., p. 71. 119 John Holt questions whether children should be "taught" to read. Rousseau had similar beliefs. He felt that the teacher's task was to give children a desire to read after which almost any method would be successful.250 Rousseau believed that education should be general inasmuch as all men have the same basic wants, destiny, and powers. He contended that education should prepare one for the uncertainties of life. Payne summarized, "Emile's edu- cation shall be directed according to what is universal in human life."251 "252 Consequently, the key word was "useful. In like manner, Rousseau viewed the teacher as guide and motivator rather than source of information. He wrote, ". . . let your answers be enough to whet his curiosity but ."253 Likewise he wrote, not enough to satisfy it “. . . he is not to learn science, but to discover it ."254 Rousseau encouraged the development of an ability for making independent observations through the senses.255 Open educators speak out against the dangers of competition in education, as did Rousseau. He wrote, Moreover, as soon as he begins to reason let there be no comparison with other children, no rivalry, 250Payne, pp. cit., p. 82. 25116id., p. 340. 2521bid., p. 156. 253 Foxley, p. 135. pp. cit., 254Payne, pp. cit., p. 137. p. 255Ibid., 152. 120 no competition, not even in running races. I would far rather he did not learn anything than pgye him learn it through jealousy or self-conceit. Rousseau was concerned with play for young children. He viewed play as the work of the young whereby there are no differences.257 However, as the youth grew older, such differences between work and play were emphasized so that foresight and planning could be nurtured.258 Rousseau also felt strongly about the use of time, as do Open educators. ". . . the most important, the most useful rule, of all education . . . is not to gain time, but to lose it."259 He believed youth is a delicate period in which time is required to prepare for problems in adult- hood. Furthermore, Rousseau believed that it is worse to use a child's time with ill teaching than to allow him to do nothing. He asked if it is possible for a child to actually do nothing.260 Such statements by Rousseau may be misinterpreted by assuming he advocated indulging chil- dren. Closer inspection clearly reveals he did not advise teachers to abrogate their responsibilities. Payne sum- marized Rousseau, "The surest way to make a child miserable is to accustom him to obtain whatever he desires. If his 256Foxley, p. 146. . cit., cit., p. 127. 4. 2'38Ihid., 15 BB 257Payne, pp. p. p. 58. 2591pid., 260Foxley, _p. cit., p. 71. 121 infancy is made wretched in this way, what will be his con- dition as a man?"261 Rousseau spoke about student-teacher relationships. He felt teachers should not lord over their students but rather feel and display empathy. The aspirations of the students should be considered. However, Rousseau did not consider students as equals of teachers lest respect be lost.262 He felt teachers should provide guidance while giv- ing as much freedom as prudent. Rousseau wrote, "Give him "263 Mistakes were to not what he wants but what he needs. be expected and to be both identified and corrected by the student.264 Rousseau also cautioned against prejudgment, for it is difficult to foretell the genius of children. He felt nature should be allowed time to work upon the chil- dren.265 Open educators are now concerned with the matter of coercion, as was Rousseau. He felt Emile must do nothing against his will. Emile's purposes for learning were to be 266 through pleasure rather than through fear. Rousseau felt too often society enslaved the individual through various 261Payne, pp. pip., p. 127. 252;ppp., p. 220. 263Foxley, pp. pip., p. 49. 254;p1p., p. 134. 265Payne, _p. cit., p. 67. 2661bid., p. 145. 122 constraints. Education is to counteract this servitude by offering the individual his freedom with which one might 267 Rousseau advised children should 268 better manage life. find resistance in things and not in wills. In other words, teachers are not to get in the road of students' learning. Let educational frustrations originate in reality and not from pedantic teachers. Rousseau believed self- reliance needed to be developed in students. He felt stu- dents should learn not to be dependent upon others.269 Rous- seau was also sensitive to dangers arising from students taught to be docile. Let the child do nothing because he is told; nothing is good for him but what he recognizes as good. . . . To provide him with useless tools which he may never require, you deprive him of man's most useful tool -- common sense. You would have him docile as a child; he will be a credulous dupe when he grows up. A man must know many things which seem useless to a child, but need the child learn, or can he in- deed learn, all that the man must know? Try to teach the child what is of use to a child and you will find that it takes all his time. . . . “But," you ask, “will it not be too late to learn what he ought to know when the time comes to use it?" I cannot tell; but this I do know, it is impossible to teach it sooner, for our real teachers are experience and emotion, and man will never learn what befits a man except under its own conditions.”0 There is evidence that Rousseau was concerned a- bout the unwise use of testing. He believed excessive 269Foxley, pp. cit., p. 35. 27OIbid., p. 141. 123 questioning was useless and unwarranted. A chance word freely elicited indicates more than a battery of tests. Rousseau wrote, "A man must needs [pipJ have a good judgment if he is to estimate the judgment of a chi1d."271 Rousseau acknowledged that students need to be pun- ished for wrongdoing but never in an artificial manner. He recommended that punishment should be the natural conse- quences of their acts.272 Such became the basis for Herbert Spencer's later work. Rousseau also made statements suggestive of the im- plications toward open education from industrial education. He felt man's interdependence is best learned by studying "industry and the mechanic arts." Emile was not only to ob- 273 serve but to experience. It appears that Rousseau would not be content to use a narrow term as manual training, for he sensed the greater intellectual ramifications. Reader, do not pause here to see the bodily training and manual dexterity of our pupil, but consider what direction we are giving to his childish curiosity; consider his senses, his in- ventive spirit, his foresight; consider what a head we are going to form for him; in everything he sees, in everything he does, he will wish to know everything, and understand the reason of everything; from instrument to instrument, he will always ascend to the first; he will take nothing on trust; he will refuse to learn that which can not be understood without an anterior knowledge which he does not possess. If he sees 27]Ibid., p. 127. 272Payne, pp. cit., p. 65. 273Ibid., p. 165. 124 a spring made, he would know how the steel was taken from the mine 274 Rousseau placed priority on the child and not on the activity. ''The child ought to be wholly absorbed in the thing he is doing; but you ought to be wholly absorbed in the child . . ."275 Implications for curricular planning are to be found in Rousseau's writings on industrial education. He cautioned not to exclusively offer study in the teacher's favorite occupations which might bore the student. Plea- sure and sense of purpose must be felt by the student.276 This brief examination of Rousseau's ideas is but suggestive of the scope of his understandings. Impact from his ideas is readily apparent in contemporary educational reform. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi There appears to be some question as to the extent to which Pestalozzi accepted Rousseau's ideas. One source suggests Pestalozzi accepted Rousseau's belief in the natural goodness of man which can be corrupted by an evil social environment in which case education serves as sal- vation. In addition, it is said Pestalozzi agreed that hu- man growth occurs in gradual stages nurtured by the senses rather than verbalism in which nature in the broadest sense 274Ihid.. pp. 168-169. 275Ibid., p. 169. 125 provides the best conditions for learning. While Pestalozzi also rejected the artificial, he was not led to simply reject society as evil.277 Another source contends that Pestalozzi acknowledged an indebtedness to Rousseau but found some of his ideas impractical.278 For example, Pestalozzi tried Rousseau's ideas on his own son, who was described as being physically and mentally weak, but found the child couldn't 279 The essential difference between Pesta- read by eleven. lozzi and Rousseau was that Rousseau was more of a theorist while Pestalozzi sought through education to solve some very real problems. Pestalozzi's activities and those of his fol- lowers lead one to conclude he was indeed a man of action.280 Pestalozzi agreed with Rousseau and today's open educators in that he "gave the child back to himself and education back to the child and to human nature."281 Like Comenius, Pestalozzi reacted against cruel and incompetent teachers who found in education a refuge from failure in other occupations. Such teachers lacked empathy and any sense of the educative process.282 277Gerald Lee Gutek, Pestalozzi and Education (New York: Random House, Inc., 1968), p. 11. 278Michael Heafford, Pestalozzi (London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1967), p. 11. 279 Gutek, _p. cit., pp. 28-29. 280Lewis Flint Anderson, Pestalozzi (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 193lTTp."T. 281Heafford, pp. cit., p. 43. 282Ibid., p. 76. 126 The criticisms enounced by Pestalozzi extended be- yond the failures of individual teachers. He saw in educa- tion an unwarranted degree of rigidity and artificiality. Pestalozzi's criticism was far more basic and uni- versal than the maltreatment of pupils in certain schools, for he accused the whole system -- both the methods and the content -- of having become fettered by routine and tradition, to the point where teaching had degenerated into cramming and where school subjects had become no more than a particular selection of facts to be learnt by heart. Teaching methods had become so rigid that they took into account neither the capacities of a child to learn what was placed in front of him, npr the pur- pose for which he was expected to do so. 83 Essentially Pestalozzi objected to the bookishness of education which limited the use of the senses by pre- senting isolated bits of knowledge while ignoring the essentials of life. The result was schooling being unreal by isolating theory from action.284 Pestalozzi spoke for an education which emphasized the "expansion from within" rather than the "restriction from outside.“ He viewed education not as the depositing of knowledge but more as the development of potential. Consequently, he viewed teaching as being an art of human relations rather than simply another occupation.285 To facilitate his goals he offered the child- centered system which he referred to as the "method." His system directed that education should be for the child 283Ibid., 40. p. 284Gutek, pp. cit., p. 104. 285Heafford, pp. cit., p. 77. 127 rather than the child for education. Emphasis was placed on meeting the needs of the whole personality. Pestalozzi ar- gued against perpetuating an educational system on a take it or leave it basis to which the student was obliged to adapt. Accordingly the "method" was designed to proceed from the simple to the complex during which time the teacher sought to determine the capacity of each student to arrive at a match between method and capacity. The use of the word capa- city is not to be construed as identifying the child as a vessel into which knowledge is poured. Heafford suggests that Pestalozzi viewed the child not as a "rough-hewn stone" awaiting carving by parents and teachers but rather a seed "containing the essence of the child's intelligence and per- sonality." Pestalozzi's belief in a duality comprised of heredity and environment sets well with such contemporary psychologists as Piaget.286 Gutek summarized Pestalozzi's doctrines with the following: . . (l) the source of evil lies in a distorted environment; (2) men may be ignorant, but they are capable of regeneration; (3) the true road to social reform lies in the peaceful processes of education; (4) genuine education cooperates in the development of man's natural moral, intellectual, and physical powers; (5) human development begins in the home circle and the child responds with gratitude to the loving care of the mother; (6) true education will produce economically self-sufficient individuals.287 128 The influence of home education is particularly sensed in Pestalozzi's Leonard and Gertrude. A brief exami- nation of his work suggests the tenor of the "method." . . . her whole scheme of education, which em- braced a true comprehension of life itself. Yet she never adopted the tone of instructor toward her children; she did not say to them: "Child, this is your head, . . . your hand . . . -- but instead, she would say: "Come here, child, I will wash your little hands ." ' 1111' that'eertrhde'é children.knew,.they ' knew so thoroughly that they were able to teach it to the younger ones 288 Pestalozzi's influence on today's open educators is evident in such practices as family grouping and student- teacher relationships. Also, like modern day open educators, Pestalozzi was not content to merely criticize education, for he chose to demonstrate his theory. His schools at Neuhof, Clindy, Stans, Burgdorf, and Yverdon were successful in method but failed for financial or political reasons.289 Throughout his experiments Pestalozzi emphasized two basic principles; the simple should precede the complex, and mastery at each stage must be complete before continuing. Accordingly Heafford suggests Pestalozzi would have sup- ported the judicious use of contemporary instructional me- dia.290 The art of teaching in Pestalozzi's view was to 288Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Pestalozzi's Leonard and Gertrude, trans. Eva Channing (Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 1903), pp. 130-131. ‘ 289Heafford, pp. cit., pp. 9-35. 29°Ibid., p. 87. 129 provide the proper conditions and experiences wherein each student's potential could be fully developed. Pestalozzi also held a belief in the development of the whole person- ality. He held, as do contemporary psychologists, that stu- dents weak in certain subjects tend not to sublimate by ex- celling in athletics or other subjects. The bright student tends to excel in games and vice versa for the less capable student. Thus Pestalozzi advocated a system which attempted to develop to capacity a wide range of talents.291 Through his work at Stans, Pestalozzi found verifi- cation in his belief that each child required emotional se- curity before education could proceed. Both his attitude and actions are similar to A. S. Neill at Summerhill. Writes Gutek, "He still retained a belief in the self-activity of the learner. All learning came from innate powers which were stimulated by the environment."292 Pestalozzi demonstrated an interest in industrial education, as evidenced by his experiment at Clindy. He felt social concerns for the poor. Growing industrializa- tion exploited the poor to the extent of losing their human- ity. Their self-esteem had become destroyed by the narrow- ness and shallowness of their employment. Pestalozzi sought through vocational education to emancipate the poor by provid- ing economic independence. It is noteworthy especially for 29lIhid.. pp. 45-48. 292Gutek, pp. cit., pp. 39-41. 130 industrial educators that Pestalozzi strongly believed that industrial education was to be broad if it was deserving of the name education.293 "Industrial education is not the education of a single miserable factory skill. The true, but as yet unproven, aim of industrial education is essentially nothing more than the application of the whole of human education to the specific task of earning a living, and can only be called true industrial education if it is based on the full experienge and whole range of human education itself." 94 Pestalozzi felt strongly for a vocational education in the broadest sense. Anything less would result in "one slavishly trained for making a living."295 Likewise he opposed the separation of vocational education from general education. Such separation results, in Heafford's words, in "general education becoming divorced from life itself."296 The essential message left by Pestalozzi is the need for education to be nurtured in a climate of emotional se- curity. Pestalozzi's heritage has become more, not less, relevant for today, particularly in the eyes of open educa- 297 tors. Like other great education leaders, Pestalozzi was not always fully understood by his followers.298 293Heafford, pp. cit., PP- 79'80- 294Ibid., p. 81 zgsGutek, pp, pip., p. 147. 296Heafford, _p. pip., p. 87. 297lpip., pp. 84-85. 2986utek, pp. pip., p. 158. 131 Pestalozzianism was carried to many countries by his followers. The ideals of Pestalozzi were brought to Oswego, New York, by Edward Sheldon and Herman Krusi, Jr., a chief assistant of Pestalozzi. The Oswego movement had the distinguishable Pestalozzian identity of education accord- ing to natural human development.299 Influence of Pestalozzi had a profound effect upon other American philosophers and educators. He surely in- spired John Dewey and William Heard Kilpatrick among others.300 Friedrich Froebel Froebel acknowledged inspiration from both Rousseau and Pestalozzi but also established points of departure. He differed from Rousseau who would isolate the child in order for nature to educate. Froebel believed that a carefully constructed environment of other children and understanding adults would be more educative.301 Froebel sought an educa- tion which emphasized a far greater unity than did Pesta- lozzi. A multiplicity of relationships among knowledge, the individual and society, and the individual, God, and nature 299Will S. Monroe, History of the Pestalozzian Move- ment in the United States (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1969): pp. 171-190. 300Gutek, pp, cit., p. 166. 301H. Courthope Bowen, Froebel and Education through Self-Activity (New York: Charles Schbner's Sons, 1913), p. 93. 132 were hallmarks in Froebel's method.302 Concrete examples brought to school were characteristic of what PestaloZzi called the "object lesson." Froebel approved of reality over abstraction for children but feared such education could be- come debased if emphasis was placed upon the object rather than on the child. Also implicit with the object lesson is the connotation that knowledge is being transmitted to a re- ceptive child. It seemed to Froebel that such strategies fell short of real educational potentials. He believed that possibilities for creativity needed to be better enhanced. Hughes suggested how Froebel capitalized upon creativity through the use of special materials called "gifts." In ordinary objective work the child is receptive, Froebel made it creative; the schools give infor- mation, Froebel gave power; the schools allow the child to see, or at best to examine, the object, Froebel allowed it to use it; the schools ask the child what it can find out about the object, Froebel encouraged it to find what it could do with it; the schools sometimes permit the child to make a repre- sentation of the object, Froebel required it to transform it into some other form as an expression of an original thought of its own; the schools are satisfied with increasing the store of knowledge, or at best with enlarging faculty power, Froebel desired the assimilation of knowledge by using it as it is acquired, and exercised the whole produc- tive intellect; the schools bring the outer material to the inner life of the child, Froebel led the child's inner life to dominate and transform its material environment.303 302Irene M. Lilley (ed.), Friedrich Froebel/A Selec- tion from His Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 18:20. 303James L. Hughes, Froebel's Educational Laws for All Teachers (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1911), PP- 25"252 133 It is therefore not surprising to judge Pestalozzi as being somewhat more impetuous than the methodical Froebel. Bowen attempted to formulate the salient differences between Pestalozzi and Froebel with the following: Broadly speaking, Pestalozzi's plan is one of ob- serving and imitating; Froebel's, one of observing and inventing. To exercise the creative, originat- ing powers of the child is Froebel's main object; to teach the child to speak and to do work alsiady prescribed is largely the aim of Pestalozzi. Already eluded to was Froebel's strong belief of unity or inner connections among man, God, and nature. Unique to his writing was the frequent reference to crystals as being representative of a most perfect unity. His years of study of crystallography undoubtedly account for the sig- nificance he gave to crystals.305 Froebel so clearly dis- cerned the need for unity in one's education. He sensed necessity for continuity in human growth and development. Like today's Open educators Froebel strongly believed that the fullest development as an adult is only realized after the fullest possible development as a child. Therefore he appreciated the value of play in the development of young children, as did his predecessors.306 Out of Froebel's theory of unity for full develop- ment grew his belief in freedom. For Froebel, freedom was much more of an all pervasive concept than the narrowly 304Bowen, pp. cit., p. 186. 305Lilley, pp. cit., p. 15. 306Ibid., p. 38. 134 conceived absence of coercion or laissez-faire. Froebel argued that freedom in its fullest sense results only after being nurtured in the young. Freedom which is parceled to adults after years of coercive schooling is incomplete. Lack of one's freedom during the "plastic period" results in an insensitivity for a wide range of human experiences. Conse- quently, Froebel's method was a strong belief in the integ- rity and individuality of each child. Such beliefs endorse a child-centered curriculum which offers a wide range of opportunities to increase one's capacity for freedom. Froe- bel's terms of "equipment for freedom of choice" and "power of choice" suggest discriminative abilities to use freedom wisely in avoiding propaganda of all types.307 Froebel viewed development as being continuous pro- vided proper conditions were available of which freedom was crucial.308 He wrote of the dangers when viewing develop- ment as being static. It is unspeakably pernicious to look upon the development of humanity as stationary and completed, and to see in its present phases simply repetitions and greater generalizations of itself. For the child, as well as every suc- cessive generation, becomes thereby exclu- sively imitative, an external dead copy -- as it were, a cast of the preceding one -- and not a living ideal for its stage of development which it had attained in human develOpment 307Evelyn Lawrence (ed.), Froebel and English Edu- cation (New York: Schocken Books Inc., 1969), pp. 225-229. 308Lilley, pp, cit., p. 10. 135 considered as a whole, to serve future genera- tions in all time to come.309 Development unfolded through an array of experiences as the individual gleaned greater self-consciousness at ever higher levels.310 Thus Froebel wrote, ". . . let my aim be to give man himself."311 Lilley translates and interprets Froebel by declaring, "The boy's will must be made firm; it must become strong and enduring so that essential human qual- ities can be exercised and expressed . . ."312 Unfortunately Froebel's quest for freedom may be mis- interpreted as advocating unrestrained liberty. Clearly such was not the case. Froebel sought a balance between control and spontaneity in which harmony results. He demonstrated faith that children prefer to do right over wrong.313 The question arises as how to explain why some children go a- stray. Lilley interprets Froebel to ascribe shortcomings of youth to two basic causes, failure to fully develop the child's potential and disruption of natural development. Froebel contended that man is essentially good but may do 309Friedrich Froebel, The Education of Man, trans. W. N. Hailmann (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1891), p. 7. 310Lilley, QB. cit., p. 10. 3”Emilie Michaelis and H. Keatley Moore (eds. and trans.), Autobiography of Friedrich Froebel (4th ed.; Lon- don: Swan SonnenscheTn & Co., 1892), p. 49. 312Li11ey, pp. cit., p. 122. 313Hughes, pp. cit., pp. 15-16. 136 314 wrong if the environment is inhospitable. Such an inhos- pitable environment may be the work of adults. Educators themselves may unfortunately misinterpret the actions of youth by prematurely judging. Again the self-fulfilling pro- phecy results in children living up to expectations. Chil- dren come to be punished for faults which they learned from adults, including their teachers.315 Indeed there is the sad danger that scars on teachers after a misdirected educa- tion may be revisited upon their students. A translation from Froebel's Ausgewdhlte Schriften speaks directly to the issue. Must we hide from ourselves the never healing wounds which bleed all our life long, the calloused places in our hearts, or the dark ineradicable stains on our souls which are left when estimable thoughts and feelings are wiped away -- all the result of our misdirected youth? Can we not see in our hearts all the seeds of excellence which became withered and dead at that time? Will we not do this for our children's sake? We may hold an im- portant office, be successful in our profession or business, and take pleasure in our profession or business, and take pleasure in our social re- finement, but, in the moment when we confront our- selves alone, can all this spare us from the reali- sation of gaps and discontinuities in our educa- tion or remove the feeling of incompleteness and impergection caused mainly by our own early educa- tion? 16 How then did Froebel prOpose to offer an education which balanced between freedom and control without coercion? Examination of the literature reveals that freedom was not 314Lilley, pp. cit., pp. 132-133. 3151mm, pp. 135-136. 315Ihid., pp. 158-159. 137 only to be used to develop individualism. He sought an edu- cation which united individual benefits with welfare of others. One's education was not to be isolated. Instead brotherhood of man was to be nurtured through cooperative behavior. Each student demonstrates respect for the rights of others through self-control. Teachers are not to impose self-control but rather create an educational environment which allows each child to sense personal advantage when re- specting the rights of others. The concept of unity sug- gests that each individual has a vested interest in the wel- fare of the group.317 Quite evident then is Froebel's be- lief in the necessity for self-contemplation, self-analysis, and self-education. He believed that education should be founded on a system which provides students with pleasure and power to work uninterrupted.318 For such results to occur, it becomes crucial that each student's "beginnings" be right in order that further growth not be hindered.319 The question then arises as to the function of the school and the role of the teacher. Froebel spoke of what the school should and should not be. For him the school's task was not simply a place where information was imparted. Hughes provides insight when he describes Froebel's system, "He revealed the fact that education is a work of growth carried on by and through the child, and not merely for 317Hughes, pp. cit., pp. 16-27. 318Li11ey, pp. cit., p. 33. 319Lawrence, _p. ci ., pp. 190-194. 138 it."320 Therefore in Froebel's view separation of subjects was inconsistent with growth through unity. Froebel believed that the student was first to know himself, then God, and finally nature. Language was essential to make such connec- tons for unity.321 Froebel wrote, "School, then, means here by no means the school-room, nor school-keeping, but the conscious com- munication of knowledge, for a definite_purpose and in defi- .u322 nite inner connection It is important to note that Froebel clarified his intent when he further declared, "To give firmness to the will, to guicken itp and to make it pure, strong, and enduring, in a life of pure humanipyp_is the chief concern, the main object in the guidance Of the bes in instruction and the school."323 Therefore Froebel believed that students can only truly learn if they feel the need to learn. Lilley provides a translation of Froebel on this issue. It should always happen that teaching and in- struction are connected with a need really felt by the boy. It is also absolutely necessary that this need should have been previously develOped in a definite context before the boy can be instructed with any advantage or success. Here is a main cause of so many deficiencies in our schools and method of instruction. We teach our children without first arousing this need and, it may be, after we have 320Hughes, pp. cit. 32‘1.i11ey. 92. cit., pp. 139-141. 322Hailmann, pp. cit., p. 95. 323Ibid., p. 96. 139 already destroyed what was in the 1d. How can such teaching be successful? . . .331 The need to truly understand each pupil was central to the teacher's task in Froebel's view when he wrote of "sharing the 1ife."325 In addition to being empathic with students, Froebel believed the nature of the relationship was vital. He opposed the notion that the student's mind was like a tubula rosa or lump of clay waiting to be molded.326 We grant space and time to young plants and animals because we know that, in accordance with the laws that live in them, they will develop properly and grow well; . . . but the young hu- man being is looked upon as a piece of wax, a lump of clay, which man can mold into what he pleases. 0 man, who roamest through garden and field, through meadow and grove, why dost thou close thy mind to the silent teaching of na- ture?327 Froebel preferred to think of children as plants and teachers as gardeners. The school environment was to pro- vide good soil for growth through understanding and encour- agement.328 Educational growth was accomplished through living, doing, and knowing which Froebel considered coinci- dental.329 324Li11ey, pp. ci ., p. 153. 325;p1p., p. 35. 3261219,, pp. 182-190. 327Hailmann, _p. cit., p. 8. 328Lawrence, _p. pi_,, p. 195. 329Lilley, pp. cit., p. 43. 140 Self-activity was considered by Froebel as being an essential process in his belief of unity. Spontaneity, in- terest, and appreciation, declared Froebel, are essential for true self-activity.330 Consequently, Froebel believed quite strongly in industrial education to enhance his view of self-activity. There is an abundance of literature to suggest Froebel was an ardent supporter of manual training. It is important to note that he valued manual training not for furnishing skilled workmen to serve man power needs but rather to serve the educational needs of the individual. He appreciated the skill and knowledge manual training offered but insisted the transformation taking place in the indivi- dual, his selfhood, was more important than visible results. Froebel cautioned against an educational system which only transmitted knowledge. He sought a total unified education in which children could both mentally and physically react as they reasoned and reflected. For Froebel there were no taxonomies of the domains. To realize his aspirations for manual training Froebel argued that the production of charac- ter was obviously more important than the production of 331 goods. Froebel, in the words of Hughes, realized "that what is philosophically true must at the same time be the "332 most practical. Unfortunately the utilitarian value of 330Hughes, _p. cit., pp. 6-8. 3311bid., pp. 248-255. 332Ibid., p. 22. *— 141 manual training tempted educators to first offer it to only the older students. Froebel argued for just the opposite. He contended the education of children is best served when manual training is first provided at an early age.333 Re- cent curricular innovation tends to support Froebel's views especially in the case of career education. Froebel's beliefs have surely had a profound effect upon industrial education. Uno Cygnaeus was so taken with Froebel's views that in 1866 he introduced sloyd as a compul- sory study throughout Finland. As the forerunner of indus- trial arts, sloyd spread throughout the Scandinavian coun- tries with the additional efforts of Herr Salomon.334 Froebel's leadership in the kindergarten movement continues to have a powerful effect. Today the National Froebel Foundation influences the educational system through- out Great Britain, as evidenced by the informal education movement. Dr. Evelyn Lawrence, as Director of the National Froebel Foundation, acknowledges that not all are able or willing to accept Froebel's ideas. Is [sic] is a matter partly of judgment, partly of temperament. The subtle adjustments needed for a method based on giving scope for the movements of other minds, the rhythms of other lives, the initi- ative of other wills, are not easy for every teach- er. The theory takes some understanding, and the method some mastering. Certain people are tempera- mentally hostile to it. They like to dominate, or they fear a system which is not neat, cut and dried. They prefer to be anchored continuously to text- books, tO prepared lessons and safe syllabuses and 333Ibid., p. 23. 3348owen, _p. cit., pp. 190-191. 142 time-tables. Others reflect on the vast quanti- ties of knowledge which are there to be imparted and assiduously cut it up into little chunks and feed it in, unable to trust the children's spon- taneous appetites. Yet, again, freer methods have to be defended from some of their wilder friends. Many teachers have taken one look into the bear-garden which a ”free" school can become in the wrong hands, and have returned in horror, the more moderate ones to their mark lists and formal lessons, She diehards to their detentions and their canes. 35 0 It is not enough to simply remember Froebel as the father of the kindergarten movement or as a link of inspira- tion between Pestalozzi and John Dewey. To this day Froebel directly effects education as evidenced by the aforementioned National Froebel Foundation. John Dewey Reportedly, John Dewey's last published words were ". . . of the good that has been attained by the progressive education movement and of the better that is to come."336 Undoubtedly, open educators contend that their fare realizes Dewey's pronunciation. Sidney Hook, as a present day spokes- man for John Dewey, argues that Dewey is being misinterpreted by the more radical wing of open education. Thus, says Hook, it is unwarranted for such individuals to claim credence to their views by trying to establish affinity with Dewey.337 335Lawrence, pp. cit., pp. 12-13. 336John Dewey and Evelyn Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1962), p. xix. 337Sidney Hook, I'John Dewey and His Betrayers," Change in Higher Education, III (November, 1971), 22-26. 143 The work of Dewey must be carefully and thoroughly read to appreciate his views. To remember Dewey as the advo- cate of “learning by doing" is too simplistic after reviewing the perceptive depth and diversity of his beliefs. Dewey acknowledged his indebtedness to his predeces- sors including Rousseau and Froebel. Like Froebel, Dewey be- lieved the school must be connected with life rather than be- come isolated with bits and pieces. An “organic whole" or unity must prevail.338 It would be erroneous to contend that Dewey simply advocated the new or progressive over the old or traditional education. Rather he earnestly sought that which is "worthy of the name education" wherever it is found.339 As a pragmatist, Dewey continuously spoke out against the Either-Or fallacy. As subsequently documented, Dewey believed that education could serve both individual and societal needs while centering around both the child and subject matter. Dewey judged many of Rousseau's ideas foolish but agreed that education cannot be forced into the child but rather is the realization of inherent capacities through growth.340 For Dewey it was not sufficient to simply view education as a drawing out process. The child is no more 338John Dewey, The School and Sociepy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899), pp. 80-81. 339John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 90. 340Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l. 144 passive when education is being drawn out than when it is being poured in. He is already running over, spilling over, with activities of all kinds. He is not a purely latent being whom the adult has to approach with great caution and skill in order gradually to draw out some hidden germ of activity. The child is already intensely active, and the question of education is the question of taking Hold of his activities, of giving them direction.3 1 In addition Dewey went on to assert his belief that education was not simply an unfolding process either. Un- folding denotes an anticipation of results. Rather Dewey spoke of the child as having “special impulses of action to be developed through their use in preserving and perfecting life in the social and physical conditions under which it goes on."342 Dewey found merit in Rousseau's contention for natural development as the mind and body acted together.343 Like today's open educators, Dewey believed that "ripening" takes time and hurrying education is harmful. Childhood play has educational value in that it is not as aim- less as it appears to some adults.344 Consequently, Dewey advocated an educational system consistent with natural growth and development of children. Such an educational system was viewed by Dewey as simpler but certainly not easier to implement.345 341Dewey, The School and Society, p. 37. 342Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 118. 343Ihid., p. 209. 344Ibid., pp. 4-5. 345Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 30. 145 For Dewey there was no such thing as education which was valid in and of itself as though self-justified. Such misconceptions, contended Dewey, resulted in "predigested materials" common to traditional education. Like John Holt, Dewey noted how children frequently failed to ingest the tra- ditional curricular diet. Dewey suggested failure might better be attributed to the curriculum rather than the chil- dren.346 Dewey wrote of the futility of forcing bulk infor- mation upon children. Quantity of information was viewed as less important than arousing in children a sense of motive and purpose. What is wanted is that pupils shall form the habit of connecting the limited information they acquire with the activities of life, and gain ability to connect a limited sphere of human ac- tivity with the scientific principles upon which its successful conduct depends. The attitudes and interes 5 thus formed will then take care of themselves. Dewey was distressed with the sameness of schools in which children were treated "en masse" rather than as indi- viduals. He rejected a system which artificially determined content, divided same by time available, and presented such content to all students by the same methods. Dewey sati- rized such systems which attempt to meet curricular sched- ules step by step if only children c00perate by remembering what was supposedly "learned." Uniformity of curricular 345Ioid., p. 46. 347Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, pp. 178-179. 146 structure provided virtually no opportunity for "varying ca- pacities and demands."348 Dewey continued his criticism of traditional schools which "could get along without any consistently developed philosophy of education." Some schools traditionally pro- claim vague generalities of purpose, such as cultural heri- tage, while continuing practices counter to natural growth and therefore definitely not in the best interest of chil- dren.349 Dewey noted how schools traditionally ignore "per- sonal impulse and desire" as opportunities for learning in the classroom. It is also quite noteworthy that Dewey fol- lowed by cautioning against valuing impulse as the sole cri- 350 Teachers make a serious teria in curricular planning. mistake if they ignore planning in the quest for student mo- tivation through impulse. Such strategies are capricious and thus unlikely to foster real education. Serendipity is realized by intelligent planning for such opportunities -- not by a lack of planning.351 Justifying the traditional curriculum as being prep- aration for the future is a "treacherous idea," wrote Dewey. He rejected the belief that the "mere acquisition" of an amount of certain subjects while in school prepared one for the future. Dewey stated, "Indeed, he is lucky who does not 348Dewey, The School and Society, pp. 33-34. 349Dewey, Experience and Education, PP- 28'29- 350Ioid., pp. 70-71. 35116id., p. 58. 147 find that in order to make progress, in order to go ahead in- tellectually, he does not have to unlearn much of what he 2 learned in school."35 Like his predecessors, Dewey believed the surest way a child can prepare for the future is to ex- perience the present to the fullest. He wrote, Strange would it be, indeed, if intelligent and serious attention to what the child now needs and is capable of in the way of a rich, valuable, and expanded life should somehow conflict with thg needs and possibilities of later, adult life. 53 Dewey described how it is redundant to view education as preparation for life whereas one is already experiencing life. Indeed real education and life are inseparable. Con- sequently, Dewey strongly believed that it was crucial to provide the most meaningful experiences during the school years. He wrote, Because traditional schools tended to sacrifice the present to a remote and more or less unknown future, therefore it comes to be believed that the educator has little responsibility for 592 kind of present experiences the young undergo. At this point Dewey in effect cited the interrela- tion between the cognitive and affective domains. He de- clared it is a fallacy to believe the student only learns the "particular thing he is studying." Attitudes are concom- itant to any subject at hand, and of these the most impor- tant is the desire to continue learning.355 3521bid., p. 47. 353Dewey, The School and Society, p. 54. 354 Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 49. 355Ibid., pp. 47-48. 148 Dewey contended that an educational system centered on experiences was considerably more difficult than a tradi- tional content-centered curriculum. Narrowly conceived con- tent-centered curricula can ignore the society surrounding the student. He believed that a truly progressive education was obliged to fully exploit potentials for experience which is rather demanding.356 Again Dewey made a plea against the Either-0r philosophies which held contempt for the organiza- tion of knowledge in the quest to provide experiences. An experience-centered curriculum does not mean an absence of order or aimless pursuits. To the contrary, Dewey argued, Intelligent activity is distinguished from aimless activity by the fact that it involves selection of means -- analysis -- out of the variety of condi- tions that are present, and their arrangement -- synthesis -- to reach an intended aim or purpose.357 An attempt to direct students toward meaningful ex- periences does not imply concentration solely on the present and future while ignoring the past, wrote Dewey. To fully understand the present while anticipating the future requires an appreciation of the past. Dewey noted that our present so- cial problems did not occur overnight.358 Dewey believed there was too much confusion over the meaning of experience in education. He viewed it too sim- plistic to contend progressive education emphasized experi- ences while traditional education was devoid of experiences. l49 Any curriculum provides experiences, but unfortunately they can be of the wrong kind. It is therefore crucial that the experiences be educative rather than mis-educative. Dewey believed an educative experience was one which fostered growth through subsequent experience. Additionally it is im- portant to identify the meaning of growth through its direc- tion including societal outcomes. Parenthetically Dewey warned that sheer activity of experience was not the criteria for education but rather the quality of the experience.359 Consequently, the word "habit" held special impor- tance for Dewey. It was Dewey's contention that habit im- plied more than routine or established patterns of behavior elicited by experiences. He believed that experiences modi- fied the individual to such an extent as to impinge upon re- ception of subsequent experiences. In other words, our re- action to each new experience is affected by previous expe- riences. Likewise habits include our attitudes or sensitiv- ity to experiences. Therefore educators must demonstrate an awareness of the impact of each new experience as its present and future effect upon each student.360 Consistent with his belief in importance of habits, Dewey argued against subjects which were taught as ends in themselves. Isolated subjects lacked unity and ignored the effect upon students. Opportunities were lost to connect 3591bid., pp. 25—36. 3601bid., p. 35. 150 schooling with the realities of life and all the potential for educative experiences.36] Dewey held the opinion that educational reform would be unrealized as long as knowledge was viewed as "ready-made" for which language allowed access to the fund. He pointed out that to attack "pouring-in meth- ods" was futile while the body of knowledge concept prevailed. Education would be reduced to a passive role until students were encouraged to strike out for themselves in the quest of knowledge.352 Such an attitude of growth through education impinged on media in the schools, declared Dewey.363 While he didn't agree with all of Marie Montessori's methods, he did approve of the self-corrective material she employed. Through comparisons her students came to develop the senses and their self-reliance.364 Dewey accepted the impossibility of the schools teaching all facts. More so he contended that such was not their responsibility anyway. He wrote that it was far more important for students to learn how to learn and therefore the sooner schools accept this truth the better for educa- tion.365 Therefore an implication toward developing healthy attitudes is strongly suggested in which students feel the desire to continue learning during and after school years. 361Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l25. 3621bid., pp. 172-173. 363Dewey, The School and Society, p. 37. 364Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. llS. 3651bid., p. 221. l5l Formal educational experiences should foster the desire for additional learning -- not inhibit such desire. Dewey noted with chagrin that just the opposite reaction tends to pre- vail whereby individuals with little schooling appear to de- sire learning more than those with greater education.366 Very much like today's informal educators in Great Britain, Dewey contended it was not enough to simply teach children to read. Attitudes are so important. To teach a child to read without encouraging him to read that which is valuable is a dereliction of duty, wrote Dewey. He asked what children will read when free of direct influence of the school.367 Dewey compared traditional education with natural growth. He cited the former's goal of exhibitive quantities of information in contrast to more personal qualities of knowledge. For Dewey and today's open educators, knowledge is idiosyncratic. He felt teachers are deceiving themselves when believing they are covering ground in some sort of pe- dantic mania. Unfortunately the deception is encouraged when students reflect back information to please their teach- ers. Dewey agreed with Rousseau that deep probing will dis- close that while teachers believe they are teaching the world the student is “only learning the map." In Dewey's view, 366Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 48. 367Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l76. l52 educators must cease the futile attempt to lay out all of man's accumulated knowledge before the young.368 He must substitute for this futile and harmful aim the better ideal of dealing thoroughly with a small number of typical experiences in such a way as to master the tools of learning, and present situa- tions that make pupils hungry to acquire addition- al knowledge. By the conventional method of teaching, the pupil learns maps instead of the world -- the symbol instead of the fact. What the pupil really needs is not exact information about topography, but how to find out for him- self. “See what a difference there is between the knowledge of your pupils and the ignorance of mine. They learn maps; he makes them." To find out how to make knowledge when it is needed is the true end of the acquisition of information in school, not the information itself.3 As an educational reformer, Dewey observed the radi- cal changes taking place in society and argued that schools must similarly undergo a radical change. Otherwise schools would become isolated from life and only exist for their own sake.370 From the standpoint of the child, the great waste in the school comes from his inability to utilize the experience he gets outside the school in any complete and free way within the school it- self; while, on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school. That is the isolation of the school -- its isola- tion from life. When the child gets into the schoolroom he has to put out of his mind a large part of the ideas, interests, and activities that predominate in his home and neighborhood. So the school, being unable to utilize this everyday ex- perience, sets painfully to work, on another tack and by a variety of means, to arouse in the child an interest in school studies.37 3581b1d.. pp. 9-10. 369Ibid.. pp. 12-13. 370Dewey, The School and Society, pp. 26-27. 37‘Ibid., p. 67. l53 Dewey believed that a great deal of the difficulty arose when schools fail to attend to the social aspects of life. All must learn to live together. Consequently, schools need to work upon real problems of society. Dewey charged that schools have selected the abstract rather than the concrete. Emphasis is placed upon individual accomplish- ments for an "every-man-for-himself" society which no longer exists. Such selfish, unsocial curricula attempt to offer culture which is actually superficial and rather banal. Edu- cation should not be designed to selfishly beat out others. Dewey wrote that schools must be democratic in the fullest 372 sense. Dewey argued that it is not enough to promote de- mocracy in education simply because a democracy depends upon the ability of the masses to elect and obey elected offi- cials. Interest in the common good must grow out of a "vol- untary disposition" rather than external imposition. Dewey believed the case for democratic education was even greater. A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of con- joint communicated experience. The extension in space of the number of individuals who partici- pate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his own, is equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of class, race, and national terri- tory which kept men from perceiving the full im- port of their activity. 7 37zDewey, Schools of Tomorrow, pp. lZl-l27. 373John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, l926), p. lOl. l54 However, schools continue to emphasize competitive rather than cooperative behavior. Dewey wrote of the dis- crepancies between a purported democratic society and its schools. Indeed, almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of that term -- a comparison of results in the recitation or in the examination to see which child has succeeded in getting ahead of others in storing up, in accu- mulating, the maximum of information. So thor- oughly is this the prevailing atmosphere that for one child to help another in his task has be- come a school crime. 74 In Dewey's view, schools must not simply become hold- ing stations for youth. Such is the effect as long as schools remain isolated from society. The trend can be re- placed when the community demands that the schools become an active contributor to the community's welfare.375 This is not to say education should not simply prepare students for their slots in society. Dewey differed with Plato whose emphasis was toward the welfare of the whole of society rather than its members. Dewey criticized the Platonic sys- tem when he wrote, "An education could be given which would sift individuals, discovering what they were good for, and supplying a method of assigning each to the work in life for which his nature fits him." Such a system promoted roles and classes while ignoring the uniqueness and aspirations of individuals.376 374Dewey, The School and Society, p. 13. 375Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l28. 376Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. l03. l55 Perhaps communities don't always demand much from their schools, but many pupils are not so complaisant. Such students come to find additional schooling useless and thus choose to drop out. Dewey wrote, . . school seemed so futile and satisfied so few of their interests that they seized the first op- portunity to make a change to something that seemed more real, something where there was a visible re- sult.377 Dewey wrote in l9l5 of the exceptional school system in Gary, Indiana. He applauded the Gary attitude toward dropouts. Students who were having difficulty in school were not made to feel stupid nor were they punished. Attempts were made to solve the problem. Even if the students chose to drop out they were made to understand they would be welcome back in the Gary schools at any time to continue their formal edu- cation.378 Like contemporary open educators, Dewey asserted that at best only a small portion of each person's education takes place in school. Most meaningful education is informal as the individual meets the realities of life. Unfortunately society tends to assign an individual's station in life by the extent of his formal education rather than his informal education. So much informal education is a form of self- preservation as in the case of infants and later adults. Dewey contended that the solution to the problem is not to 377Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 223. 3781bid., p. 192. l56 abolish formal schooling but rather adopt a model complimen- tary to natural growth.379 But schools are always proceeding in a direc- tion opposed to this principle. They take the accumulated learning of adults, material that is quite unrelated to the exigencies of growth, and try to force it upon children, instead of finding out what these children need as they go along.38 When schools seek to nurture natural growth, the role of the teacher changes from that found in many schools. The teacher comes to assume the role of guide and helper rather than dictator. Dewey suggested that the role of stu- dents also changes from passive to active experimenter.381 He believed that the attitudes of students must change away from "one of docility, receptivity, and obedience." Like- wise both teachers and students come to repute knowledge as 382 static. Dewey argued against an educational system em- phasizing stored up information through the use of memory. The likelihood of totally meeting standards is virtually impossible and thus a negative influence which tends to lead to cheating. Likewise the grading system stagnates the proper role of the schools. Dewey wrote, Rewards and high marks are at best artificial aims to strive for; they accustom children to ex- pect to get something besides the value of the product for work they do. The extent to which schools are compelled to rely upon these motives 382Dewey, Experience and Education, pp. lB-l9. 157 shows how dependent they are upon moggges which are foreign to truly moral activity. The traditional school environment suggests and en- courages docility. Dewey objected to the furniture arrange- ment and general appearance of traditional schools. He wrote, "It is all made 'for listening' because simply studying les- sons out of a book is only another kind of listening; it marks the dependency of one mind upon another."384 Open educators' attitude toward school discipline re- sembles Dewey's. He argued against discipline which was im- posed upon children. The futility of such tactics, he charged, became evident when the external force was removed 385 and children return to objectionable behavior. Real dis- cipline is self-discipline. Dewey wrote, "Discipline, in short, is ability to do things independently, not submission t.n386 under restrain He believed that real discipline is that which is natural. Dewey explained that social discipline results when children are permitted to engage in group activi- ties and thus adapt cooperative behavior. If you have the end in view of forty or fifty chil- dren learning certain set lessons, to be reCited to a teacher, your discipline must be devoted to securing that result. But if the end in view is the development of a spirit of social co-operation and community life, discipline must grow out of and be relative to such an aim. . . . In critical 383Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, pp. 213-215. 384Dewey, The School and Society, p. 32. 385Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, PP- 98’99- 385Ibid., p. l06. 158 moments we all realize that the only discipline that stands by us, the only training that bgggmes intuition, is that got through life itself. If Dewey was a critic of certain practices in tradi- tional schools, he also frequently criticized so-called pro- gressive schools. He strongly believed in democracy and therefore concluded that schools likewise needed to be demo- cratic and humane. Dewey found inconsistencies between auto- cratic school practices and the democratic ideal.388 If we train our children to take orders, to do things simply because they are told to, and fail to give them confidence to act and think for them- selves, we are putting an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of overcoming the present de- fects of our system and of establishing the truth of democratic ideals. Our State is founded on freedom, but when we train the State of tomorrow we allow it just as little freedom as possible.33 It is worthy of note that Dewey did not promote un- directed freedom in place of teacher domination. He argued that there is middle ground in which the teacher should of- fer direction which fits in the student's growth.390 Education which treats all children as if their impulses were those of the average of an adult society . . . is sure to go on reproducing that same average society without even fgnding out whether and how it might be better. 9] 387Dewey, The School and Society, p. l4. 388Dewey, Experience and Education, pp. 33-34. 389Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 2l9. 390Dewey, The School and Society, pp. l24-126. 39l Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l02. l59 It is important to appreciate that Dewey did not advocate liberalization of freedom of movement when pupils remained shackled by the traditional curriculum. For in a classroom where the teacher is doing all the work and the children are listening and an- swering questions, it would be absurd to allow the children to place themselves where they please, to move about, or to talk. Where the teacher's role has changed to that of helper and observer, where the development of every child is the goal, such freedom becomes as much a necessity of the work as is auiet where the children are simply reciting.39 Dewey advocated greater freedom in the schools, but it is important to fully appreciate what he meant by freedom. He did not simply advocate freedom of movement, for this is only a means. He believed what really endures is freedom of intelligence -- the Opportunity and ability to engage in re- flection 5- to be your own maker of meaning. "The old phrase 'stop and think' is sound psychology.“393 It is not surprising to find that Dewey gave partic- ular attention to industrial education and the other practi- cal arts. Consequently, his views have ramifications for educational reform as it applies to industrial education. When Dewey asserted that education had not kept pace with the changing society, he gave particular attention to the dramatic transformation from an agrarian to an indus- trial society. A part of the reality of twentieth century 3921bid., p. 104. 393Dewey, Experience and Education, pp. 60-63. 160 America was industrial and thus he believed schools must re- 394 flect such impact in the curriculum. However, it would be erroneous to prematurely conclude that Dewey desired indus- trial education simply because it represents a facet of Amer- ican life. He found in industrial education not only an op- portunity for desirable activities but also educational val- ues for discovering interaction between means and ends. In other words, industrial education is not only a subject but d.395 also a sound educational metho Speaking of the imple- mentation of "so-called manual training," Dewey wrote, This has not been done "on purpose" with a full consciousness that the school must now supply that factor of training formerly taken care of in the home, but rather by instinct, by experimenting and finding that such work takes a vital hold of pupils and gives them ggmething which was not to be got in any other way.3 Consequently, he argued that practical education should be integrated with academic education. Otherwise the results 397 would be contrary to democratic education. Dewey acknowl- edged that the stigma attached to working with the hands was a vestige leftover from the aristocratic and feudal countries which promoted the so-called "liberal" education.398 When occupations in the school are conceived in this broad and generous way, I can only stand lost 394Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l74. 395Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 85. 396Dewey, The School and Society, p. l0. 397Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 226. 3981bid., p. 168. l6l in wonder at the objections so often heard, that such occupations are out of place in the school because they are materialistic, utilitarian, or even menial in their tendency. It sometimes seems to me that those who make these objections must live in quite another world. Again Dewey returned praise to the Gary, Indiana, schools which provided technical high schools. He pointed out that adolescents desire staying in school when the cur- riculum meets their needs and aspirations. Dewey also ap- plauded the Cincinnati, Ohio, schools which introduced manual and industrial training. He was pleased that Cincinnati did not offer narrow trade training but rather broad understand- ings from which students could make intelligent vocational choices.400 Dewey frequently advocated the study of occupations but not in the narrow, contemporary sense of the word. He meant an activity which ”runs parallel to some sort of work carried on in social life.” It is noteworthy that he in- sisted that such study "maintains a balance between the in- u40l Dewey tellectual and practical phases of experience. looked to the effects of industrial society and concluded that workers had become depersonalized machines by which they lost both imagination and insight. At present, the impulses which lie at the basis of the industrial system are either practically ne- glected or positively distorted during the school 399Dewey, The School and Society, p. Zl. 400Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, pp. l99-204. 40l Dewey, The School and Society, p. l3l. 162 period. Until the instincts of construction and production are systematically laid hold of in the years of childhood and youth, until they are trained in social directions, enriched by histor- ical interpretation, controlled and illuminated by scientific methods, we certainly are in no po- sition even to locate the source of our economifi evils, much less to deal with them effectively. 02 It was particularly for this reason Dewey was im- pressed with the Gary schools for not placating to manpower needs of industry but rather served the industrial education 1.403 needs of the individua He believed the youth have a profound need to study the economic and industrial problems of our society.404 The method Dewey proposed embraced student activity 405 which necessitated greater freedom. He rejoiced over the active, buoyant atmosphere of home economics students in- volved in their work.406 It is a curious fact that Dewey wrote of the educational value of "messing around" in much the same fashion as does John Holt today. Dewey sincerely believed that when students play with materials they also 407 Therefore he addressed himself to the play with ideas. matter of interest as it applies to occupational education. Dewey was sensitive to the issues arising when the curriculum 402Ibid., p. 22. 403Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. l29. 404Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 80. 405Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 213. 406Dewey, The School and Society, p. l2. 407 Ibid., p. 39. 163 is designed to appeal to the interest of pupils. Certain interests are temporal, trivial, and even harmful while other interests are enduring, meaningful, and healthy. Dewey sought curriculum which appealed to the interest of pupils but not in a narrow and shallow sense. He contended that the curriculum should have natural appeal because "children are interested in the things they need to learn."408 Again it is the argument between serving the child's wants or his needs. For Dewey the contest was artificial and unwarranted. Clearly the child's needs are his wants. Dewey suggested that an interest in occupations is natural for pupils and very educative. The beauty of such interests is the appeal to spontaneity without the fear such occupational interests are "merely pleasure-giving, exciting, or transient."409 He contended spontaneity enhanced a progressive curriculum and need not be feared as "nuisances to be repressed."410 Dewey campaigned for the study of occupations to be integrated with the rest of the curriculum. He contended that the spirit of the school would thus be regenerated to become a model community. Apparently Dewey thought of open- ness in much the same way as today's open educators when he wrote, "It is this liberation from narrow utilities, this openness to the possibilities of the human spirit, that 408Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 217. 409Dewey, The School and Society, p. 135. 410Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 104. 164 makes these practical activities in the school allies of art and centers of science and history."411 Although Dewey foresaw great opportunities for indus- trial education, he also spoke out against potential short- comings. He argued against "narrow so-called practical edu- cation" which in its reactionary quest against an overly bookish education tended to become isolationistic.412 "We must conceive of work in wood and metal, of weaving, sewing, and cooking, as methods of living and learning, not as dis- "413 tinct studies. Dewey warned that industrial education escapes its potential by directing attention toward pre- scribed activities. The focus should be upon the pupil rather than toward tools and industrial processes. In such cases the work is reduced to a mere routine or custom, and its educational value is lost. This is the inevitable tendency wherever, in manual train- ing for instance, the mastery of certain tools, or the production of certain objects, is made the pri- mary end, and the child is not given, wherever pos- sible, intellectual responsibility for selecting the materials and instruments that are most fit, and given an opportunity to think out his own model and plan of work, led to perceive his own errors, and find out how to correct them -- that is4 2f course, within the range of his capacities. 1 Dewey spoke out against industrial education, which modeled itself after the repetitiousness of industry and its "soulless monotony.“ He sought a curriculum which 4”Dewey, The School and Society, pp. l5-l6. 412Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 180. 413Dewey, The School and Society, p. ll. 41411311., p. 132. l65 accentuated "intellectual independence" to adjust to the everchanging technology.415 So much has been said of Dewey's belief in learning by doing that it is helpful to understand what he meant. It is true he advocated learning by doing in order to become sensitive to and involved with the environment. However, do- ing does not simply mean continuous physical activity. Op- portunity must also be provided for reflection. It is impor- tant that the student be personally involved in his schooling whether the situation is physical activity or not. Clearly this implies both physical and intellectual freedom. Dewey wrote, "Most doing will lead only to superficial muscle training if it is dictated to the child and prescribed for him step by step."416 As in the case of the Gary schools he praised, Dewey urged that industrial education not simply attempt to pro- duce "breadwinners." The welfare of the individual super- cedes that of industry. Consequently, Dewey believed the school shops not only represent local industry but rather the wider scope of industry. Thus students should explore 417 many areas to further their experience. In fact Dewey argued against staying in any one area too long especially 415John Dewey, "The Need of an Industrial Education in an Industrial Democracy," Manual Training and Vocational Education, XVII (February, lQTB),2112. 416Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 104. 4l7 Ibid., pp. 180-195. 166 for younger children. He cautioned, "Any manual labor ceases to be educative the moment it becomes thoroughly familiar and automatic."418 Dewey was adamant in his opposition of narrow trade training. He decried trade education for young chil- dren who were too young to make wise vocational choices. Unfortunately such students are "drilled in a narrow groove" until they become locked in to an occupation. Dewey believed individuals must have greater options if they are to be free of becoming ”fixed classes." Education, he believed, should narrow the "gulf" between peoples in a democracy.419 There- fore Dewey spoke out against any form of education, includ- ing industrial education, which divorced skills from their social impact. Such separation, in Dewey's words, is “fairly criminal." Dewey's warning seems so timely in view of the ravages of the environment.420 Other writers also began to express views similar to John Dewey's. A partial list includes Harold Alberty, Boyd Bode, John Childs, George Counts, Gordon Hullfish, William Kilpatrick, and Harold Rugg. Although each writer contrib- uted to the progressive education movement, it seems appro- priate for the sake of brevity to simply acknowledge them. William Heard Kilpatrick, a disciple of Dewey, stressed the 167 project method utilizing "purposeful activity."421 Thus it appears that Dewey offers open educators both inspiration and caution lest his views become misinterpreted. Boyd Henry Bode Of the preceding writers it seems most appropriate to conclude this section by examining the views of Boyd Bode. Lawrence Cremin in his thorough examination of the progres- sive education era contends that Bode's warnings in Progres- sive Education at the Crossroads ultimately came to pass.422 Bode demonstrated a reflective and moderating criti- cism of progressive education. He began by charging that the paramount defect in American education was an absence of di- 423 rection. Bode believed that schools must transmit a way of life in addition to the usual skills and knowledge.424 For America the way of life is democratic. Bode argued that a democratic way of life is distinctive and readily apparent when existing in the schools.425 He contended that schools must exemplify democracy at its best. Bode wrote, "In brief, 421William Heard Kilpatrick, The Project Method (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929). 422Cremin, pp, cit., p. 327. 423Boyd H. Bode, Progressive Education at the Cross- roads (New York: Newson E’Co., 1938), p. 100. 424Boyd H. Bode, Democragpy as a Way of Life (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1937), pp. 12-14. 425Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads, pp. 110-112. ' 168 the school must be a place where pupils go, not merely to learn, but to carry on a way of life."426 Schools can and should be a vital aspect of a society for its perpetuation. Bode noted that political revolution- aries always utilize the schools to foster new regimes. A democracy is to a disadvantage not experienced by dictator- ships in that democracy is founded on free choice including freedom to choose away from democracy. Thus democracy is in a dilemma in that its perpetuation cannot be mandated. Con- sequently, it becomes crucial that students fully experience democracy in the schools.427 H0pefully students will find satisfaction in a democratic school to such an extent that democracy will survive. It was for this reason that Bode considered the school as being obliged to be the "institu- tion in which democracy becomes conscious of itself."428 It is not enough to agree that democratic schools must be unique. Bode felt obligated to examine whether schools indeed reflected democracy. It is not too surpris- ing that he wasn't overly satisfied with what he saw.429 Apparently agreement for democratic schools becomes an aca- demic exercise inasmuch as schools by and large remain un- changed. Bode concluded that the public seeks a convention- al education presumably because no other form of education 426Bode, Democrapy as a Way of Life, p. 77. 169 is envisioned. The only debates are between parents and teachers, each wrestling for selection of the curriculum. Bode found irony in that the student for whom the school exists is often "the forgotten man."430 Bode felt that too often schools feign allegiance to democracy by offering a separate course on democracy. Ob- viously democracy must permeate the entire educational system rather than exist in one course. It is not enough to study democracy; it must be experienced.431 Bode felt that the spirit of democracy must permeate the schools including the matter of conduct. Hence a special institution, such as the school, is now needed to cultivate the habit of relying on the foresight of consequences rather than on authority in the guidance of conduct. In other words, oppor- tunity must be afforded for the practice of demo- cracy. If the consequences which are foreseen and which are made the controlling consideration re- late to the continuous extension of shared inter- ests and common purposes, the school becomes 3 place where democracy is applied to conduct.4 2 Therefore it becomes clear in Bode's view that demo- cratic schools are "an adventure in faith." Implicit is a belief that students can learn in a democratic setting and 433 also be responsible for self conduct. Bode was aware that over zealous teachers might use undemocratic tactics to foster 4311611., p. 63. 432Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads, 433Bode, Democracy as a Way of Life, p. 113. 170 democracy. Such teachers promote "self-direction from with- in“ only so long as students choose to become "believers in the democratic vista." Bode's solution to the dilemma was rather forthright. The teacher's work is done when he has made the is- sue clear as best he can. Education becomes propa- ganda when we set out deliberately to make converts; and, moreover, we get hopelessly messed up if the 521223126.-§°5r§2éclowieiie'QOSSZY-EETisls ' “Cm“ Bode charged an aristocratic educational system had been transported from Europe although the United States pur- ported to be democratic. He found evidence for his conten- tion in the lord and master classroom atmosphere along with an emphasis for the academic rather than the practical.435 However, for Bode the changing times require an everchanging educational system. He believed that an educational system which apparently suited the needs of the past was surely not guaranteed to meet the unique needs of the present.436 In Bode's view, it was not enough for educational reformers to be offering a new system as a reaction to the traditional system. The real issues are far more pervasive and must be appreciated. Basic assumptions must be attacked rather than specific shortcomings. In Bode's view, tradi- tional education seemingly was built on a premise that a 434Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads. p. 81. 435Bode, Democracy as a Way of Life, pp. 64-67. 436Boyd H. Bode, Conflicting Psychologies of Learn- ing (New York: D. C. Heath and Co., 19291, p. 286- 171 pattern of truth was accessible rather than a belief that truth isn't ready-made but must be created. A sculptor would not consider himself much en- lightened if he were told that the statue is al- ready contained in the marble and that his job is simply to clip away the superfluous material. A carpenter would have his doubts if he were in- structed to build a house, not according to a plan based on the needs and desires of the future occupants, but according to the plan inherent in the building materials. Yet for some reason such advice seems entirely appropriate when it is a question of building, not a house4 but an indivi- dual character or a social order. 3 Consequently, Bode believed that the progressive school must be more than a place where children learn. It is also a place where a democratic way of life is to be ex- 438 perienced. As such, it was Bode's hope that the progres- sive schools could break the bounds whereby "the common man will eventually come into his own."439 It was at this point that Bode provided such cogent insight as to a central issue which faced the progressive education movement. It is the question of a choice between discovery of inspection on the one hand and invention or creation on the other. As long as this remains obscure, tradition is bound to prevail. The only way we can discover anything by inspection, whether of the universe or of the individual pu- pil, is to inject into the situation while we are looking the things that tradition has taught us to see. Finding values by inspection is like testing a mine that has been "salted." It is 437Bode, Democracy as a Way of Life, pp. 69-70. 438Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads, 4391bid., p. 122. 172 sheer self-delusion to assume that a pupil in a progressive school will automatically achieve a social insight which the school itself does not possess. Unless or until progressive education emphasizes the wider implications of its posi- tion, the doctrine of fixed and immutable values is not likely to be exposed to any serious dan- ger. Bode elaborated upon his criticism of progressive schools. He was suspicious of the aimless direction pro- gressive education seemed to be taking. The vacillation from emphasis upon the individual to emphasis toward society aroused Bode. He contended that careful examination of the individual provides the educator with a greater understand- ing of the "raw material"; it does not prescribe the curric- ulum. There is a certain futility, according to Bode, when educators turn to interests, needs, growth, and freedom in an attempt to find a curricular path. It was his contention that the democratic way of life provides an all encompassing educational model which places the foregoing elements in a proper perspective. Otherwise, excesses which characterized 441 As the worst of the progressive movement tend to result. a case in point, Bode wrote of the pupil who asked, "Do we have to do what we want to do today?"442 Bode felt that the conflict between attending to individual versus societal needs was somewhat akin to Dewey's argument against the 44oBode, Democracy as a Way of Life, pp. 72-73. 44lBode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads, pp. 39—44. 4421bid., p. 99. 173 Either-Or philosophy. It was Bode's belief that activities for the individual should be of the type which "make for the continuous widening of the area of common interests and con- cerns.“443 Progressives made a mistake, in Bode's opinion, when they overly promoted cooperative activities. Excesses led to pupils who developed a "herdmind" by being unable to make individual decisions. Bode held that such teachers argued they were teaching the “whole child" but failed to fully ap- preciate the entire meaning of whole.444 Similarly, he believed that the conflict between teaching the child or teaching the subject was unnecessary. Bode contended that pupils must be taught to think in logi- cal patterns similar to the organization of subject matter. This does not mean that truth is ready-made as purported by the traditional curriculum which coerces "right answers."445 Bode suggested that a democratic school places a new rela- tionship between the individual and society. Both the indi- vidual and society have responsibilities to each other. A democratic society and its schools owe the individual an op- portunity to fully pursue his interests and abilities which contribute to the common good. Likewise the individual must appreciate his responsibilities as a member of the society. 443Ibid., p. 109. 444Ibid., p. 113. 4451bid., pp. 94-96. 174 Both positions are therefore mutually reinforcing. Similarly, the society must encourage self-discipline by the individual which, in Bode's words, is "at the heart of the educative process." However, he charged that this is not the only acceptable form of discipline. Appropriate punishment by society clarifies how offenses are perceived by society.446 Bode also dwelt upon the issue of growth as it ap- plies to education. He was sympathetic toward the principle of a child-centered curriculum founded on natural growth but qualified his endorsement. For Bode an over emphasis on growth was futile inasmuch as teachers come to abdicate their responsibilities of providing guidance. Bode felt that arguing between inner growth and directed growth be- comes a vicious circle of contradictions. He charged that the principle of growth wasn't sufficient to provide philo- 447 sophic direction. Bode's conclusion of the issue of growth certainly resembles those of John Holt. The fact that the progressive movement has never come across with an adequate philosophy of education warrants the presumption that it does not have any. Moreover, the lack of a "felt need" in this respect leaves room for the suspi- cion that so far the real problem in guidance has been the problem of imposing the teacher's views on zge pupil without getting caught in the act.4 446Bode, Democracy as a Wpy of Life, pp. 80-81. 447Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads, pp. 73-81. 448Ibid., p. 84. 175 Similarly progressive educators attempted to build the curriculum around the principle of student interest. Bode did not oppose the curriculum built around interests, but he strongly opposed the misinterpretation of the prin- ciple. He clarified the difference between immediate and fu- ture interests. It is all too easy to design a curriculum around immediate needs, but the result prolongs the period of infancy. Education, in Bode's words, should "emancipate the pupil from dependence on immediate interests." Bode pre- ferred an education which neither promotes caprice nor author- ity but rather intelligence via "continuous reconstruction of “449 Concomitant to this notion is the belief experience. that interests should be capitalized upon as they lead to a goal such as a democratic way of life. Likewise Bode addressed himself to the issue of needs as they apply to the curriculum. He wrote that needs exist in a variety of types and quantities, including real needs which may be felt or unknown to the student. Bode equated felt needs as being desires. It is important to cater to those needs which contribute to a pattern or philo- sophy. Otherwise, inconsistencies result which characterized progressive education at its worst. Consequently, Bode felt that it is a mistake to dolt upon needs inasmuch as needs are most difficult to identify. Needs are not to be foresaken but rather redefined in reference to curriculum priority.450 449161d.. pp. 52-59. 4501bid., pp. 62-68. 176 We cannot start with needs, because needs must be determined with reference to the way of life which the pupil eventually adopts as his own and the choice that he will make cannot be presupposed from the outset. Instead of using needs as a starting point, we educate people in order that they may discover their needs. 51 Bode emphasized that the function of a teacher in a democratic school was unique. The teacher is not to mandate his own philosophy upon students. Instead he is to attempt to make students aware of the issues. Bode warned that it is insufficient for students to simply be adamant toward the “existing order." Students must also understand and promote the potentials of a democratic society.452 All this means, according to Bode, that students have freedom for thinking.453 It is not enough to arrange for ability groupings or progress at individual rates. The teacher's responsibility continues beyond that of a “wait and see what happens" posture. Teachers must also demonstrate flexibility of resourcefulness while being empathic.454 According to Bode, it is the teacher's task to stimulate or motivate students to "reorganize the body of their personal experiences." This does not mean that teachers are to pro- vide “intelligence in finished form." Thinking cannot be 451161d., pp. 69-70. 45280de, Democracy as a Way of Life, pp. 86-87. 453Bode, Conflicting Psychologies of Learning. p. 274. 454Ibid., p. 284. 177 dictated.455 Bode took a position against predictability or uniformity of education. What the average man is capable of cannot be deter- mined just by looking at him, any more than the career of a newborn baby can be predicted on the basis of the data provided by the hospital. His- tory proves merely that the common man was never given a chance to think, and then was blamed be- cause he was unable to think. The resourcefulness often exhibited by pupils who are failures in their school work might be taken as an indication that people are not necessarily stupid because they are not good at "learning." Democratic education is obliged to stake everything on a program for the liberation of intelligence. It need not, and must not, demand uniformity of belief. Pupils come to school with all kinds of backgrounds; it is hardly conceivable that they should all emerge with the same set of conclusions. It is not to such uniformity of conclusions, but to certain habits of thinking and feeling and acting that democracy must look as its hope for the future.456 Boyd Bode demonstrated concerns for the future of progressive education remarkably similar to those now faced by today's open educators. Surely it would seem fitting that the “compassionate critics" reacquaint themselves with such remarkable educators as Dewey and Bode. It is crucial that open education must demonstrate a consistent philosophy if it is to become viable in its impact upon American education. There may be those who excuse Bode's insistence upon demo- cratic education as being reflective of the prewar times in which he wrote. Yet there is an undeniable permanence to Bode's words which transcends into today. 455Ibid., p. 298. 455Bode, Democracy as a Way of Life, pp. 105-106. 178 Summary Thus it becomes clear open education is not without philosophic support. Such support is of considerable tenure and from highly respected philosophers. The following chap- ter examines the impact open education concepts have had up- on industrial education. CHAPTER III EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS 0F PREVIOUS INDUSTRIAL ARTS LEADERS Introduction It becomes vital for the purposes of this study to examine the curricular issues which received the attention of earlier industrial arts teacher educators. Chapter I asked the question as to whether industrial arts has an open educa— tion heritage. Answers to such questions help explain devel- opment within the field and provide curricular implications. Organization Rationale Organization of such an examination becomes important in attending to this task. Emphasis could be placed upon chronology, individuals, issues, or combinations thereof. Reporting on individuals would be reasonably easy but also mechanistic and repetitious. Furthermore this tact tends to call for conclusions which may or may not beaccurate or even consequential for that matter. Selective references, incomplete research, or quotations out of context can easily provide for faulty impressions. Also it is virtually impos- sible to explicitly classify an individual's attitudes to- ward learning and education. Many individuals vacillate because of contradictory beliefs of changing times which 179 180 provide new insights. Even great philosophers have been known to spend much of their later years repudiating earlier statements. Consequently, this chapter will center on issues written in the three eras of manual training, manual arts, and industrial arts. Chronological stratification preserves the context of the times thereby identifying forces which impinged upon educators. For example, the general acceptance of faculty psychology undoubtedly influenced early manual training educators. Naturally individuals must be identified for various reasons, including bibliographic citations, but hopefully overriding emphasis will center on curricular is- sues rather than the individuals who spoke the words. Indi- viduals may precipitate concern for curricular issues, but the issues may last longer than their authors. Also curricu- lar issues can be examined for their duration and effect. So it is with this study that many of the issues and routes taken by industrial arts are now being addressed by open edu- cation. Manual Training Influenced by the Russian System It is most interesting that Cremin in his thorough study of progressive education goes back to such men as John Runkle and Calvin Woodward in manual training and Liberty Hyde Baily in agricultural education as leaders in educa- 457 tional reformation. Both Runkle and Woodward were upset 457Cremin, pp., cit., pp. 23-75. 1‘IIIII.‘ I‘ll 181 about an overly bookish educational system which they con- sidered unbalanced and unreal. The Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876 brought forth a display of the Russian system of industrial education developed by Victor Della Vos. The Russian system with its highly efficient series of manipulative exercises provided Runkle with insight to a solution for teaching his engineering students. As President of the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology, Runkle was concerned with the diffi- culties students faced from an overly academic educational system.458 Meanwhile Woodward was busy at Washington University implementing and adapting the Russian system for American purposes. It is Woodward who provides greatest insight to the foundation of manual training in America through his The Manual TrainingSchool.459 It is helpful to examine views held by Woodward and others as an indication of the reasoning during the early manual training period. Woodward demonstrated remarkable beliefs, especially in light of the era in which he lived. His views were received as heresy in the early 1870's by educators who found no room for anything but "intellectual" education. Some of his views can be interpreted as open education while at other times he remained much more 4581bid., p. 25. 459C. M. Woodward, The Manual Training_School (Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 18871. 182 traditional. He charged that schools demonstrated sameness and monotony while spending far too much time on the tradi- tional subjects. Room must be made available for the practi- 460 cal subjects to balance the curriculum. David Femley later supported Woodward's belief by arguing for manual train- ing which ". . . makes some amends for the great wrong done 461 boyhood in transporting it to the city." Like Paul Good- man, Femley believed that much of a boy's education had taken place on the farm but became unavailable as families moved to cities. Femley wrote, But ordinary school life is at war with every in- stinct of the child's physical nature. Nature says to the child, "Run about," the school mistress says, "Sit still!" Manual training at the bench does not cure all these evils, but it puts the boy in a roomy shop where he is on his feet and may move about with some freedom.462 In the shop he can plan and execute the projecti that arouse his interest and enlist his powers. 53 Woodward continued his objection of the existing edu- cational system which he considered defective and destruc- tive. “Too often we see young people, who might have been educated to eminent usefulness, cast -- 'unfinished Into 111464 this breathing world, scarce half made up. Woodward 460Woodward, pp. cit., p. 205. 46IDavid Femley, "The Educational Value of Manual Training,“ Manual Training Magazine, XII (October, 1910), 2. 4621bid., p. 3. 4531616., p. 2. 464Woodward, _p. cit., p. 183. 183 demonstrated sensitivity toward self concept and dropouts rather than agreeing with proponents of the take-it-or-leave- it system. I would make school attractive and indispensable. . They may, by laboring very painfully over the prescribed but uncongenial exercises, escape the stigma of being blockheads; but they can never do very well in them. They will always appear to disadvantage when compared with the boys with good memories for words, whose mental and moral natures accept with pleasure or without serious question the statements and conclusions of others. Such boys are practically plowed under in our schools as not worth harvesting. And yet it not infrequently happens that the boy . . . is re- garded as dull because he cannot master an arti- ficial system 55 Woodward felt that many of the evils of education could be overcome by the adoption of principles introduced by Froebel and Pestalozzi. It was Woodward's view that healthy growth was always pleasurable whereupon he suggested the study of things should replace words. This is not to say that Woodward strictly opposed the academics. Rather he argued for an integration of the manual with the intellec- tual. He believed that all children should receive manual training. It was to be a liberal or free education which provided students with educational stability. Woodward held that his objective for manual training was educational, but he was also confident that industrial and economic results would follow.466 Parenthetically, Woodward held that each boy needed to learn a trade, but there was danger from a too 455Ibid., p. 221. 4661bid., pp. 193-229. 184 early specialization. Furthermore he argued against an edu- cational system which was overly utilitarian. . if all education were limited to such prac- tical examples, our schools would be useless. The idea of a school is, that children are to be graded and taught in classes; the result aimed at being, not at all the objective product or fin- ished work, but the intellectual and Hgysical growth which comes from the exercise. However, this is not to say Woodward advocated what others label a broad cultural education. Such a system under the guise of broad culture may be hurried, shallow, and in- complete.468 Misunderstandings of Woodward's views are corrigible by noting that he advocated “firm, kind, sympathetic manage- ment.“469 For the most part, Woodward advocated teacher initiated projects. For Woodward manual training was en- joyable but not play. "All the work is logically arranged, and simultaneous class exercises are rigidly insisted up- on."470 He did state, however, that it was an excellent idea to give boys permission "occasionally to make what they like, and to carry away the products."471 He strongly pre- ferred class instruction over individualized instruction and therefore stated his preference for the Russian system 457Ibid 4681bid 4691bid ., p. 275. ., p. 129. ., p. 73. 4701bid., p. 227. 4711616., p. 49. 185 over Swedish sloyd,472 which he considered unlikely of suc- cess.473 Analyzing the sloyd system, he wrote, As the class scatters, and becomes a sort of go-as-you-please, every-man-for-himself collec- tion of individuals, all of the characteristics of a school disappear, and class-methods are at an end, and very few pupils can be instructed in new work by one teacher. . . . They completely lost the wholesome effect of class comparison and criticism . . . what Dr. Harris calls the "leverage of the class" should be utilized to its full4extent to stimulate individual intelli- gence. By any measure Woodward must be judged as an educa- tional revolutionary in his time, and it is particularly im- portant to acknowledge the centrality industrial education had upon educational reformation. He operated at a time when faculty psychology was still popularly accepted, which was best exemplified by the writings of Charles Ham. It was Ham who argued for homogeneity in education by combining the exercise of both academic and manual facul- ties. The result would be, in Ham's view, one in which the hand and mind were "en rapport."475 By such means education could finally realize the aspirations of educational reform- ers from Comenius to Spencer. It is not surprising that Ham 472B. B. Hoffman in The Sloyd Syptem of Wood Working (New York: American Book Company, 1892), p. 16, defined the word sloyd as the following: "The word Sloyd (Swedish, 510;?) is derived from the Icelandic, and means dexterity or ski ." 473Woodward, pp. cit., p. 277. 474Ibid., p. 127. 475Charles H. Ham, Mind and Hand (New York: Ameri- can Book Company, 1900), pp. 380:385. 186 therefore noted that manual training had grown out of the kindergarten movement.476 Like Woodward, Ham stressed that manual training was to serve not only a utilitarian purpose of skill development but also "as a factor of mind educa- tion."477 Frank Leavitt acknowledged that early manual train- ing experienced disagreement as to its purpose. He believed that one group, with the aid of the evolving physiological psychology, promoted manual training for its character forma— tion contributions much like proponents of the classics. However, Leavitt argued for a practical manual training which would be deserving of the title industrial education along the lines of the 1906 report by the Massachusetts Industrial Commission.478 Meanwhile others viewed industrial education from another perspective. It is significant that Cremin turned to a seemingly outsider to industrial education, Jane Addams of Hull House, for her perception of industrial education.479 Jane Addams' beliefs strongly resemble those of Boyd Bode and today's open educators. The democratic ideal demands of the school that it shall give the child's own experience a social value; that it shall teach him to direct his own activities and adjust them to those of other people. 4751bid., pp. 358-368. 477Ibid., pp. 343-344. 478Frank Mitchell Leavitt, Examples of Industrial Education (New York: Ginn and Co., 1912), pp. 12-17. 479Cremin, _p. cit., pp. 60-65. 187 We are impatient with the schools which lay all stress on reading and writing, suspecting them to rest upon the assumption that the ordi- nary experience of life is worth little, and that all knowledge and interest must be brought to the children through the medium of books. Such an assumption fails to give the child any clew to the life about him, or any power to usefully or intel- ligently connect himself with it.480 Addams chastised the schools for neglecting career education, including comprehension for the social signifi- cance of an individual's efforts. Instead emphasis was placed upon material rewards and meaningless social stature. It becomes clear that her goal was a humanistic education whereby individuals grasped purpose and a sense of self-deter- mination.48] However, Jane Addams was suspicious of manual train- ing when it only perpetuated the status quo. It is much easier to go over the old paths of education with "manual training" thrown in, as it were; it is much simpler to appeal to the old am- bitions of "getting on in life," or of "preparing for a profession," or "for a commercial career," than to work out new methods on democratic lines.482 We constantly hear it said in educational cir- cles, that a child learns only by "doing," and that education must proceed "through the eyes and hands to the brain"; and yet for the vast number of people all around us who do not need to have activ- ities artificially provided, and who use their hands and eyes all the Eime, we do not seem able to reverse the process. 83 480Jane Addams, Democracy and Social Ethics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), pp. 180-181. 4811616., pp. 193-194. 4821bid., p. 204. 483Ibid., p. 208. 188 An example of the views expressed by Jane Addams was demonstrated by Francis Parker. It was Colonel Parker who made such an impact for his progressive ideas while adminis- tering at the Quincy and Cook County school systems. Later he was to become the first director of the School of Educa- tion at the University of Chicago.484 Colonel Parker envisioned manual training as provid- ing a central role in general education. He believed in a clear distinction between drudgery and work. Drudgery, argued Parker, is monotonous and without purpose, but work is real, stimulating, and interesting. There is great outcry against our schools and colleges, caused by the suspicion that they educate children to be above manual labor. This suspicion is founded upon fact, I am sorry to say; but the statement of the fact is not correct. Children are educated p312! manual labor. Furthermore Parker believed that manual training must be studied by all for its moral values. He also argued against separation of manual training from the rest of the curriculum.486 Colonel Parker supported his beliefs by returning to his principle that the end of all education is the 484L. W. Wahlstrom, "Francis W. Parker -- Pioneer of Educational Reform," Industrial Arts and Vocational Educa- tion, XXVI (November, 1937), 360-363. 485Francis W. Parker, Notes of Talks on Teaching Given by Francis W. Parker at the Martha's Vineyard Summer Institute, reported by Lelia E. Patridge719th ed.; New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co., 1888), p. 180. 4861bid.. pp. 181-182. 189 development of character from which grows the habit of self- control.487 Consequently, he believed that the obligations upon the teacher are enormous for "the teacher must know the "488 child, and its nature. During his influence within the latter nineteenth century, Parker inspired both Dewey and Hall and helped to initiate practices which later came to be known as progressive education.489 Manual Training Influenced by the Sloyd System Also competing with the Russian system was the Swed- ish sloyd system with its emphasis upon useful articles and individualized instruction. Sloyd was primarily developed by Uno Cygnaeus in Finland and later refined by Otto Salomon at Naas, Sweden. It is noteworthy that Salomon identifies that both he and Cygnaeus were beholding to Froebel and Pestalozzi for their educational views.490 Thus arose two competing industrial educational sys- tems which were to have a profound effect. It is not too difficult to sense a correlation between the Russian system and today's sytems approach to education utilizing perform— ance objectives. Likewise a correlation appears to exist 487Ibid., pp. 166-168. 4881bid., p. 170. 489Wahlstrom, _p. cit., pp. 360-363. 490Otto Salomon, The Theory of Educational Sloyd (New York: Silver Burdett & Co., 1906), pp. 7-8. 190 between the sloyd system and open education. There evolved a series of issues interrelated with the debate over the Russian system versus the sloyd system. Was industrial edu- cation to fulfill an economic or educational function? The utilitarian point of view emphasized useful knowledge and skills while the disciplinarian or formative education view held that knowledge and skills may easily be forgotten. Thus advocates of formative education which included sloyders emphasized the "development of the powers and facul- ties of the child."491 Was industrial education to serve the needs of society or the needs of the individual? Should older or younger students receive industrial education? Was industrial education to be general or specific? These and other issues have largely remained unresolved and there- by may help explain separation within industrial education including industrial arts as contrasted to vocational edu- cation. Turning to the sloyd system for deeper inspection, it becomes obvious that advocates of sloyd held many views now promoted by open educators. Otto Salomon, who has already been identified, Gustaf Larsson, and B. B. Hoffman serve as representatives of the sloyd movement. An important characteristic of the sloyd system was its emphasis on being child-centered.492 By concentrating 4911616., p. 3. 492Gustaf Larsson, Elementary Slpyd and Whittltpg (New York: Silver Burdett and Co., 1906), pp. 230-235. 191 upon ideas, needs, and capacities of individual children, sloyd attempted to foster a spirit of self-reliance and in- dependence.493 It therefore became crucial to study children for their learning styles in order that instruction could proceed from the simple to the complex.494 Correspondingly emphasis was placed upon the student rather than his work. Thus sloyd was promoted for its intrinsic values. Students were said to perceive that sloyd had immediate value for its usefulness as well as future value.495 Consequently, it was naturally worth learning and therefore did not require coercion to get children to learn what adults perceived worth- while. Spontaneity played a central role in sloyd although Larsson stated that "spontaneity may be guided, greatly to the advantage of the child."496 Also sloyd was purported to prove its worth in that student interest increased rather than diminished with time. Part of its value, charged Salo- mon, lay in students being able to be successful at sloyd, thus developing self-respect.497 In addition students were encouraged to develop self-sufficiency by critiquing their own work rather than depending on the teacher for 493B. B. Hoffman, _p. cit., P- 25- 494Salomon, pp. cit., p. 10. 4951219., pp. 19-21. 496Larsson,._p. cit., p. 2. 497Salomon, _p. ci ., pp. 45-47. 192 vertification.498 The similarity between this point of view and that of John Holt is noteworthy. It is fitting that individualized instruction was selected as the method to implement the goals of sloyd. Ad- vocates of sloyd argued against class instruction which tended to treat the class as a unit rather than the indi- viduals who comprise the class. Hoffman wrote, "Since chil- dren have different capabilities, and since there are as many individualities as there are children, it is evident that the "499 The result of class same instruction will not suit all. instruction is compromise between various learning styles and rates. An astute teacher, argued Salomon, must know when to provide information and when to remain silent, which is pos- sible with individualized instruction. He wrote, "The best teacher is the one who gives the best supervision and at the same time the least teaching."500 The issue of instruction versus education thus became tangential to class versus individualized instruction. Sloyd advocates equated the Russian system to an instructional sys- tem while sloyd concentrated on education. Salomon explained, "Instruction aims at the implanting of knowledge and the pro- moting of dexterity, while education aims at the development of the faculties."501 There were opponents who felt that ("Ih 498Larsson, pp. ci ., pp. 230-235. fl- 499Hoffman, pp. ci ., p. 48. fl 500Salomon, _p. ci ., p. 14. 5011616., p. 64. 193 individualized instruction was inefficient and costly in con- trast to class instruction. Salomon contended, ". . . there is only one kind of teaching which is too expensive, and that is the bad one."502 It took a special type of teacher to foster the be- liefs and implement the methods of sloyd. Such teachers not only needed expertise in their subject matter but also a dem- onstrated ability for the art of teaching.503 It was argued that skilled artisans often were poor sloyd teachers because of the impatience in the quest for perfection and because they tended to concentrate upon the subject rather than on the students. Salomon contended that the successful sloyd teacher exhibited a guiding tact or savvy which was, " ever with him as his guide, philosopher and friend, —- friend to the children as well as to himself."504 Thus it becomes apparent that advocates of sloyd, like open education, in- sisted that the study be approached on a voluntary basis for student and teacher alike.505 For all its promises for a better educational sys- tem, sloyd undoubtedly had its shortcomings. Although sloyd attempted to promote self-reliance, it appears to have be- fallen an orthodoxy itself. For example, early sloyd books 5021bid., p. 68. 503Hoffman, pp. ci ., p. 232. 504Salomon, _p. ci ., p. 14. 5051bid., p. x. 194 often contained "suggested" models which appear to have be- come entrenched and thus foreclosed further experimentation. Nevertheless the sloyd era demonstrated a serious attempt to improve industrial education via a more humanistic route. Manual Arts and Industrial Arts As the manual training era gave way to manual arts and industrial arts, additional voices proclaimed educational beliefs which may be identified as open education. It is im- portant to acknowledge in passing that manual training, manual arts, and industrial arts are not contained in dis- crete periods of time. Indeed, the cynic, with perhaps a certain amount of justification, may tend to believe manual training is still existing in certain quarters. Also long careers led to many industrial educators influencing several eras. Therefore it is difficult to identify certain individ- uals with only one era, such as manual arts. Also certain leaders influenced not only manual arts and industrial arts but also vocational education. Errors of the Past With increasing frequency industrial educators cast broadsides against educational practices including manual training. As one of the most perceptive industrial educa- tors of all times, Frederick Bonser regularly brought forth scathing indictments against faulty school practices. He was adamant toward schools which exhibited such callous lack of concern for students who chose to drop out. Bonser wrote, 195 Their passive verdict has been, "Let them drop. The 'regular' school is no place for them." What is a "regular" school for, anyway? Why not "reg- ularize” all schools for regular pupils except- ing those only who are really atypical?506 Many of the criticisms of today's schools are but echoes of the past, as evidenced by the words of Bonser. In thousands of schools, teachers are struggling with children to induce them to learn the con- tents of books in which they have almost no nat- ural interest . . . Our schools teach words, words, words, and yet more words. And great multitudes of these words have no real meanings, because they are learned without any experience with the realities which the words represent. It thus follows that many are schooled, but few are educated.50 There are those who continued to argue that to abdi- cate the centrality of books is to abdicate culture. Bon- ser countered that utilitarian activities are indeed cultural when the physical manipulation also is a wrestling with ideas.508 Bonser's writings were similar to those expressed in Benjamin's The Saber-Tooth Curriculum, a satire on curricu- lum irrelevance.509 The question raised by Bonser was why a curriculum continues to exist long after its need ceases 506Frederick G. Bonser, "Is 'Prevocational' a Needed or Desirable Term?," Manual Training and Vocational Education, XVII (April, 1916), 588. 507Frederick G. Bonser, Life Needs and Education (New York: J. J. Little and Lives Co., 1932), pp. 105-106. 5081bid., pp. 81-82. 509Harold R. Benjamin, The Saber-Tooth Curriculum (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1939). 196 and its psychological buttress has been disproven.510 A num- ber of years later Arthur Mays complemented Bonser's view by suggesting, "No education, with its center of being in the ages that have past, will save modern civilization."5H This point of view continues to concern industrial arts leaders, such as Lee Hornbake, who has made similar state- ments.512 Bonser demonstrated an appreciation that manual training had helped to bring reality into education but that it was time for change. Many of the practices during the manual training and manual arts era had held to faculty psy- chology, which had been disproven by Thorndike. For Bonser and others, manual training possessed numerous glaring flaws. Concentration had been paramount toward the product rather than the growth of each student. Also it had been up to the individual to conform. The system was never suspect when problems arose.“3 John Friese added how the old educational pattern had attempted to transmit "race experiences" and re- spect for authority largely through the use of rote memory. 510Frederick G. Bonser, The Elementary School Curric- ulum (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1921), p. 4. 5”Arthur B. Mays, "Practical Arts as Moral Educa— tion," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXV (June, 1936), 165. 512R. Lee Hornbake, "Time for Progress," Paper read before meeting at.Oswego, p. 6. (Mimeographed.) 513Frederick G. Bonser and Lois Coffey Mossman, _p. cit., pp. 478-479. 197 Friese felt that such strategies were surely easy to adminis- ter but educationally unsuccessful. He noted that the edu- cational pendulum had begun to swing to the other extreme with concern for the individual. Friese wasn't too concerned with an over emphasis upon individual growth, for it was prob- ably necessary to gain the attention of the "old guard."514 Many years later Lee Hornbake was to echo these same views of how the early days had been built on "patterned programs" with an ignorance of individual needs. Hornbake noted how the only appreciation of individual differences was to assign faster students an increased production schedule.515 Progression via Influences It is clearly evident that early industrial educators were not content to allow errors of the past set the tenor for the future. These men believed that they and certain philosophers had insight to solving many educational problems. Indeed it may be claimed that there has existed a distinct lineage of industrial educators whose primary concern has been for the individual in the education process and the need for reality. Most of these leaders in their writings went back to Pestalozzi, Rousseau, or Froebel as an acknowledgment for 514John F. Friese, "Manual Arts Teaching Methods, a Vehicle for Developing Procedure in Reasoning," Industrial ggiucation Magpzine, XXX (August, 1928), 45-47. 515R. Lee Hornbake, "Industrial Arts for All," Paper read before New England meeting, circa 1955, p. 9. (Mimeo- graphed.) 198 guidance for industrial education. However, William Warner went further back than most by citing Martin Luther, Mul- caster, and Francis Bacon as early advocates for educational reformation, including industrial education.516 Froebel in particular received a great deal of atten- tion from early industrial education leaders. Ira Griffith, a manual arts leader, recounted, Froebel, long ago, gave the following order which is recognized today as a complete statement for ideal method: (1) spontaneity, (2) instruction, (3) creative effort. Note the order.5 Charles Bennett, the noted historian of industrial education, in a brief magazine article admirably outlines the lineage of early individuals within industrial education who emphasized concern for the child rather than the system. It appears that Bennett did not interpret the Froebelian method in quite the same fashion as Griffith. Bennett de- scribed the Froebelian method as a subject arranged in se- quential steps appropriate to student maturation. It is Ben- nett's contention that reaction against the mechanistic Froe- belian method resulted in consideration and acceptance of Herbart's philosophy from Germany. Johann Friedrich Herbart did not promote manual activities as independent subjects 515William E. Warner et al., A Prospectus for Indus- trial Arts in Ohio (Columbus: The Ohio Education Associa- tion andvthe Ohio State Department of Education, 1934), pp. 44-45. 517Ira Samual Griffith, Teaching Manual and Indus- trial Arts (Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1920), p. 76. 199 but rather a methodological support for subjects generally accepted in the curriculum.518 Given the choice, Bennett continues, educational leaders, such as Dr. G. Stanley Hall and Colonel Francis W. Parker, favored freedom within manual training. Neverthe- less confusion reigned and it became most fortunate that John Dewey came upon the educational scene. Through his School and Society, Dewey exerted a profound effect upon edu- cators in strengthening their insight and convictions.“9 For example, William T. Bawden reported how speakers at in- dustrial arts conventions used Dewey as a springboard for their speeches. On one such occasion Bawden describes how the speaker urged shop teachers to implement three broad ob- jectives -- explore as many industries as possible, explore as many boys as possible via interests, and integrate shop activities with daily out-of—school activities.520 Dewey thus helped to encourage a wide array of cur- ricular innovations within industrial education. Inspired by Dewey, Charles Richards set out to organize a curriculum reflective of the multiplicity of elements within industry. 518Charles Alpheus Bennett, "Improvement of Instruc- tion in the Arts," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXVIII (September, 1936), 184-186. 5191bid. 520William T. Bawden (ed.), "The Manual-Arts Shop and Normal Activities of Boys," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXIII (May, 1932), 279. 200 Thus Richards is remembered as the originator of the term "industrial arts."52] Subsequently Frederick Bonser built upon Richards' work while concentrating on elementary education. Bonser accepted the principles by campaigning for industrial arts as a subject utilizing "problematic situations." Robert Sel- vidge followed by utilizing many of Bonser's conclusions but concentrated on an educational analysis of processes approach. Bennett reported that Selvidge avoided the dictated sequen- tial approach common to manual training by requiring each student to arrive at his own sequential plan.522 Industrial educators took note as progressive educa- tion began to have its effect. Emanuel E. Ericson expressed some reactions which seemed rather characteristic. He did not view progressive education as unique as proponents claimed but rather the implementation of Rousseau's views. Furthermore Ericson viewed progressive education more as an attitude toward students than as unique methodology. He warned, however, that industrial educators should not look upon progressive education with a "we have always done it" attitude. In much the same way it would seem industrial arts teachers must not now look upon open education with a "we have always done it" attitude. Such an attitude fosters 521Bennett, History of Manual and Industrial Educa- tion, 1870 to 1917, p. 453. 522Bennett, "Improvement of Instruction in the Arts," pp. 184-186. 201 complacency, warned Ericson, who believed that industrial arts could reap spin-off from progressive education.523 General Theories There arose during manual arts and industrial arts a variety of general theories about education which help ex- plain curricular development. As might be expected, some theories were more complementary than others. Bonser acknowledged that a host of sharp differences over educational matters eixst which create turmoil. A par- tial list includes conflict between the individual and society; . . . between dependence upon adult guidance and self-initiated activity; . . . between a curriculum made wholly in advance and a curriculum built up wholly in thg24 classroom from hour to hour and day to day, . . . The only solution, charged Bonser, is for the science of psy- chology to be utilized alongside philosophy. For his part, Bonser urged the implementation of a curriculum which is flexible enough to recognize and capitalize upon individual differences thereby displacing coercion.525 Like Bonser, Charles Richards approved of a curricu- lum of reality and freedom. His study of the pace setting Gary schools caused him to report on their merits. 523Emanuel E. Ericson, "Implications of Progressive Education for the Industrial Arts," Industrial Education Magazine, XLI (January, 1939), 7-11. 524Bonser, Life Needs and Education, pp. 167-168. 525Ibid., pp. 142-143. 202 One gains a strong impression at Gary that the school is not a secondary thing in the boy's life, a thing to be escaped from as quickly as possible, but that it is the big thing which commands by far the larger part of his energies and inter- ests. . . . The shops themselves, although con- ducted with considerable freedom, generally re- flect an atmosphere of real work, and the pupils are often found successfully carrying on opera- tions and achieving results ordinarily judged quite beyond the capacity of boys of their age. 526 Furthermore Richards believed that an innovative and experimental curriculum was as stimulating as conformative programs are deadening. He recognized that the Gary schools had problems, but they were the real problems of life and thus to be expected.527 Like Rousseau and today's open educators, Bonser urged educators to work with nature by capitalizing upon children's native impulses. He clearly recognized that needs and capacities are "markedly different in degree in chil- dren."528 It is only natural that Bonser took a Deweyian tact by expressing that education is growth. Consequently, Bonser believed that the test of education is whether an in- dividual freely chooses further similar experiences after the initial contact.529 526Charles R. Richards, The Gary Public Schools/ Industrial Work (New York: General Education Board, 1918), p. 111. 527Ibid., pp. xvii-xviii. 528Bonser, The Elementary School Curriculum, p. 41. 52980nser, Life Needs and Education, p. 3. 203 The principles of education set forth by the Progres- sive Education Association were commended by Bonser. Among its principles were beliefs that children should have the freedom for natural development, the teacher is to be a guide rather than a taskmaster, and the child's needs are best met when school and home cooperate. Yet Bonser was very sensi- tive to the possibility that these principles can be misin- terpreted. He charged that it was an abeyance of the prin- ciples when progressive education became misconstrued as an endorsement for the unfortunate aberrations so highly sati- rized.530 Bonser contended there exist certain irrefutable "Laws of Learning" to which schools must be accountable. He wrote, "We violate all of the laws of learning and of human nature and then wonder why children come out of the schools uneducated."53] One such law is the ”Law of Readiness" which ‘holds that it is useless to attempt to teach that for which there is yet no capacity. The "Law of Effect" serves to recognize that students will continue study in only those areas which provide satisfaction. In addition the "Law of Exercise" admonishes teachers to correlate and integrate school activities with the realities of life. Bonser be- lieved that the nature of childhood, daily life situations, and the "Laws of Learning" were in harmony when schools were 53OIbid.. pp. 8-19. 5311bid., p. 5. 204 532 He warned that schools serve no serving their purpose. It is pathetic mnposevflmn possessed with isolationalism. andlumccmnable, he charged, when students are driven from Um sdumlsin search of their education.533 Bonser and Lois Coffey Mossman, his colleague at C0hmbia,described how industrial arts was able to satisfy rmmerousrmtural impulses found in children. These include hmnflses for manipulative activity, investigation, aesthetics, and social activities.534 Education, wrote Bonser, loses its balance when it overly concentrates on facts and skills. uses and meanings of facts and skills must not be ignored.535 The The values of handwork, wrote Bonser and Mossman, are derived from both the meaningfulness of experiences and pleasure In other words, handwork contributes experiences to sensed. Also the pleasure derived put meaning into classroom study. from handwork provides desirable attitudes to continue fur- ther such experiences.536 A great deal of debate hovered about the issue of handwork versus theoretical study. There were those who urged more theoretical study within industrial education in order to gain rigor and acceptability. Opponents argued that 5321bid., pp. 4-7. 533Ibid., p. 85. 53430nser and Mossman, _p. cit., p. 33. 535Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 4. 53680nser and Mossman, _p. cit., pp. 16-17. 205 just “neopposite would result. Verne Fryklund argued that thoselflw urge for greater stress being placed upon the in- formathnml aspect of industrial education have a distorted undershuMing of culture. Manipulative activities, wrote Fryklumd,are surely reflective of the culture and therefore in no need of apology. Furthermore culture is of an individ- 537 ual nature and thus unable of being standardized for all. Other general theories now held by open educators have been entertained by industrial educators. Bonser and Mossman, for example, wrote that trial and error practices 538 are to be expected for they offer valuable experimentation. The issue of drill also surfaced. Ira Griffith believed that repetition was useful but should be perceived as being valu- able by students as well as teachers. He believed that there must be a valid reason why a student is asked to repeat an activity.539 Griffith agreed with Thorndike that students do not profit when their educational experiences are always "soft" and without perseverance. The point is that students accept postponement of gratification if the reason given is perceived as valid.540 537Verne C. Fryklund, "From Concepts to Techniques," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (April, 1937), 111—114. 538Bonser and Mossman, pp, cit., p. 46. 539Griffith, Teaching Manual and Industrial Arts. 540Ibid.,p. 87. 206 Dante on these matters has continued for many years. lumertSethge took an anti-progressive education stance when he wrote the following: The ideal may be supplied by dictation, and the practnm required by authority, until the action be- comestwbitual. This is necessary, to a large de— gree,1nth the immature mind, a fact which the so- cmllmiprogressive educators do not always recog- nize. During the past forty years, the philosophy of irresponsibility has so permeated our schools and our homes that we have forgotten that the immatur- ity and inexperience of youth do not give an ade- quate basis for the formation of rules of conduct, nor do we appear to be aware that yielding to the desire for immediate satisfaction is not likely to establish habits which prepare a child to assume duties of happy and useful citizenship. . . For that reason, experiences in our schools which provide a wide range of activities offer much better opportunities for the develop- ment of character traits than those which involve only intellectual processes. In this respect, the industrial-arts experiences have greater potenglal value than the experiences in any other field In analyzing handwork activities in the schools, Bon- ser and Mossman concluded the situation was chaotic due to divergent attitudes and objectives.542 Later Bonser suggested a course of'action to correct the situation. Bonser contended that irnnistrial arts contained a body of knowledge of such worth equal to other subjects in the curriculum and thus worthyrcrf being an integral curricular element. As such, if properly developed, industrial arts would invigorate the 541Robert Washington Selvidge, "Character Traits and Education," Industrial Education Magazine, XLI (November, 1939), 222-223. 542Bonser and Mossman, pp. cit., pp. 481-482. 207 enthe mnwiculum. It was crucial that industrial arts not beumm hMmlanced by overly concentrating on the manipulative aspect. He wrote, "The side of execution has been developed toime aMmst total neglect of thought content or humanistic n543 It was William Warner, however, who as a prime mover in Ohio value. in the creation of A Prospectus for Industrial Arts developed a most comprehensive plan for industrial arts in- cluding a reaffirmation of undergirding theories. It was Warner's contention that industrial arts "occurs in many other places than the schools."544 Democratic Education Industrial educators have for an extended period of time sensed the democratic implications of their subject upon the child and his curriculum. Charles Bennett in 1925 clearly recognized how changes from manual training to manual arts and industrial arts were brought about by an increasing awareness of the operational meaning of democracy in the schools. Heeconcluded that present trends were to continue 545 'ff'the democratic vista was truly to become a reality. 543Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 75. 544Warner et al., A Prospectus for Industrial Arts in Ohio, p. 75. 545Charles A. Bennett, "Changes in Manual Arts In- strtuztiori in Relation to Changes in the Philosophy of Educa- tiori," Iruiustwjal Education Magazine, XXVI (June, 1925), 362-363. 208 Industrial education has not always demonstrated a kemisochfl sensitivity. Ashley contended industrial arts' purposes are "educationally social rather than vocationally econmnhx" He acknowledged these two goals are not neces- sarihrincompatible, as often witnessed by certain high schoolprograms.546 It was Hornbake who credited John Dewey for urging industrial educators to be more socially sensi- tive. Credit for operationalizing Dewey's social beliefs, wrote Hornbake, goes to Richards and Bonser.547 During the thirties the spirit of nationalism rapidly increased with a commensurate increase in pleas for demo- cratic industrial education. Bonser contended that schools face the following three basic problems: to create an at- mosphere in which students initiate learning rather than succumb to imposed tasks; to enlist a motivating spirit whereby students sense the personal satisfactions in work be- yond material rewards; and to bring about a demopratic ad- ministration within schools. The teacher, wrote Bonser, must be responsible for bringing students into contact with interesting studies from which students can create, origi- Turte, and experiment. Otherwise natural growth is stifled 546L. F. Ashley, "Chronological Development of the Industrial-Arts Concept," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (October, 1937), 3T1. 547Ralph Lee Hornbake, Professional Progress in In- dustrial Arts Education (Columbus: Epsilon Pi Tau, Inc., 15951) , p. 7. 209 548 andtheeuperience had best not be called education. Grfifiithhad previously charged, "Democracy cannot stand spmmoriWr an Aristotelian philos0phy of industrial educa- n549 Huthermore, Bonser held, the school is bound to Hon. foster a cooperative experience in which students can exper- "Any form of school pro- ience the meaning of social living. cmdurevflfich emphasizes isolated individualism at the cost cn’the appreciation of cooperative relationships and an atti- tude of breadth and sympathetic social interests is undemo- cratic and un-American."550 Often at this point comes the seeming conflict be- Horn- tween the needs of the individual and those of society. bake contended that schools must provide for individual needs, It fol- which ultimately are derived from the culture anyway. laws for Americans that the culture or way of life is demo- Thus it is logical that if a society purports to be cratic. democratic, an opportunity for realization of individual 55] Consequently, Hornbake held that needs becomes implicit. a priru:ip1e for American education is that, "Democratic education is the search for and development of unique 548Bonser, Life Needs and Education, pp. 31-32. 54QGriffith, Teaching Manual and Industrial Arts, p. .52. 550Bonser, Life Needs and Education, P- 33 55112. Lee Hornbake, "A Place for the Arts in the Elementary Program," Western Arts Association Bulletin, XXI (September 1, 1937), 50-58. 210 tahmtsfi652 It must then be obvious the ramifications this prhnfipleholds for curricular offerings. 1heodore Struck concurred with Hornbake's ideas by statflm atmlief industrial arts holds an important place in the American educational system. If purposing, planning, executing, and evaluat- huiare educational, then industrial arts is educa- thnml, for that is the stuff of which the daily workis composed. If socially centered instruc- tion<flaws its ideals, its materials, its methods, and its techniques from contemporary life, then industrial arts offers rare opportunity to teach in the interests of a better social order.553 The usual informality of industrial arts, wrote Warner, provides for far greater opportunity for the develop- ment of desirable social traits.554 There are those who fear greater freedom in attempt to foster democratic educa- tion leads to various forms of anti-social behavior. Bonser countered that freedom for worthwhile activities reaps self- He acknowledged the task facing proponents of control. "To make the world safe democratic education was not easy. for democracy is a laudable and difficult educational en- deavor, tnrt to make democracy safe for the world is equally laudable and even more difficult and important."555 552Hornbake, "Industrial Arts for All," p. 12. 553F3 Theodore Struck, "The Challenge of Industrial Arts," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXV (Octo- ber, 1936), 295. 554Warner et al., A Prospectus for Industrial Arts in Ohio, p. 53. 55F’Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 235. 211 Part of the problem, according to Hornbake in the emfly ffi%ies, is the ease with which curricular change is bmfiedtmneath insignificant activities. Curricular change cannotcmme about without a change in attitudes. These are attitmnm about content derived from current and future in- dustrhfl practices, pedagogical attitudes supported by sound, empirhnfl research, and social attitudes about a way of life which fin'Americans is democratic. Hornbake sadly observed that too often industrial arts curricula could be transported intact to authoritarian states. Make no mistake about it, the number one curric— ulum principle for Industrial Arts education is the derivation of content and method from well-defined assumptions pertaining to human growth, behavior and learning and from well-defined assumptions pertain- ing to social purpose. We cannot escape this even h we work in an area of material, tangilbe thou [sicfi things and even though, as a professional group, we have shied away from anything which smacks of philosophy.55 Similar beliefs were expressed by Bonser. He held that citizenship must be an integral part of the curriculum. Industrial arts, he wrote, affords an excellent opportunity for critizenship to be practiced.557 "An education of ideas only is socially dangerous,“ wrote John Friese. He believed that industrial education students who experience an exploratory curriculum are 556R. Lee Hornbake, "Curriculum Principles," Speech given at the American Vocational Association Convention, Mass., December 3, 1952, p. 2. (Mimeographed.) Boston, 557Bonser, The Elementary School Curriculum, PP- 399-401. 212 afforded an opportunity to learn about occupations in a way nmernw uirecorded observations of others. Furthermore stu- cMntsleamiabout themselves whereby they can begin to make soumioccwmtional plans. Friese believed that contentment wiUTOne'scmreer forestalls being duped into ”extreme and radical doctrines."558 Curriculum There are three approaches in curriculum making, according to John Ludington. His analysis strongly resembles those now made by open educators. One approach, wrote Ludington, is traditional with an assumption that there is an identifiable body of knowledge which all students need to learn. Primary consideration is given to facts and skills instead of individual needs and Clearly Ludington rejected this approach.559 interests. It wasn't so much that industrial arts leaders totally rejected teaching certain basic skills but rather questioned the time being consumed. Bonser contended that the point of diminishing returns has been exceeded and there- fore other educational activities should receive greater priority.560 555’John F. Friese, "Social Security and Industrial Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI Education," (April, 1937),'H5. 559J0hn R. Ludington, "Approaches in Elementary Cur- riculum Making," Western Arts Association Bulletin, XXI (September 1, 1937), 57-58. 560Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 178 213 Asa replacement for the subject-matter curriculum, Mmserreummended the activity curriculum. "Differing frmna sMflect-matter curriculum dealing with ideas about 'Hmseacthfities, it ppovides practice in the activities themselves."561 Bonser argued that an activity curriculum It is the need not promote the demise of intellectual rigor. Furthermore he typecfi'activity which makes the difference. believed that the activity curriculum is wholly appropriate fpr all grade levels although its dominance may be altered with older students.562 The core curriculum approach is another possibility Subject areas are drawn with concentration toward a project. upon as the need arises. Naturally teachers utilizing the core curriculum need to be ingenious and knowledgeable in There were those who believed that the core many areas.563 curriculum should be centered around the practical arts rather than social studies. George Cox held that the real 564 It problems of life should define the curricular core. was pnainted out by Bonser, however, that it is unwise to use industrial arts or any other subject as a core center. The result would be, he wrote, "artificial and strained." Bonser explained, 551Ibid., p. 200. 5621mm. pp. 200-201. 563Ludington, pp. cit., pp. 57-58. 564George B. Cox, "What Next in Progressive Educa- Iruiustrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI tion?," (July, 1937) , 207-209. 214 Onenmy well hold to the principle that industrial artssflmuld receive a proportion of attention in schmfl corresponding to the importance of the prob- lems<fi’the consumer and citizen relative to in- dushfial materials ang6products outside of school -- no more, and no less. ernbake believed that at least industrial arts teachers should logically serve as valuable resource person- nel flm~a core curriculum.566 Perhaps Bonser voiced one of the most comprehensive attitudes toward the core curriculum and its focus. Broadly interpreted, it is my conviction that the facts and conditions justify the life career motive as a dominating, unifying interest for secondary school programs. But this interpretation includes as parts of a life career not only occupational efficiency, but efficiency as a consumer, as a citizen, as a homemaker, as an intelligent guardian of health, and as a participant in wholesome recrea- tion 587 body, intellect, and the appreciative life. Another curricular possibility advanced by Ludington is the integrated approach, which centers on real problems as they arise. Ludington contended that a curriculum must demon- strate unity if it is to reflect the interrelationships of life's problems.568 Others echoed Ludington. Hornbake argued against a curricuhhnn void of expressing the "mutual inter-relation- ships." He asked, ". . . how can the child be expected to take the Arts in separate 'doses' and integrate them in his 56580nser, Life Needs and Education, p. 205. 555N10rnbake, "Industrial Arts for All," p. 13. 567Bonser, Life Needs and Education, pp. 45-46. 568Ludington, pp. cit., pp. 57-58. 215 lhfitedrange of experience“ when his teachers fail to teach in an'HNegrated fashion?"569 The integration being sought must fixms upon the child, wrote Warner. Emphasis on inte- grathuithe content with little concern for the student still misses educational purpose . 570 Industrial arts has a particularly unique potential 'fln‘both correlation and integration within the curricu— 1um.571 There are those who seemingly take great pride in being associated with a subject area so pure and with easily recognizable parameters as to be called a discipline. Bon- ser and Mossman rejoiced that industrial arts is not a disci- pline but rather an area of study which integrates the cur- 572 riculum by replacing artificial boundaries. No other phase of school work has such great pos- sibilities for bringing about this unity of school and life experience as the industrial arts when taught with proper regard to the broad re- lationships of its problems and its content.573 However, there is danger industrial arts educators may be- come complacent by being satisfied that industrial arts 15 not in need of improvement. Others such as Warner cautioned 569Hornbake, "A Place for the Arts in the Elemen- tary Program," p. 57. 570Warner et al., A Prospectus for Industrial Arts in Ohio, p. 18. 571Frjese, "Social Security and Industrial Educa- tion," p. 115. 572Bonser and Mossman, _p. cit., p. 68. 573Ihid., p. 75. 216 that industrial arts still continues to be conceived on too narrow a conceptual basis.574 There were those who expressed certain reservations about integrating the curriculum. George Cox wrote, The education of the "whole" child is a good phrase but the sponsors of the integrative curriculum should remember that a brick wall is built a brick at a time -- not all at once. Differentiation precedes integration. Chil- dren learn most readily from specific cases, and then pass on to generglgzations or to a treatment of "the whole." Similarly John Friese supported industrial arts being correlated with other subjects but was skeptical whether in- dustrial arts should be completely integrated. He wrote, In such an organization, industrial arts becomes a handmaiden of other subjects, an agency which benefits other branches of instruction. This is the Herbartian point of view.5 Methods Reminiscent of manual training leaders, the leaders of manual arts and industrial arts have directed consider- able attention to selecting appropriate methods. Delmar Olson provides the salient characteristics of methods em- ployed during the development of industrial education. He describes manual training as utilizing dictated exercises, followed by manual arts characterized by the assignment of 574William E. Warner, "How Do You Interpret Indus- trial Arts?," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXV (February, 1936), 33-35. 575Cox, pp, cit., p. 208. 576John F. Friese, Course Making in Industrial Edu- cation (Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1946), p. 159. 217 useful and artistic projects, and now industrial arts empha- sizing projects which are both individually selected and creatively executed.577 As a leader during the manual arts era, Ira Griffith devoted considerable energy to determining appropriate method- ology. He concluded three methods are available. The first of which is the deductive or imitative method by which the teacher describes and demonstrates exactly what students are expected to accomplish. Griffith considered the deductive method as an efficient form of instruction but not neces- sarily education because of its inherent quality of inhibit- ing resourcefulness. Dependence on the teacher too often results from this method.578 The inverse, wrote Griffith, is the inductive or heu- ristic method. Sometimes the inductive method is inter- preted as the inventive method whereby spontaneity leads the student to becoming self-directed. It then becomes the teacher's task to intercede only when the student is pur- suing a route of obviously little value.579 It thus became Griffith's thesis that a combination of the foregoing becomes the "complete" method. The teacher must, like Froebel, monitor and adjust the methods as cir- cumstances dictate. 577Delmar W. Olson, The Evolution of Industrial Arts (Columbus: Epsilon Pi Tau, 1957), p. 20. 578Griffith, Teaching Manual and Industrial Arts. pp. 154-155. 579Ibid., pp. 156-157. 218 Creative effort, discovery, or invention, is of slight value until based upon a knowledge of, and a fair degree of skill in, the conventions of the activity in which the creative effort is to be. Instruction in conventional methods of procedure is of slight value unless based upon a feeling of real need thru spontaneous activity or activity not directed and controlled by instruction. John Friese amplified upon Griffith's beliefs by identifying types of thinking found with each method. Asso- ciative thinking, wrote Friese, is a primary form but random in nature. It often tends to be found in students experienc- ing the deductive method. Conversely, selective thinking utilizing reason is "found in the leader-inventor class" and is often the product of the inductive method. Friese, how- ever, appreciated that associative must precede selective thinking. Correspondingly, methods must vary as circum- stances dictate. For this reason Friese agreed with Grif- fith's "complete method."581 It was Friese's belief that the practical arts alone made use of many senses in the classroom.582 Similarly Robert Selvidge observed the idiosyncratic nature of learn- ing which necessitates flexibility of methods.583 5801bid., p. 157. 581Friese, "Manual Arts Teaching Methods, a Vehicle for Developing Procedure in Reasoning," pp. 45-47. 582Friese, "Social Security and Industrial Educa- tion," p. 115. 583Robert w. Selvidge, "Teaching Is An Individual Process,“ Industrial Education Magazine, XXXII (August, 1930), 33-34. 219 Thus the project method popularly advocated by Wil- liam Heard Kilpatrick, a protege of Dewey, continued to re- ceive recognition. The project with its emphasis upon reality and student initiative found its genesis in industrial and agricultural education.584 Bonser was perturbed that the project or activity method was popular at the elementary and collegiate level but often lacking at the secondary level.585 The project method, wrote Bonser, abounds in opportunity whereby students can spontaneously "be led to engage whole- 586 heartedly" in purposeful activities. Bonser amplified his belief in appropriate educational ends and methods. The method in every art is clearly learning through participation, learning by doing, working with interest rather than against it, within the range of capacity rather than beyond it, in harmony with natural, social life rather than remote from it, in all instances, with a "real motive beyond and a real outcome ahead." . . Our very social structure depends upon a recognition of and adjustment to our inter- relationships and interdependence, yet little has been done to cultivate an appreciation of these relationships.587 Later Gordon Wilber elaborated on operationalizing the project method. His analysis is somewhat moderate and perhaps illustrative of the late 1940's up to the present. One approach is to have all projects assigned, thus assuring attainment of predetermined goals. This method is 584Friese, "Social Security and Industrial Education,” p. 115. 585Bonser, Life Needs and Education. P- 53- 586Bonser, The Elementacy School Curriculum, p. 89. 587Bonser, Life Needs and Education. PP- 195’196- . z 1 a cl a o a u. . ~ ‘ o . , I _ a . . r. a - . . 1 I v a . o . . . . I o . .. u. . I . n. l l’lg ’ . . a. . . I . o . I I ~. .. . . v . . . . ,a . e . — .11 _ a . n. u a L. . . v. . .. 1 . .. . . . a . . . _ L . . . . .. . I l . . . . . . . 1. . . . a I ~ - . . . . . a. . . e . .. e u . 1 . . . . . . . . l . v. o r .. a . . . 220 easy to teach but stifling in its regimentation. "The con- scientious industrial arts teacher will wish to consider seriously the limitations of arbitrarily assigned projects in light of all of his objectives before adopting this tech- ni ue."588 The choice within groups approach attempts to provide for individual differences and aspirations while assuring predetermined goals are met. Wilber clearly favored this method.589 The free choice method is the most liberal by its implicit faith in the student's ability to wisely select his projects. Wilber felt only a clever teacher could employ this method to advantage without wasting time and mate- riaTs.590 Hornbake recounted how curriculum builders once felt their task was complete once the content had been identified and sequenced. However, wrote Hornbake, content and method are inseparable. In effect the method becomes the content and vice versa.591 Trade and Job Analysis The systems approach to education which is currently receiving considerable attention surely is not new to 588Wi1ber, _p. cit., pp. 163-164. 589Ibid., p. 164. 5901bid., pp. 164-165. 591Hornbake, "Curriculum Principles," p. 4. 221 industrial education. Although perhaps crude, the work of Russia's Della Vos and others engaged in manual training was demonstrative of the systems approach. By the late twenties and early thirties, trade and job analysis procedures uti- lized in industrial training programs had achieved an impres- sive degree of sophistication. The practice is perhaps one of the most volatile issues to have surfaced in industrial education. Furthermore the issue yet remains unresolved. Two of the most prominent advocates of trade and job analysis were Robert Selvidge and Verne Fryklund. Their 1930 Principles of Trade and Industrial Teaching received consid- erable acclaim from certain industrial educators. The authors devoted considerable effort to designing an elaborate tally system for job analysis. Each endeavor was thereby broken down to specific operations. Furthermore Selvidge and Fryk- lund buttressed their system on a theory of learning includ- ing the work of Judd. 'Selected quotations are illustrative of their attitudes.592 The first step in teaching is to determine the things you must teach in order to make the indi- vididual into what you wish him to be. . Having determined the things in which the in- dividual should be trained, these things should be analyzed into learning units, suited to the capacity of the individual, and ggganged into a convenient form for instruction. 592R. W. Selvidge and Verne C. Fryklund, Principles of Trade and Industrial Teaching (2d ed. rev.; Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1946). 593Ihid., p. 85. 222 The pupil 32 entitled to know what he is expected to learn.5 It is the duty of a teacher to present a demon- stration skilfully and with ease in order that the learners pay be encouraged to acquire the same mastery. Fryklund analyzed two types of learning -- "incidental," which depends upon spontaneity without identifying predeter- mined goals versus the "organized" system, which preplans goals, criteria, and evaluation. It was Fryklund's conten- tion that true creativity can only take place in a well orga- nized system rather than in a "hit-or-miss" fumbling spon- taneous experience. Consequently, he held that the systems approach needs no apologies and is thus worthy of adoption by industrial arts.596 Gestalt psychology was reviewed by Fryklund as only being somewhat tangential to industrial arts experiences. Perhaps, he reasoned, we do learn by patterns, as argued by the Gestaltists, but the question arises as to size of the learning pattern. Fryklund continued to argue that learn- ing is specific rather than general. Gestalt psychology is merely a good explanation of how we learn under whatever plan of instruction. It does not say that lessons in industrial teach- ing are too small, nor does it say that instruc- tional units must be discovered by learners.597 594Ibid., p. 96. 595Ibid., p. 163. 596Verne C. Fryklund, "Organization and Learning in Industrial-Arts Education," Industrial Arts and Vocational gpucation, XXVII (March, 1938), 112-113. 597Fryklund, "From Concepts to Techniques," p. 114. 223 Accordingly Fryklund advocated the stimulus-response theory of learning. He wrote, The learning experiences must be selected and arranged in terms of desired outcomes. There must be analysis of these outcomes and provi- sion made for the details, because the details together form the completed structure. . . because learning is specific; and the student will learn only what has been taught to him, plus some concomitant things.598 Consequently, argued Fryklund, the system must be used as a form of self renewal to exclude "outmoded exercises.“ Robert Selvidge in similar fashion had attacked the Montessori and Gary systems, which John Dewey had praised. Whatever fine spun theories our great edu- cators may have about “self-directed activities, etc.," disorder and confusion are the inevitable results and constitute conditions absolutely op- posed to effective teaching or to the develop- ment of proper habits. This harem-scarem, do- as-you-please attitude in the school and in the home is responsible for some of our most serious social problems.599 The solution, contended Selvidge, is for each teacher and student to prepare a work plan. "The following is an example of an instruction sheet for repairing a leaky fau- Get. "600 Selvidge and Fryklund were supported in certain quar- ters for their beliefs in systematizing industrial education. Arthur Mays agreed that self-control was lost when students 598Verne C. Fryklund, "Learning is Specific," In- dustrial Education Magazine, XXXIX (May, 1937), 146. 599R. W. Selvidge, "The Real Job, " Industrial Edu- cation Magazine, XXV (August, 1923), 37. 600nm. 224 were permitted to engage in unplanned activities. He felt that all goals must be predetermined to which students must conform.601 During an era of economic recession Mays charged that the manual arts programs were hampered by "lack of stan- dardization” and "clearness of purpose."602 One of the more popular evidences of the systems ap- proach to industrial education was the adoption of instruction sheets. Industrial educators had developed instructional sheets in an attempt to serve individual differences. Stu- dents thereby could proceed at their own pace by relying upon instruction sheets as well as the teacher. Specific instruc- tions were prepared to facilitate a host of shop processes, which, claimed Selvidge, was the best solution to insure effi- ciency and accuracy.603 Just as the trade and job analysis approach, including its accoutrements, had advocates so too were there vociferous opponents. Taking a somewhat moderate position, John Friese indicated the administrative advantages of instructional sheets providing efficiency were often counteracted by serious educational disadvantages. Such a mechanistic device, wrote Friese, tends to inhibit interper- sonal contact between student and teacher, which is so cru- cial if schools are to be more humanized. Likewise 601Arthur B. Mays, "Practical Arts as Moral Educa- tion," pp. 165-168. 602Arthur B. Mays, "The Enrichment of Manual Arts," Industrial Arts Magazine, XII (April, 1923), 131-134. 603R. W. Selvidge, "Teaching of Related Subjects," Industrial Education Magazine, XXVIII (March, 1927), 275-278. 225 instructional sheets tend to foster dependence upon the teacher through his printed recipes. Problem solving compe- tencies utilizing reasoning are thus not exercised and devel- oped. Furthermore children with reading difficulties are discriminated against when instruction sheets are utilized. Friese also charged, "There is frequently weak correlation between the specific purpose of the sheet and the references Tisted."504 Charles Bennett had earlier attacked the systems ap- proach as it appeared during the manual training era. He be- lieved that democratic values were crushed when students were driven into what to think and do. In the early days of the manual training "sys- tems" the most perfect system was the one that had been most completely thought out in every detail by the teacher and all the facts and data recorded on blueprints or otherwise so that all that the pupil was required to do was to follow direc- tions exactly as given to him. . . . It is hardly necessary to remark in passing that this system was developed in a country where a czar was the ruler of the people and that the origi- nal system was developed to train mechanics for the government railway service; neither should it be necessary to remark that industry in America has sometimes been so short-sighted as to say that it did not hire workmen 8g think but merely to do as they were told.6 Others were equally adamant. Perhaps the words of Arthur Dean were both strongest and most sincere. WELL! Some of us have not changed. Some still teach subjects to boys instead of introducing 604Friese, Course Making in Industrial Education, p. 140. 605Bennett, "Changes in Manual Arts Instruction in Relation to Changes in the Philosophy of Education," p. 363. 226 boys to subjects. Some still put the proper use of the tool before anything else. Some had rather show a beautifully made model than inter- est themselves in what the boy got out of it in its making. Some still prefer merely a sheet of some job analysis instead of preparing in addi- tion an analysis of the boy who is to use the job sheet.60 We spent more time discovering how to sharpen a chisel than how to sharpen a boy's wits; more in laying out work with a square than squaring our work with boys; more in making working drawings than in drawing conclusions; more in finishing a board than in boarding together in- stincts of boys. And the curse of it is that some folks are still training teachers of shop- work in that same way, except that they have substituted that wonderful sounding term "job analysis." Lord knows we need a job analysis of our job, but the first job is to analyze the boy we are teaching. Let me say right here, that I know of no more serious mistake than the one we are now committing, -- of training teachers of shopwork under the Smith-Hughes plan of training teachers for vocational edu- cation, and afterwards using these teachers in teaching in junior high schools. What they know about job analysis will fill a BOO-page book. What they do not know about boys would crowd a five-foot book shelf. I have spoken strongly because I feel strongly that we have, perhaps unconsciously, got back to an old, old idea -- the sequen- tial use of tools and tool processes. An idea which is as perfectly sound for trade teaching as it is perfectly foolish for junior high school teaching. 7 Fear of standardization continued. Bick warned that standardization would lead to a "self-satisfying opiate" which utilized the "average philosophy as the ideal." Like open educators who recognize their success is dependent upon 606Arthur Dean, "Change in Our Attitude toward Boys," Industrial Education Magazine, XXVI (March, 1925), 264. 607Ibid.. pp. 265-266. 227 the citizenry perception of education and life, so too did Bick demonstrate an awareness. "Our work is judged by the citizen on the basis of its interpretation of life."608 Opposition of trade and job analysis techniques was voiced in many quarters. William Warner contended that re- search indicated trade teaching techniques are wholly inap- propriate for industrial arts.609 On another occasion Warner confessed how he had been taught to prepare 3"x5" cards for both jobs and trade analysis. Later he came to realize how the practice unfilled the potential and role of industrial arts.610 It was Hornbake's belief that the evolving industrial arts programs became maligned by adopting job and trade anal- ysis approaches. The result was an obsession on the system while ignoring both the students and the changing technology to which students were to be introduced.611 Are we to use experiences taken from the arts of industry to discover and develop the traits and talents of boys and girls--a drawing-out process (education--educere, to lead or draw out) or are we to think of our content as a body of adult- centered skills and knowledges which we are 608Alexander Frederick Bick, "Some Dangers in Stan- dardization," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXVIII (Septem- ber, 1936), 205. 609William E. Warner, "Industrial-Arts Research," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXIV (February, T935), 38-44. 61011illiam E. Warner et al., An Industrial Arts Cur- ricultun to Reflect Technology at All School Levels (Columbus: Epsilon Pi Tau, 1947). 611Hornbake, "Industrial Arts for All," p. 10. 228 obliged to develop in the neuro-muscular systems of pupils? Obviously the teacher assigned or teacher suggested project, accompanied by paced demonstrations and a few related lessons or sheets in a workbook, implies a preference for the latter. The diverse learning outcomes claimed for industrial arts cannot result from this limited teaching and any effort to incorpo— rate teaching methods oriented in the learner- centered approach is incongruous. . Many industrial arts teachers know of no alternatives and most pre- service and in- service teacher education programs follow the plan which in no way differs from manual arts.612 Hornbake went on to castigate trade and job analysis methods. He argued that the goals of industrial arts cannot support a rigid system. The point of view is not ground-to-be covered, but child growth and development -- social, emo- tional, mental, and physical develOpment -- assum- ing that these aspects can be considered sepa- rately even for discussion. This view means that for classroom practice there is no place for: prescribed and rigid programs; lesson plans that set up steps to be followed; work sheets or any other device that narrows the scope of the program, that mecha- nizes learning, or that censors thinking. Direct effort should be made to enrich the pro- gram. Methods making for enrichment include many forms of activity 513 Perhaps most representative of a majority of indus- trial arts leaders during the latter 1940's and 1950's was the point of view expressed by Gordon Wilber. He acknowledged instruction sheets helped promote individualized instruction but created serious problems including substitution for think- ing. Instead Wilber advocated each student prepare his own 612Hornbake, "Time for Progress," p. 11. 613Hornbake, "A Place for the Arts in the Elementary Program." p- 54- 229 plan sheet, thus promoting original thinking while pursuing individual activities.614 Lesson Plans Like open educators concerned over the use and mis— use of lesson plans, industrial educators have engaged in similar discussions. Back during manual arts Ira Griffith acknowledged that lesson plans are vital, but an over depen- dence is dangerous.615 Verne Fryklund, as might be expected, argued that there is no need to apologize for "system and order." In fact, he continued, it is a severe disservice for students not to know what is expected of them. "Much is owing him if he is expected to learn by chance."616 Bonser and Mossman countered that while an instruc- tional program requires planning, this is only to say the plan is "suggestive." Teachers should feel free to capital- ize upon the unexpected although it may mean temporary aban- donment of a particular lesson plan.617 Student Evaluation Attitudes toward grading practices have varied among industrial educators. Emanuel Ericson held to a rather ortho- dox viewpoint. He believed that it is unjust for a teacher 614Wilber, pp. cit., pp. 171-178. 615Griffith, Teaching Manual and Industrial Arts, pp. 174-175. 616Verne c. Fryklund, "Learning Integrates." Indus- _p[ial Education Magazine, XXXIX (September, 1937), 199. 6”Bonser and Mossman. 92. C1t-. P- 31- 230 to rely upon observations in the establishment of grades. It is far better, wrote Ericson, to grade at regular pe- riods, including daily grades. Ericson also believed in encouraging classroom competition. He wrote, If conditions permit, let the students know the grades of all other students of the class. Where this has been tried it has proved a healthy stimu- lus toward better work.“8 Others took another point of view indicative of an affinity with open education. Speaking of the pre-progres- sive education era, Bonser criticized the complacency asso- ciated with standardized textbooks, content, methods, test- ing, and equipment. He was pleased that the "almost hysteri- cal“ zeal for testing had begun to give way to sane concern for growth and development via intelligent use of test re- sults.619 William Hunter has served as one of the most out- spoken critics of test misuse. He challenged teachers to continually examine whether tests foster democratic educa- tion. It clearly was his belief that test procedures were misused so as to reflect an Aristotelian society rather than democracy. Hunter castigated teachers who contend tests serve to motivate students. . in order to make him drink water from the pedagogical pump some teachers proceed to "moti- vate" him with tests and measurements. 618Emanuel E. Ericson, "Grading Shop Work," Indus- trial Education Magazine, XXVIII (January, 1927), 227. 619Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 24. 231 . . Can pupils be induced to enjoy drink- ing stagnant water? Can pupils be motivated with senseless tests and yet kept sane and so- cialized?6 Tests can and should serve diagnostic purposes, agreed Hunter, but such purposes are so seldom realized. Too many tests, however, are given with the seem- ing purpose of proving to the pupil that he doesn't know much anyhow, or that 9? does not know so much as the teacher does.6 Instead tests have become at best a caricature of daily life. Does the average successful individual put him- self under great mental tension once a month or twice a year and crap for meeting the problems of life? Does he?6 Tests should also serve to diagnose teacher successes, wrote Hunter. In addition pupils should be permitted to grade their tests, thus demonstrating the teacher's faith and trust.623 For Hunter, tests too often are used as a replace— ment for teacher-student interaction. Too often, he charged, tests reduce the experience to routine -- not teaching. Real education is creation, growth, discovery, synthesis, development, life, regeneration. Real education is not easily measureable [sic] by mechanized tests. Whenever education is reduced 620William L. Hunter, "Socializing Tests and Measure- ments," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVII (January, 1938), 5. 6?-1Ihid., p. 6. 6221bid. 623Tbid. 232 to training, to pouring in, to storing, to ab- sorbing, to telling, to fixing, or to drilling, then many tests can b2 used, but real education hasn't taken place.62 It was Hunter's belief that test builders worked on several faulty assumptions, including the dogma that "knowl- edge is power" and the predictability of 1.0. scores. The student remains captain of his fate regardless of predictions through test scores. Too often, wrote Hunter, students are coerced into providing what is perceived as the teacher's answer rather than what the student actually believes. Fur- thermore an over reliance on tests tends to foster dependence upon antiquated and irrelevant subject matter.625 Most pupils under the pedagog-centered setup realize that the teacher has them under his power. Like sponges, the pupils are com- pressed and repressed into soaking up the dogma which the demagog believes should be soaked up. And at examination time, the sponges are again compressed by a most effi- cient mechanical squeezer known as an objec- tive test. Surely our educational Utopia must be close at hand! 25 Too often students devote considerable energy to studying the teacher rather than the subject. Nevertheless, Hunter believed tests could serve socially desirable purposes. Therefore Hunter urged teachers to assign certain tests less importance. 624Ibid., p. 7. 625William L. Hunter, "Socializing Tests and Measure- Tnents," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (December, 1937), 405-406. 626Ibid., p. 406. We can't teachers honor to relative Like tion leaders 233 expect students to be honest when themselves don't have the sense of assign to pencil-and-paper tests the insignificance which belongs to them.627 Individual Needs today's open educators, many industrial educa- have over the years devoted themselves to pro- viding for individual needs of students. Ira Griffith dem- onstrated an attitude while resolving between the needs of the individual versus societal needs, which is reminiscent of Dewey's "Either-Or fallacy." Griffith contended that content was derived from societal needs while method was determined by individual needs. 628 Are you an "individualist," insisting that no two souls are exactly alike, therefore indi- vidual instruction is the only method? Our government is not organized upon any such basis. A government based upon such principles would be no government at all; it would be anarchy. Are you a formalist, insisting that all pupils must attain the same standards and pass thru exactly the same experiences? A liberty loving people do not take kindly to such doctrine in any other organization. Let us make a study of individual differences, and see if we can— not formulate a manual arts system which will permit liberty within law educationally even as we have it governmentally.629 Griffith believed that no amount of activity toward arranging content in "logical" sequences is successful 627Ibid., p. 407. 6281ra s. Griffith, "Individual Differences and How to Provide for Them in the Manual Arts," Manual Training ‘ppd Vocational Education, XVII (February, 1916), 415. 629Ibid., p. 427. 234 without attention to the needs and desires of youth.630 It was into such a consideration that Bonser identified two common curricular errors. One of which is to select appro- priate content and experiences but to commit errors of tim-' ing. "The assignment of school tasks is often very much like requiring one to eat when one is not hungry."631 The other error, wrote Bonser, is to foist off on the curriculum experiences of little or no consequence. Rational curricular priorities would free students for more time to engage in depth those experiences which are so mean- ingful.632 There has been some question as to what degree a stu- dent is capable of determining his educational needs. Fryk- lund argued that students are usually not too self motivat- ing. Therefore the teacher is obligated to provide pre- selected experiences which the student can draw upon. "The individual is not aware of what he does not know."633 Hornbake was prompt to discourage the excesses to which industrial arts teachers can fall victim. Teachers, contended Hornbake, are not to simply begin class by asking students, "What do you want to do today?" The result, he 630Ira S. Griffith, "The Boy or the Trade as an Aim?," Manual Trainingand Vocational Education, XVII (September, 1915), 1-5. 6318onser, The Elementany School Curriculum, p. 22. 6321bid., pp. 20-21. 633Verne Charles Fryklund, "Intent to Learn," Indus- trial Education Magazine, XXXIX (March, 1937), 93. 235 warned, is usually capricious. Teachers are responsible for studying students to sensibly guide toward meeting individual needs. Accordingly Hornbake noted research which indicates each student tends to vary within traits. In other words, students vary among themselves and also within themselves. Furthermore Hornbake suggested industrial arts is still incomplete if it only is satisfied to meet individual needs. It must help each student internalize the signifi- cance of the industrial arts experience. "In brief, does he feel more adequate in an industrial society?"634 Similarly homogeneous grouping captured the atten- tion of Bonser. He wrote, "No matter how much attention is given to the classification of children with respect to like- ness, there is no such thing as complete homogeneous group- ing.635 Warner, too, held reservations over the concept of standardization. Industrial arts, he declared, should be- come a "point of departure" to reflect and employ individual differences.636 Perhaps a brief but potent statement by Hornbake about individual differences has the most profound implica- tions for industrial arts curriculum construction. He wrote, "Industrial arts for all should also mean industrial arts 634Hornbake, "Industrial Arts for All," p. 12. 635Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 248. 636Warner et al., A Prospectus for Industrial Arts in Ohio, p. 26. 236 for each.637 In other words, industrial arts cannot realize its claim as general education by offering but one curricu- lum for all, regardless of individual needs and differences. Interest and Creativity Industrial educators have attached concern for stu- dent interest as do open educators. Long ago Charles Richards called attention to how industrial education stu- dents enjoyed their subjects. Interest and enjoyment are so d.638 intertwine John Friese assigned both interest and pleasure as central to the success of manual arts.639 Yet others were fearful when industrial education had the appearance of play. Ericson was concerned that manual arts not resemble a play and relaxation period for fear of the impression left upon visitors.640 The value of spontaneity within industrial education was recognized. How- ever, Selvidge was doubtful whether immature youth can pro- perly select appropriate activities. Selvidge wrote, "It is the teacher's business to develop an interest in the things they should be interested in."641 637Hornbake, "Industrial Arts for All,“ p. l. 638Richards, _p. cit., p. 111. 639John F. Friese, Exploring the Manual Arts (New York: The Century Co., 1926). P. 65. 640Emanuel E. Ericson, "Aiming at the Bull's Eye," Industrial Education Magazine, XXV (September, 1923), 65-66. 641Robert W. Selvidge, "Interest and the Shop Teacher," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXIII (September, 1931 , 59. 237 Selvidge agreed with others that society determined content while interest determined method. He was, however, very opposed to student originality while acquiring facts and skills. "There is no more reason for encouraging originality in this than there is in spelling." The place for capitaliz- ing upon interest via originality and freedom is when stu- dents engaged in problem solving activities -- not skill de- velopment, charged Selvidge.642 As to be expected, there were those with contrasting beliefs. Bonser wrote, "Man is naturally curious, explora- tory, investigative." Yet Bonser was fearful that student interest and motivation easily becomes stifled under auto- cratic teachers and administrators. "Unless there is a spirit of democracy and creative effort among these in their relationships to each other and to the children, how can we expect this spirit to exist among the children themselves?"643 Very much akin to Dewey's beliefs, Bonser argued that the interests of childhood serve both the present and future. The school's and teacher's task is therefore to foster such natural developments. School problems acted upon by children must not simply provide deferred value but rather satisfy immediate needs.644 642Robert w. Selvidge, "Principles and Purposes of Vocational Analysis," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXII (February, 1931), 252. 643Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 34. 644Bonser, The Elementary School Curriculum, pp. 18-19. 238 This is certainly not to infer Bonser negated the value of past "race experiences." He believed there is oppor- tunity for balance when neither the "conservative phase" nor the "progressive phase" becomes excessive. He wrote, Neglect of the conservative element means a loss of the experiences of the past and the develop- ment of radical and superficial tendencies; neglect of the progressive element makes for pas- siveness, dogmatism, and the exaltation of author- ity. Warner, too, sought to utilize student interest. His definition of the practical arts, including industrial arts, is illustrative of his beliefs. Practical-Arts Education is a form of general or nonvocational education which aids or enriches everyday life principally through pur- poseful activity. Its method is typically doing things; that is, taking part in activity Trected toward some present useful purpose, rather than merely acquiring facts or skills for their own sake, or for possible deferred values. . . . Any subject may be taught as a Practical Art if presented so as to satisfy the two major requirements of proximate use- fulness through sgcially purposive experience or participation. 45 Industrial arts is most fortunate to possess in- herent opportunities to utilize interest for creative expres- sion. If not thwarted at an early age, all children show creative impulses.647 A host of activities via problem 645Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 187. 646Ashley, pp. cit., p. 311. 647Bonser and Mossman, _p. cit., p. 23. 239 solving approaches serve to make industrial arts a fore- runner in creative expression.648 Teacher's Role Industrial educators have demonstrated a variety of attitudes toward the role of the teacher, some of which must be interpreted as open education. In his review of the Gary schools Charles Richards expressed pleasure toward the em- pathic nature of the industrial education teachers. Their recruitment appeared to depend upon their attitudes toward children as well as technical expertise.649 A central tenet of open education was long ago stated by Charles Bennett. He described the teacher's role, "The teacher's part in the educative process is to be a friendly guide and cooperator." As a result students would learn to "steer themselves." "The pupil must educate him- self; the teacher is merely the co-worker, the inspirer, the guide, the example, not the dictator, the boss or the taskmaster."650 Like Rousseau, natural growth has been of concern to industrial educators. Surely the concept has been misconstrued at times. Natural growth, wrote Bonser, does 648Friese, "Social Security and Industrial Educa- tion," p. 115. 649Richards, pp. cit., p. 5. 650Charles A. Bennett, "Value of the Manual Arts in General Education," Industrial Education Magazine, XXVIII (August, 1926), 33. 240 not imply unaided growth of an undirected sort. Certainly teachers have a responsibility to initiate activities which enhance natural growth. Therefore such strategies are neces- sary in addition to technical competence. Implications for teacher training are thus affected.651 The types of activities are indicative of a teacher's understanding of natural growth. Activities should foster creativity by utilizing originality, experimentation, and analysis, wrote Bonser. Otherwise arrested development re- sults with overuse of drill as a case in point.652 The task of the teachers is yet much more. William Hunter quoted Emerson, I'The secret of education lies in re- specting the pupil." Hunter thus believed that industrial arts thrives in an atmosphere of experimentation free of fear and cynicism.653 In an experimental atmosphere, we are not afraid intelligently to question authority; we are en- couraged to try the new and to pioneer in some- thing that hasn't been done. When you see a teacher trying nothing new, it's a pretty cer- tain sign that the pupils aren't encouraged to either. Education to be real education must lead the pupils out. That's what industrial-arts education must do. It isn't hard to recognize the industrial-arts labggatories where the pupils are leading out. 651Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 247. 6521bid., p. 32. 653William L. Hunter, "Philosophy of Industrial-Arts Education," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (November, 1937), 355. 654Ibid., p. 356. 241 In view of the foregoing, Bonser stated there is a shortage of teachers -- real teachers. There may be an over- supply of instructors, but a shortage of teachers seems to always exist. Teachers are those who truly understand growth and development by being able to enter into the life of each chi1d.655 Opportunities for rewarding teacher-student inter- actions are easily realized in the informality of industrial arts. Hornbake addressed himself to the possibilities. At the least the pupil-personnel concept has made for a new and improved relationship between teacher and pupils and between pupil and pupil; that is, the industrial arts labo- ratory has become a place where desirable social behavior is learned and practiced. In doing so, the laboratory has become a place par excellence, where life can be lived in the school as it is lived outside the school.655 Unfortunately, it can be misconstrued that such em- pathic teachers can afford to be "scornful of scholarship," wrote Bonser.657 He warned that it is fatal for teachers who consider themselves progressive to ignore and flout the scientific method. Philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive.658 655Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 50. 656Hornbake, Professional Progress in Industrial Arts Education, p. 12. 657Bonser, Life Needs and Education, p. 250. 658Ibid.. pp. 27-28. 242 Summary It thus becomes clear that industrial arts has been a leader of progressivism within American education. Yet it has been beset with dangers, such as those identified by Bonser. was Degrees of skill and efficiency commensurate with vocational standards have not been attained; and thought content has not been sufficiently rich to assure that educational value demanded of a school study. The movement to organize, enrich, and more scrupulously to evaluate on the basis of educational worths the field of subject matter in the industrial arts is the movement characterizing the attitude of the school as an institution to-day. To meet these common needs--those of the vocations and those of the child--in the most satisfactory way possible means practically a complete revision in our evaluation and selec- tion of subject matter for the whole school curriculum. It means working over the materials and methods of education and training on the basis of ghe most vital life needs of the pres- ent time. 59 Indeed industrial arts is at a crossroads. Hornbake well aware of the problem. Industrial arts may well become a therapeutic digression from the ongoing educational enter- prise, an activity located in a shop where pu- pils can go to make gadgets, twist Western Union splices, and learn to replace washers in fau- cets. This would indeed be a sad ending for a subject area that has its origins in one of the wonders of the world, American industry, and which has "learnin by doing” as its profes— sional birthright. 0 Yet the demise of industrial arts need not occur. There has been in recent years considerable curricular 659Ibid., pp. 70-71. 660Hornbake, "Time for Progress,” p. 13. 243 experimentation of significance. Finally industrial arts is salvaging itself from establishing content in an era prior to the full impact of technology. In other words, industrial arts has purported, as suggested by Hornbake, to represent technology while continuing to offer obsolete practices and concepts.651 Like any curricular area, industrial arts needs to continually reassess its mission. Many questions thus arise including determination of content and methodology and rela- tionships with other areas, such as vocational education. In other words, how shall industrial arts improve itself? There are those who believe that industrial arts must become more reflective of the technology now common to industry. Others believe industrial arts should concentrate on the lower grades via career education. Granted there may be merit to both points of view, but it would seem important to acknowledge that the attitudes which industrial arts teachers have toward learning and knowledge directly in- fluence classroom activity. Accordingly Chapters 11 and III have served to gather documentation to suggest that a corre- lation exists between open education beliefs and those of industrial arts. The future of industrial arts would seem to be en- hanced by the success of open education. Currently open education is receiving a great deal of attention in both 661Hornbake, “Industrial Arts for All," p. 9. 244 professional and popular literature. Inasmuch as industrial arts appears to have what in effect is an open education heritage, as suggested by this study, it follows that indus- trial arts has a vested interest in the welfare of open edu- cation. However, even with a future oriented curriculum in- dustrial arts faces another question before realizing its potential. 00 industrial arts leaders today continue to possess attitudes toward learning and education similar to their predecessors? Specifically, do industrial arts leaders today hold open education beliefs? The remainder of this study will attempt to explore this issue. CHAPTER IV DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction It becomes important for the purposes of this study to investigate whether industrial arts leaders continue to hold beliefs now identified as Open education. The adminis- tration of a questionnaire was deemed an efficient device for gathering such information. Questionnaire results were then to be examined to determine whether the population in question accepts open education beliefs. Acceptance was to be examined in toto and in clusters via factor analysis data. Furthermore data was to be examined for demographic variances. Thus began the task of selecting an appropriate p0pulation and instrument. Population Description The American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Edu- cation (ACIATE) was selected as the organization to partici- pate in this study for several reasons. Membership in the ACIATE by industrial arts professors throughout the United States is assumed as being an indication of each member's professional concern for the welfare and promotion of in- dustrial arts. The ACIATE membership roles also contain a leadership cadre which parallels those early industrial arts 245 246 leaders identified in Chapter III. Therefore the ACIATE today serves as a group of industrial arts teacher educators whose attitudes toward education can be compared with be- liefs held by earlier industrial arts leaders. Also from an operational point of view, the ACIATE membership direc- tory provides a convenient vehicle for selecting and corres- ponding with participants. In regards to size, the 1970- 1971 ACIATE membership directory lists 1,096 members. Pre- sumably educational attitudes held by teacher educators within the ACIATE have a strong impact on the attitudes held by all industrial arts teachers throughout the United States. Sampling Procedure Inasmuch as polling an entire organization as large as the ACIATE is often unreliable from the standpoint of the difficulty of contacting non-respondents and also ex- pensive, a random sampling strategy was decided upon. Vari- ous statisticians advised that a sample size of 300 would adequately reflect the entire ACIATE membership. Conse- quently, a computer was programmed to generate 300 random numbers without replacement between numbers 1 through 1,096. Resultant numbers thus generated were assigned to correspond- ing names which appeared in alphabetical order in the ACIATE directory whereby participants were selected. 247 Instrument Description Concurrently a search was underway to select or de- sign an instrument which purportedly measures the partici- pants' attitudes toward open education. A questionnaire for such a purpose was found in Phi Delta Kappan magazine.662 The questionnaire had been prepared by Dr. Roland Barth as a part of his doctoral dissertation at Harvard University after he and a colleague, Dr. Charles Rathbone, spent an extensive visit to informal classrooms throughout Great Britain. Dr. Barth is presently the principal at Angier School in Newton, Massachusetts, while Dr. Rathbone is the director at the New City School in St. Louis. Dr. Rathbone previously taught in an open classroom in Oberlin, Ohio, after teaching at Oberlin College. Subsequent telephone conversations and correspon- dence with Drs. Barth and Rathbone provided both the permis- sion to use the Barth scale for this study and the encourage- 663 ment to continue the study. At Dr. Barth's request per- mission to use the Barth scale was secured from Phi Delta Ka an.664 There are yet few instruments suitable for measur- ing attitudes pertinent to open education. However, it is noteworthy that John Holt contends the Barth scale is the 662Barth, pp. cit., pp. 98-99. 663See Appendix A. 664See Appendix B. 248 most accurate, comprehensive, and concise statement on open education.665 Validity Dr. Barth has not subjected his scale to any scien- tific statistical treatment. Fortunately, however, Anthony Coletta at the University of Connecticut has undertaken as his research for his dissertation the comprehensive exami- nation of the validity of the Barth scale. Coletta began by asking a supervisor at a large Connecticut school system to select sixty teachers for the examination of the Barth scale's validity. The open educa- tors selected included fifteen who were rated high by the supervisor and fifteen who were rated low. Likewise the traditional educators selected included fifteen who were rated high and fifteen rated low. Two personality tests, including the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Thurstone Temperament Schedule, were administered to the sixty participants. A biographi- cal statement was also prepared. In addition all partici- pants responded to the Barth scale. Multivariate analyses of variance were employed.666 After which Coletta summarized the results of his testing as follows: 665Rathbone, pp. cit., p. 3. 666Anthony J. Coletta and Robert K. Gable, "An Examination of the Content and Construct Validity of the Barth Scale: Assumptions of Open Education," Preliminary research results for doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1972. (Mimeographed.) 249 Results: The results of the study indicated that no significant differences existed between open and traditional teachers in selected person- ality characteristics, as measured by the EPPS and the TTS; no significant personality dif- ferences were found between the following groups: (1) high rated, Open versus high rated, tradi- tiona1;(2) high rated, open versus low rated, open; and (3) high rated, traditional versus low rated traditional. Differences were found between open and tra- ditional teachers on the Barth Scale. The MANOVA F tests indicated that open teachers differed significantly from traditional teachers on four of the seven dimensions measured by the Barth Scale. Moreover, high rated, open versus low rated, open teachers differed significantly on two Barth Scale dimensions (p<. 05), as did high rated open versus high rated traditional teach— ers. High rated, traditional versus low rated, traditional teacggys failed to show a signifi- cant difference. Accordingly Coletta concluded, the Barth Scale validity study fulfills a need for instrumentation; the Scale appears to discriminate between open and traditional teach- ers and may be of value in assisting school sys- tems in the selection of teachers for open class- rooms.668 Reliability Coletta does not report the reliability of the Barth scale during his study. However, the Barth scale was examined for its reliability when administered to the ACIATE sample and is reported in Chapter V. 667Anthony J. Coletta, "Personality Characteristics and Assumptions Held by Open and Traditional Teachers of the Poor,” Prelimiminary research results for doctoral disserta- tion, University of Connecticut, 1972, pp. 1-2. (Mimeo- graphed.) 668Ibid., p. 2. 250 Factor Analysis Coletta reports he has subjected the Barth scale to factor analysis. Construct validity testing for interrela- tionships was achieved by administering the Barth scale to 191 elementary teachers including seventy-eight open and 113 traditional teachers from throughout the Atlantic states. Consequently, Coletta utilized a principal components anal- ysis and an obliquimax transformation to achieve a 28x28 matrix. (Items 10 and 22 on the original Barth scale were combined.) As a result Coletta found the Barth scale contains eight factors but chose to classify only seven factors in- asmuch as one factor was comprised of but one item. The seven factors are reported and analyzed in Chapter V. It should be noted that the Barth scale items were reordered between the Phi Delta Kappan article,669 Coletta's testing of the instrument, and its administration to the ACIATE. This was required for printing convenience. However, it should be noted that items on Coletta's instrument were juxtaposed with the ACIATE questionnaire to assure identical items comprise the seven factors. Data Collection Formating the Barth scale to an optical scanning answer form was accomplished with an IBM compositor. A letter of explanation was prepared for the opposite side of 669Barth, pp. cit., pp. 98-99. 251 the answer form. The completed questionnaire was then printed by offset lithography.670 Each participant was mailed a questionnaire and a stamped self-addressed return envelope which was coded to help locate non-respondents. Within three weeks 66% of the participants had returned completed questionnaires. A follow-up letter for non-respondents was prepared which realized a total response of 83.6%.671 Data Processipg Incoming questionnaires were dated and assigned a code number to aid in the identification of non-respondents and also to examine regional differences. An optical scanner was then used to transfer the data onto a magnetic tape. The magnetic tape in turn was used to punch computer cards. Data on the explanatory side of the questionnaire was keypunched on a separate deck of cards. A program was later written by which data from the two decks were combined onto a third deck. Data was thus analyzed by totaling the sum of each participant's responses to produce a value indicative of the ACIATE's acceptance of open education. An item analysis was also employed to produce means and standard deviations. A subsequent investigation was initiated for correlations between age and open education acceptance. 670See Appendix C. 671See Appendix D. 252 Likewise a correlation between years of teaching and accep- tance of education concepts was performed. An estimate of reliability was also performed as previously mentioned. Univariant analysis of variance was also performed to determine whether variance of open education acceptance by geographical regions existed within the ACIATE member- ship. Regional differences were also examined by the use of computer graphics. Four national maps showing regional variances were displayed graphically. The maps include plan views by the cloropleth and isarithm (contour) methods, utilizing the Michigan State University Symap program. Similarly block diagrams (three view perspective) displayed the cloropleth and isarithm by utilization of the Michigan State University Symvu program. Display and analysis of the data follow in Chapter V. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Testing the Hypotheses The hypotheses, as stated in Chapter I, were that industrial arts has an open education heritage and that in- dustrial arts teacher educators continue to hold beliefs about learning and knowledge which are in agreement with open education concepts. Information revealed in Chapters II and III strongly suggests that the first hypothesis is true; namely, industrial arts has an open education heritage. Repeatedly it was found that many industrial arts authors over the years have expressed views which are virtually iden- tical to those now expressed by open educators. To test the remaining hypothesis the Barth scale was administered to a random sample drawn on the membership of the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, identified in Chapter IV. Following data collection, a de- sign was created to determine indices to the acceptance of open education of those surveyed. By assignment of values of one for strongly agree, two for agree, three for no strong feeling, four for disagree, and five for strongly dis- agree to each of the twenty-nine Likert type Barth assump- tions, a measure of central tendency was computed. 253 254 Therefore an individual who strongly disagreed with each assumption will have a score of 145. Table 1 provides an ex- planation of the numerical assignment procedure. Table 1.--Numerical Assignment of Responses to Barth Scale Response Value x 29 Total Score Strongly Agree 1 29 Agree 2 58 No Strong Feeling 3 87 Disagree 4 116 Strongly Disagree 5 145 Analysis of the data discloses a mean of 63.1 for the 251 respondents, which falls very close to the specific agree value of fifty-eight as shown on Table 1. Accordingly with the mean of 63.1 and a standard error of .68, the mean of the entire ACIATE membership to the Barth scale can be predicted. Thus with 95% confidence the population mean can be predicted to be no less than 61.77 nor no more than 64.43.672 Inasmuch as 300 members of the 1,096 membership for 1970-1971 of the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education were polled and 251 (83.6%) responded, one may reasonably infer that the mean is characteristic of the 672Paul A. Games and George R. Klare, Elementary Statistics/Data Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-HiTT Book Company, 1967), pp. 258-270. 255 entire organization. A comparison between the ACIATE member- ship and Wall's annual Industrial Teacher Education Directory appears to disclose that most of the industrial arts teacher educators in Wall's directory are members of the ACIATE.673 Exact comparison is difficult due to the composition of Wall's directory. Nevertheless it seems reasonable to in- fer that the results of this study are representative of all industrial arts teacher educators throughout the United States. An examination of the aggregate scores of all respon- dents is herewith reported in Figure 1. Note that one indi- vidual strongly agreed with all open education assumptions on the Barth scale. This particular individual is fifty- three years old, has taught for seventeen years, and is an industrial arts professor from a middle Atlantic state. He opted not to identify any particular contemporary education writer with whom he is in greatest agreement but rather stated "open education writers." When asked to identify the contemporary industrial arts leader with whom he is in greatest agreement he identified Donald Maley. Dr. Maley was a student of Lee Hornbake, who was identified in Chapter III as advocating open education concepts. The other extreme is provided by a reSpondent whose score was 100, which nearly classifies him as disagreeing 573G. S. Wall (Compiler), Industrial Teacher Educa- tion Directony (Washington, D.C.: American Council on In- dustrial Arts Teacher Education and National Association of Industrial and Technical Teacher Educators, 1971). 256 with all open education assumptions on the Barth scale. This respondent is forty-seven years old, has taught for eleven years, and is a professor of industrial arts in a midwestern state. He surprisingly identified John Dewey as the contem- porary education writer with whom he is in greatest agree- ment. When asked to identify the contemporary leader with whom he is in agreement, he identified H. H. London, who was a student of Robert Selvidge. Professor Selvidge was iden- tified in Chapter III as making numerous statements in oppo- sition to open education concepts. Figure 1 represents the acceptance the respondents from the ACIATE gave to the Barth scale. Results strongly suggest industrial arts professors in the main favor open education concepts. 257 m_mum cuemm cu mmmconmmm mpmmmgmu< mHwo 0140235 86 : wliidm ng40291hm .m. .5 :. 8.gwogwmmmvmmmmmSomwmwmrmommmvmmmmm3333:3512?:Smmwencowmcvwnwwoywoammmm Semmmvmmwwm3333:3932:.vovwmwngwnmmwmmmmnFawn mxoom >u2w30wzu OmmsomVMN— 3.315 3819.: 33:5 05:: 9.9:. or :3. 5.9. 259:. S a. .2 E ;. f. 2. B,Ital—.12:..ooll=l:1nafi_.ik2:rzzka 1. I I - :23: _.filn=ll:::.ni£ 5.3.. .uzozncx. 258 It may be helpful to display responses to each of the twenty-nine assumptions on the Barth Scale. The follow- ing item analysis includes each assumption statement re- sponses represented on a bar graph, the standard deviation, and the mean. In numerous instances comments are directed toward each assumption indicating possible ramifications for industrial arts. Assumption 1: Children are innately curious and will explore their environment without adult intervention. 7O 60 674 % 4O 30 20 10.0% 10 l 2% 1.6% SA575 NSF 0 so 1 2 3 4 5 N = 251 Mean = 1.781 Standard Deviation = .8694 Figure 2.—-ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 1 674p . ercentages may not total 100% due to roundTng error. 6753A Strongly Agree A Agree NSF No Strong Feeling D Disagree SD Strongly Disagree 259 Assumption 2: Exploratory behavior is self-perpetuating. 7o 50 49.4% 50 7‘40 3° 20.7% .0 J I SA A NSF 0 so N = 251 Mean = 2.323 Standard Deviation = .9484 Figure 3.-—ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 2 Assumption 3: The child will display natural exploratory behavior if he is not threatened. 7O 50 52.6% 50 40 33.1% % 3° 10.0% 20 - 10 l 4.0% 0.4% EEEJIIe- -—~— SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean = 1.861 Standard Deviation = .7801 Figure 4.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 3 Figures 2-4 appear to indicate industrial arts pro- fessors believe children are responsible to initiate and sus- tain learning. Undoubtedly teachers are obliged to guide toward general objectives and intervene when safety is an issue. 260 Assumption 4: Confidence in self is highly related to capa- city for learning and for making important choices affecting one's learning. 60 49.4% 2° 8.8% 4.4% III I 1.2% NSF 0 so SA A N = 251 Mean = 1.717 Standard Deviation = .8875 Figure 5.-—ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 4 Figure 5 supports a belief that industrial arts offers many children success which is perhaps unobtainable in the academic disciplines. Industrial arts may not merely be easier but rather a better facilitator of learning. Assumption 5: Active exploration in a rich environment, of- fering a wide array of manipulative materials, will facilitate children's learning. 70 62.9% 60 so 40 33.9% %30 20 10 I 2-4‘75 0.4% 0.4% L — - SA A NSF 0 so N = 251 Mean = 1.414 Standard Deviation = .6030 Figure 6.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 5 Such a reaction in Figure 6 is hardly unexpected in in- dustrial arts inasmuch as it Should be a rich environment of- fering a wide array of manipulative materials. 261 Assumption 6: Play is not distinguished from work as the predominant mode of learning in early childhood. 70 f 60'“ so 42 2% 39.4% 40" % 30'- 20—- 12. 0% 10- 4. 0% 2. 4% _III III. NSF SD M = A251 Mean - 1.849 Standard Deviation - .9471 Figure 7.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 6 Assumption 7: Children have both the competence and the right to make significant decisions concerning their own learning. 70- 60- 50‘ x 40. 34.7% 31 5% 30- 5%17. 20‘ 10.0% 101 III SA A N - 251 Mean - 2.896N SStandard Deviation - 1.1442 6. 4% Figure 8.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 7 The diversity of opinion revealed in Figure 8 is prob- ably caused by the uncertainty over the extent implied by the term "significant" decisions. It should be noted that a great deal of industrial arts literature advocates the desirability of student project selection to promote creativity among other desirable traits. 262 Assumption 8: Children will be likely to learn if they are given considerable choice in the selection of the materials they wish to work with and in the choice of questions they wish to pursue with respect to those materials. 70 60 55.0% 50 % 40- 20 7.6% ‘0 I I 0-_8°' SA A NSF D SD N = 251 Mean = 2.135 Standard Deviation = .8518 Figure 9.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 8 Assumption 9: Given the opportunity, children will choose to engage in activities which will be of high interest to them. 70 60 47.8% 50 44.2% 40 2° 4 4% 10 ' 2-4% 1.2% III- -- .._ SA A NSF 0 SD M = 251 Mean = 1.685 Standard Deviation = .7698 Figure 10.--ACIATE ReSponse to Barth Scale Assumption 9 Figures 9-10 appear to support the belief that in- dustrial arts offers a diverse choice of materials, problems, and enjoyable activities. 263 Assumption 10: If a child is involved in and is having fun with an activity, learning is taking place. 70-4 60" 50“ % 40.4 25 1% 37.5% 30- - 20_‘ 20.7% 12.7% _I I 1 III. SA A NSF 0 50 N = 251 Mean = 2.331 Standard Deviation = 1.1055 Figure ll.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 10 Perhaps concern is expressed in Figure 11 due to the uncertainty over types of activities. A misinterpretation could lead to activities which are miseducative or entirely recreational. Assumption 11: When two or more children are interested in exploring the same problem or choose the same materials, they will often choose to collaborate in some way. 70“ 60'- 56.2% 50“ 40- 7‘ 30- 24.7% 20- 11.2% 1 3.0% 10-—. 0.0% 1 SA A NSF 0 50 N = 251 Mean = 2.295 Standard Deviation = .7699 Figure 12.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption ll 264 Assumption 12: When a child learns something which is im- portant to him, he will wish to share it with others. 70 60 50.2% 50 %gg 22.7%, 23.9% 20 10 3.2% 0.0% -III SA A NSF D so N = 251 Mean - 2.076 Standard Deviation = .7683 Figure l3.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 12 Figures 12-13 tend to support the desirable social relationships cited as a goal by Wilber.676 Assumption 13: Concept formation proceeds fairly slowly. 70 60 47.8% 50 ‘ %40 30 20.7% 15.1% 20 12.0% 1° Ilia: SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 2.522 Standard Deviation = 1.0288 Figure 14.-~ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 13 675Wi1ber, pp. cit., p. 83. 265 Assumption'l4: Children learn and develop intellectually not only at their own rate, but in their own style. 60 52.2% 33.5% 20 11.2% 10 l 3.2% 0_0% SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 1.841 Standard Deviation = .7420 Figure 15.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 14 Assumption 15: Children pass through similar stages of in- tellectual development, each in his own way and at his own rate and in his own time. 70 60 54.6% x40 32.3% 0 20 10.4% 10 Ill 3;f% 0.0% SA A NSF SD N = 251 Mean - 1.837 Standard Deviation = .7164 Figure l6.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 15 The uniqueness of industrial arts apparently is inter- preted by industrial arts teacher educators in Figures 14-16 as being supportive of a variety of methods and activities to achieve educational goals. 266 Assumption 16: Intellectual growth and development take place through a sequence of concrete experiences followed by abstrac- tion. 50 49.8% %30 25.5% 20 14.3% ,III 1.6% SA A NSF 0 50 N = 251 Mean - 2.335 Standard Deviation = .8852 Figure l7.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption l6 Assumption l7: Verbal abstraction should follow direct ex- perience with objectives and ideas, not preceding them or substituting for them. 70 60 :8 37.8% %30 20 10 L M75 D 29.9% SA A NSF SD N = 251 Mean - 2.502 Standard Deviation = .9975 Figure 18.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption l7 267 Assumption 18: The preferred source of verification for a child's solution to a problem comes through the materials he is working with. 50 48.6% p40 29.9% 10 III 9 8% SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 2.355 Standard Deviation = .8329 Figure 19.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 18 Figures 17-19 provide results which aren't unexpected. A founder of industrial arts, John Runkle, when President of M.I.T., initiated manual training to provide engineering stu- dents concrete experiences preceding verbal abstractions.677 Assumption l9: Errors are necessarily a part of the learning process; they are to be expected and even desired, for they contain information essential for further learning. 60 51.4% 0 40 35.9% 20 8.8% 10 . . l 4.0% 2% SA A NSF . D SD N = 251 Mean - 1.829 Standard Deviation = .8237 Figure 20.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 19 6"Cremin, pp. pip., p. 25. 268 The results of Figure 20 are not unexpected. Indus- trial arts activities foster immediate feedback of successes and failures without teacher intervention or interpretation. Assumption 20: Those qualities of a person's learning which can be carefully measured are not necessarily the most im- portant. 47.0% 8.4% 1.6% 1.6% J _ _ SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 1.749 Standard Deviation = .8030 Figure 21.-~ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 20 Assumption 21: Objective measures of performance may have a negative effect upon learning. 50 41.0% % 30 20 15.1% 2"” 17.1% 10 I I 4.8% 1 SA A NSF 0 s0 N = 251 Mean - 2.554 Standard Deviation = 1.0882 Figure 22.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 21 269 Assumption 22: Learning is best assessed intuitively, by direct observation. 70 60 50 % 40 31.5% 30 29.1% 28 3% $3 5.6% l I l 5.6% 4. SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 2.992 Standard Deviation = 1.0119 Figure 23.—-ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 22 Assumption 23: The best way of evaluating the effect of the school experience on the child is to observe him over a long period of time. 50 55.0% 26.3% 12.4% 10 III 6i:: 0.0% 0 SA A NSF SD N = 251 Mean - 1.988 Standard Deviation = .8024 Figure 24.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 23 Figures 21-24 indicate a mixture of attitudes toward evaluation. Apparently industrial arts professors sense a dilemma between over reliance on objective testing and intui- tive observation. 270 Assumption 24: The best measure of a child's work is his work. 70 60 50 44.6% 40 30 24.3% 20 10.4% ‘5']% 5 6% 10 . l SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 2.610 Standard Deviation = 1.0426 Figure 25.-~ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 24 Due to the nature of the subject, one might prematurely assume industrial arts professors tend to consider one's work as the best measurement. Figure 25 suggests that other less tangible criteria are also considered important. Assumption 26:678 Knowledge is a function of one's personal in- tegration of experience and therefore does not fall into neatly separated categories of "disciplines." 45.8% 36.3% 20 3-8% 8.0% 1° I I WA SA A NSF D SD N = 251 Mean — 1.920 Standard Deviation = .9347 Figure 26.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 26 There is evidence in Figure 26 that industrial arts may be viewed as an integrator in the curriculum. 678Assumptions 25, 26, 27, and 28 were reordered for printing convenience when preparing the ACIATE questionnaire. These assumptions were later correctly ordered for factor ana- lysis comparisons with Coletta's findings. 271 Assumption 28: Little or no knowledge exists which it is essential for everyone to acquire. 70 60 so %40 36.7% 30 _ ]8_3% 21.5% 20 9.2% 14.3% 10 III SA A NSF 0 so N = 251 Mean - 3.430 Standard Deviation = 1.2642 Figure 27.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 28 The high mean and standard deviation in Figure 27 sug- gest both a rejection and diversity of opinion. Perhaps re- spondents feel everyone should have a broad general education or at least have survival knowledge for a technological society. Assumption 25: The quality of being is more important than the quality of knowing; knowledge is a means of education, not its end. The final test of an education is what a man is, not what he knows. 70 50 46.2% 50 %40 30 . 20 31 9% 13.1% 6.8% 10 J - 2.0% SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean - 2.008 Standard Deviation = .9508 Figure 28 —-ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 25 272 Assumption 27: The structure of knowledge is personal and idiosyncratic; it is a function of the synthesis of each in- dividual's experience with the world. 70 50 49.4% 50 %40 3° 9% 17.5% 20 10 III Bjiif 1.2% SA A NSF 0 so N = 251 Mean - 2.131 Standard Deviation = .9092 Figure 29.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 27 Assumption 29: It is possible, even likely, that an indivi— dual may learn and possess knowledge of a phenomenon and yet be unable to display it publicly. Knowledge resides with the knower, not in its public expression. 70 60 51.4% 50 40 % 30 23.1% 20 15.5% 10 7.6% SA A NSF 0 SD N = 251 Mean = 2.147 Standard Deviation = .9414 Figure 30.--ACIATE Response to Barth Scale Assumption 29 Wilber's eight goals for industrial arts obliquely suggest agreement with the assumptions reported in Figures 28-30.679 579Ni1ber. pp. cit.. pp. 47-88. 273 Reliability Results of the data were subjected to a Hoyt estimate for reliability.680 The procedure was an adaption of the split-halves routine in which all possible combinations were compared. Results disclosed a reasonably high reli- ability value of .8227. Therefore a decision was made not to subject the data to factor analysis. The standard error was found to be a reasonably low 4.4963. A subsequent computer search for reassignment of values to maximize reliability disclosed that the Hoyt esti- mate of reliability could be raised to .8515. The standard error would thus be transformed to 5.1222. Assumptions 5, 16, 17, 20, 26, 27, and 29 would appear to become more reli- able measures if values were reassigned. In light of limited benefit to the total instrument and computation dif- ficulties, this researcher opted to retain the original values. Factor Analysis As discussed in Chapter IV, Coletta subjected the Barth scale to factor analysis. Herewith on Table 2 are the results when the ACIATE sample data means of means were ranked according to the factors determined by Coletta. 680William A. Mehrens and Robert L. Ebel (eds.), fl_inciples of Educational and Psychological Measurement (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1967), pp. 108-115. mmemmmwo xpmcoeum u m .mmemmmwo .m:w_mwu accepm oz u m .mmem< u N .mmem< >choepm ll Q F "memo: eo :mmzpmo 274 oomo.~ omw.m m.m.nm maePAewxm_m E:_:oweezu _ mmem. om~.~ N.mN.NN.mN.m_ xeoz m.e_e;o pep meepe=_e>m e meow. FNN.N mm.m.or.mp.mp.m_\__ gemEm>Fo> -cH Lasagna mcwceme q crew. _No.m N_.m.m_.o_.m.u.¢ co_pee -o—axw canoes“ newcemmJ m comm. Nmm._ _N.or.m_.mF.o_.¢N.mm pcmsaoFm>mo —m:uumppmch N “Fem. mum.F _N.mm.m~.om upweu 8;» mc_pm:Fe>m m mmom. «wo.P mm.o.m meopmuwpwumm mewceemg m .>mo .npm Fwomcmmz meane:z acumen mpumfiou an eppmpou me we cam: yo new: ew> mempH mo prpcmuH page; eouomu emae=z gouge; mcmmz eo :mmz An nmxcmm meopomm wpmom guemmui.m mpnmp 275 Table 2 indicates that participants in this study were most favorable toward the factor which Coletta labeled "Learning Facilitators" -- so much so that their responses to this factor (1.684) fell between strongly agree and agree. Moreover the standard deviation value of .8083 is the lowest of those reported indicating a greater amount of unanimity of opinion toward this factor. It is noteworthy that this factor is comprised of items which address themselves to self concept, a rich learning environment, and opposition to discrete disciplines of knowledge. Such a result should not be too surprising in view of the many years of industrial arts literature which advocated such beliefs. The factor of second greatest acceptance is "Evaluat- ing the Child." Items comprising this factor address them- selves to the value of errors while learning, the test of an education, its idiosyncratic nature, and the questionable value of objective evaluations. The high acceptance of this factor is perhaps explained by the informal nature of industrial arts, which prompts insight to the students' achievements. The third most acceptable factor is labeled "Intel- lectual Development." Items comprising this factor include statements addressing idiosyncracy of knowledge, evaluation via observation, rate and timing of intellectual develop- ment, value of direct experience, multiplicity of learning rates and styles, interest, and again the questionable value of objective evaluations. Undeniably industrial arts 276 provides a fine setting in which students can satisfy their unique interests in a fashion which is both real and adaptable. The fourth most acceptable factor to the ACIATE was labeled by Coletta as "Learning through Exploration." In- cluded in this factor are items dealing with impulse to learn, value of play, curiosity, interest, direct experi- ence, and selection of materials. The title of "Learning through Exploration" alone is a most accurate descriptor of the possibilities of industrial arts. "Learning through Involvement“ is found to be the fifth most acceptable factor. Included are items concerning fun of learning, observation, collaboration, intellectual development, self-perpetuation, and idiosyncracy of education. Involvment is sine qua non to industrial arts. Surely the industrial arts classroom is the last place to expect to find passive students. "Evaluating the Child's Work" is found to be the sixth most acceptable factor. It should be noted that responses to this factor center near the "agree" value. Items con- tributing to this factor include statements about verifica- tion of solutions to problems, criteria for evaluation, negative effects of objective evaluations, meaning of an education, and curiosity. The higher standard deviation for this factor (.9485) indicates a greater difference of opinion to this factor than the preceding. The least acceptable factor to the ACIATE participants in this study is labeled "Curriculum Flexibility." Here it 277 Should be noted that the mean of 2.820 indicates a value approaching "no strong feeling" rather than disagreement. Supportive of such a response is the highest standard devia- tion (1.0860). Items included in this factor address them- selves to the basic education and curricular decisions made by students. It may be that this factor represents views too radical for the ACIATE, is of no particular interest, or attends to issues to which the ACIATE was unprepared to re- spond. Correlation between Open Education Acceptance and Age It is important to discover whether there is a correla- tion between the respondents' ages and acceptance of open education concepts. Implementation of open education prac- tices might be inhibited if younger respondents were found to be receptive toward open education while older respon- dents were less enthusiastic or vice versa. Examination of the data discloses an age span of the respondents from twenty-four to sixty-seven with a mean of 43.6 years. Analysis of data by the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation tests disclosed no significant correlation at the .05 level between age and acceptance of open education concepts. To achieve significance at the .05 level, a correlation value of .1946 is required. Instead the data provided a correlation value of .1086, which at the less meaningful .086 level indicated older respondents were less receptive to open education. 278 Correlation between Open Education Acceptance and Years of Teaching Respondents were found to have taught from one to forty-six years with a mean of 18.1 years. Analysis of the data by the Pearson Product-Moment disclosed at the .05 level no significance between acceptance of open education and years of teaching. Analysis of Variance by Geographic Regions The data was subjected to an analysis of variance to determine whether respondents in eight geographic regions throughout the United States differed significantly in their acceptance of Open education. Similarities of climate, phys- ical features, economy, pe0ple, traditions, and history identified by World Book Encyclopedia served as criteria.682 Means are reported in Table 3. 682"United States,” World Book Encyclopedia, XX (1972) 46. 279 Table 3.--Means of Acceptance of Open Education Concepts by Geographic Regions Geographic Region Mean (National Mean = 63.1) N Middle Atlantic States 61.3 30 Midwestern States 63.9 109 New England States 64.2 4 Pacific Coast States 61.2 21 Rocky Mountain States 66.6 19 Southern States 59.3 38 Southwestern States 66.0 28 Hawaii 57.5 2 A univariate analysis of variance provided an F value of 1.61, which is not significant at the .05 level. Exact significance was found to equal .1314. The data thus indi- cates there is no significant regional variation from the A national mean when the ACIATE sample responded to the Barth scale. Table 4 supports such a conclusion. Table 4.-—Analysis of Variance for Difference by Geographic Regions for Open Education Acceptance Sources of Significance Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F less than Regions 1313.5577 7 187.6511 1.6161 .1314 Error 28215.3132 243 116.1124 -- -- 280 Subsequently graphical displays of the data depicted on the following Figures 31-34 appear to substantiate Table 3. It is interesting to note by the height of the pinnacles that open education tends to be more popular with industrial arts professors living in states with high ACIATE member- ship. It should be noted that the dense symbols in Figures 31 and 32 indicate those areas of the c0untry where ACIATE members were most favorable toward open education concepts. This is not to suggest that industrial arts professors liv- ing in other states indicated with light symbols disagree with open education concepts. The symbols merely indicate extent of favor toward open education. Furthermore those areas represented with the letter "M" indicate missing data which resulted when the random sample failed to draw anyone from a particular state. 281 .zpwmem>4c= use>gmz .mwma—ec< memem use muwzqmga smusaeoo 4° soapstone; mzu an uwcmwmmu mew: a>eam use ameammwo mmeEecmoee eeesm a_> memo uem ellIO4IIII~IiII40IOIHIOII4IIIIHllll+llil¢llil¢l1100!Ilcltlsllll4llllaolll4oo11ml1114.1114.1.104la01n10114IIIINlititlllldllltoilllo H 44444 W 44444 W 444444 H o 4444444 o 444444444 H w 44444444444 m 4444444444444 H 4444444444444444 . H 4 : rt: 4444444444444444444 444 4 m ztrtttxzttr 4444444444444444444444444444 w :zzzzzzz 444444444444444444444444444444 H t In. rttrtttt: 444444444444444444444444444444 H H t In. 2:72 4444444444444444444444444444444 H m In... t: III-“I. ztrx: 4444444444444444444444444444444 m w - nun-nu. tttrttzz nu. I ztztrt 44444444444444444444444444444444 H Inn-nu. I ttttttt: In... :ttttt 44444444444444444444444 z: t: ...... H H ulna-nu... ttzrrtzt .- Inn. :tttx: 44444444444444444444444 :ztzztxttttzxt: .4...... m H In-nn-III xrrxttt I" n “ 44444444444444444444444 xrxzxrtztttzzxr .4........ 4 on I In... tzrxzrt - I - ttrxrt 444 44444444444444 :zrrrtrxrzrrxr: .44....oooo. 4 * cocoa III“... I ztxtt: III-II. t 2:: 4444444444 trxxxtrrztrzt: ............... 2.82:. I n - xxzrzz - Inn“ 44444444 :xrzzxrzxxzzzz .............. m 23mg: an - xxzxx: - 4444444 zrrzzxzxzzzzzx .............. o 2:. 2:38 nu 2:: 444444 :rxxzzzxxzzzxxz ............. co .. 82.32:; 4444444 444444 zxzzxzzzzzrxxzz 22.22... 44 H at 444444444444 444444 ttzztxxrzttzzt: ............ no H 00. 4444444444444 444444 zrzrtzrtxrzrzt .............. 0o * .444” ............. 4......“HHHH .....uunuuuuun “unnnnuuunnu. " cane cocoa 44444444444 caeoooaoooooooaeo 4444444 ........... t: a «an 0 ocean coo 4444444444 oaoooooaoooaoocac 44444444444444444 4 .. xrxrt can“ u : m oeaooo cocoa 444444444 ooooooooooooooooo 44444444444444444 444444444 zzxrzx c o GQEVGEE: “wan“ ococc cocoa 444444444 aoaoooooooooooooo 4.444444444444444 444444444444 trtzrrr nun n .coo o o aooooe 44444444 oaococoeoooocooo 4444444444444444 444444444444 rrttzrrr on u OGOO 4 cacao: 44444444 eooccocoocacooao 4444444444444444 44444444444 rtrrrxtx: a a :¢= wean. 444444 ooaaooea 44444444 9 4444444444444444 44444444444 :zrrrrxtzt 9 ca cow 4444444 cocoooooo 444444444 4444444444444 4444444444444444 44444444444 rrttzxrtxzr e : 444444444 oaoocooo 44444444444444 4444444444444444 44444444444 txrrrztrtrxt co cacao 444444444 cocoaoo ooeocoooao 4444444444444 444444444 444444444 4 trxzzxxtxxxrt: on 995099959: 404444444 99.39 coco-.9999: 4444+4444+4444444 44 4444444444 :rtrtrtttsztL a cocoaooooaao 444444444 cacao cooeooaoaoaea 44444444444444444 4444444444444 444444 :zxrrzxrzrxrt occoceooooo 444 cocoa ooooooocoeao 4444444444444444 4444444444444444 444444 trxttzztrzrxt o cocoooocoaec coo oc oocoooooeooo 4444444444444 444444444444444 44444 txrztzrxrzzzrt co oooeeoeooo cum“ um gunman”: aeaeeoaeeao “4444u444444444 n:=:¢.a:xtzrxtuuuunr 4444 444444444 4 . : “manage”. .3. a wagersegéu . 4444 44444 4444 . we 44 ”$32.... ” mm .2333”. 39%“. n2... .__._......."... 3.3.3. . 444 44444 4 a» u 4 . 4444 4 4 44444 cocooo o co aeoooooooa oo_aoo_ nu......oo...44 ....0 w 44444444444444444 “ax” £.;&”.Se£$“.3;gf 532322;: .::::.::.::...353 unnfixnnfiufi .. see“ we engage: £85882. an". 3-3.5.8 4 4444 44 4 IIOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOOOOI. . see”: a“ . “manage: g“ o oao_oao o eaaooooooooooo.nuuuunnunnunnnunnuunnnu ::¢ cocoa a 44 999:. ooooaooooaooo .4...................... :c cacao o co . cocooo a OOOOOOOOOOOOO... Av OOODQO O ‘ ........ : cocoa: a oaoooo a cage: 9 e ocooeo ooocco cocooc cocoa: oooooo cocceo cocoa: oucooo ‘ 0---“ ' 99°09 282 Eeemoee ameam mw> mung mHm H .4444 m H .44444 4 44444 4 H we. 4444444 H m cow. .44444444 cave 4.444444444 H ocau ..44444444444 a on. ...444444444444 0 H .00 ....4444444444444 ... H H o. :2 ts: xxxmm..mm....4444444444444444...... m H c .tttii iiiittiitz..444444444444444444.....t: H a ...x ”w.”.m....444444444444444......t: H . O... .-.,_.-... ”u”.00......O.O..O**..OOOOOxttt . .o 444..444444..._xiiiiiiiiii....444444444444444.....trt:zx m _44444.444444444.._:.zt:iiiiit...4444444444444444....tzrxmxrxm 2t: 444...4444ooo444... :t: t: ...4444444444444444....ttrtzrzrrztzrttzrrrtt... H 44..4..44=aooaoo4...tztztt...4444444444444444....t:rrxztzzrt:rtttxttttr..... H m _44...z..4oocoo4454...ztxt...4444: :::o4444444...zzxzrrrxtxrzzzxztttzxz........ m H 4..:ttz. 4co-IIIOa44...fx....444::_:_:oooe4444...xxtttrttxztrtttrttrrtz.......... H H 44.:ttt.4oo--Iwa4 4..zxtt...44o._____coooc444..rtxxzrtztzttxztttzrrrx............. H m 44.tzzt. 4oo-Iuoca4..zzxtt..44oo_:::::oooaoo44..tttzzttrztzttrztxztzr...................4 w o4...t..4oo¢. ¢o4 : rt..44oa_::::.occcooc44.rtttrtxztrttttxttzrrz..................444 4 _o44....444coooo44. .xztxtx..44oo4::4::ocwowoo44.tztxxrtxxxrrxxrtrzttr.................4444 4 H _o444...444oaoao44 ..xrtxtz..44eo: cocoon944.ttrtrtzrtztrtttttztxr.................4444o H _c444444444444444.... t-mr..4oc¢ awoccooo4..tzzzrrttztttzrzzttt.................4444oo m o o444444444444444...tittt..44coo accocooo44..zttrrtzzrtzzztztt.................4444aeo o0 0444444444444444....xt....44coo::::.:cccaoooc44...tttzrxtztttrrtt..................4444o== : ... °§.§..“‘§‘+§...OO0000......900 :v: :.:°¢’¢0DOO.¢O§OOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOO.00...OOOOOOOOOOOO‘¢§DDOD a .0.’ —O.“§.‘.‘§.‘O“.OOO...OOO.‘§°°D::::=:Q¢ODDDDD6“§OO0......0......Ola...OIOOOOOIOOO‘O‘OOCOO H ...¢. _oa.‘§““§.‘..‘++‘000000*‘00009 —:_::—D°°°°°°°‘*‘+.OICOOOOOOIOOOOO0.0...0.0.0.000...“‘°OOQ H oaweoc :ooooc44444494444444444444444aca. :_.=_oaooaoac4444444444444.....4444444.............444ona¢ H ocmccw :ooooo o aoo444444444444444oa__:_.o.ooooooon444444444444444444444444444...........444ooom 4 oawwwoo ocoooo cooo44444444444444ao__ :o.cocococo4444444444444444444444444444.......z...44aoao H cocoa cocoon oooooo444444444444oa__ :o:oooocoo4444444444444444444444444444444....rtoo.444ccm H cognac cocooo aooooaa44444444444oo.. :owooooo4444444444444444444444444444444.....::rrz..44ooc H cacao oooooo cocoooco444444444ooo : :ocooo444444444444444444444444444444444....z—:rtxt..44oo H can. cocoa aooooeaooo4 4444oaooa.__=a4444444444444444444444444444444444444....rtttzztx..44a m 495 cocoa cocoaoooeo__acocoa:oaa::=44444444444444444444444444444444444444....trrxrxrr..44o . 49o 4oooo cocooaoooe__ooaoooaoag_.444444444444444444444444444444444444444....t:rzz:tzt..44 H x: oo o 44ooo cooaooooao.ooooocooco:_44444444444444444444444444444444444444444...rrtzzzzz..44 H as. oo o o44444oo cocooooooo_aooooaoooo:.444444444444444444444444444444444444444444..xrtrxzzzx..444 H 2.4oo o o44444oc ooocaocooo cocooeaooo:_oo4444444ooaooo444444444444444444co a a 44...trtttzt...444 4 ..44oo o 444444oo cocoaocco oooocaoooo:_ooooooaooooaooaa4444444444444444oac a 444...:2trz... H 444ooo o 4444 coo cocooooo cocooooooozoooooocaaoaooooaoo44444444444444aooc 44.....tt... H H cocoon o co oncogene_eoooaeaooocoooooooOQQQQm:cocoo444444444444c9044 co44............44444m H oaaooo o co oooaoooo.ooocoooooo_oooooowccamwuwoooo04444444444449oooo 40944..............4 H cocoon a co: 444444co_ooeoocoooo_oaoccooaoocmmcwo_oo444444444444aooco wooc4............... H u 2.2:; o 2:. 4444444.: 33233:: 32444444444444 55.444444444444334 443.4.............. ~ oaaoca a no 4444444.oooaoooaoc.oooaaoacccceccwa_oa444444444444occmc cooo44............. H cocooo o 44444444 aaoooaooaa:ooooooooooooacoo.99444444..44444oo¢m emoO44............. H cacao: o a 44444444 oooooooooo_oocaaccacaocucao.oa4444.......444cao coeo44............. H oooooo o o 44444444 cocooaooao_eoocoowwccoooawo:oc444.........444oc ocoo44............ H 4 oooooo a 44444444.oooaoaaooa_ocoocoooooaaaooo_o4444..........44co cmoo444........... 4 H cocoon a 444444444_ooeoooooaa:oooooococooonoon c444............44o @aoo4444......... w w 4445:: 9444444444444 aaoeoaoo_oooooooocoaoocco.9444.............44 r w woooo44444444444. 444444 4 44 ooooooooo oooooooooooooooo o444.............444a w cocooo4444444444 H ..... 4 ueaooaaooo ooooooooooooaooo 4444...............444 o cocooooooo444444 * .. aaeeaoeomom__oaeaaooooonaoooo_4444...............4444 o cocoaaaocoao444 cocoa a ooaoeaoaoaoeeooa.4444................4444 a oooooaaooaoooe4 H a ouoooocooooaaao 4444......4.........4444 on cocoaocoaoo 999 H ......444 on oooocoaoooo an m t 4 co oocoeaoooc coo 4 cocooooea an 4 H co H w m . 285 Summary As hypothesized, analysis of the data appears to indi- cate industrial arts professors support open education con- cepts. Furthermore the study suggests their acceptance of open education is unaffected by their age, years of teach— ing, or geographical region. Factor analysis disclosed varying degrees of acceptance to factors labeled "Learning Facilitators,” "Evaluating the Child," "Intellectual Develop- ment," "Learning through Exploration," "Learning through Involvement," and "Evaluating the Child's Work." It is interesting to note that a remaining factor labeled "Curric- ulum Flexibility" received a mean response approaching "no strong feeling" by the ACIATE respondents. Chapter VI will summarize and draw conclusions from the study. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate whether industrial arts teacher educators have historically held open education beliefs and whether such beliefs continue to be held. Such information is important for the curricular implications. Open education has its derivation from in- formal education practices in Great Britain, which in turn borrowed from the legitimate progressive education practices in the United States advocated by Dewey. Open education is in part a reaction against some of the practices found in schools, such as those identified by Charles Silberman in Crisis in the Classroom.684 Critics, such as John Holt, charge that American education is too often typified by a woeful neglect of the needs of children. Instead the American dream is destroyed by callousness and insensitivity as manifested in both petty and destructive practices found in our schools. Such practices include an almost fanatic obsession for grades and competition. Furthermore critics charge 684Silberman, pp. cit. 286 287 that schools provide experiences which are often inconsequen- tial and isolated from the realities of life. The artifi- ciality is promoted by curriculums founded upon discrete disciplinary boundaries. In addition critics charge that too many teachers are ill prepared for the responsibilities and obligations which they have to their students. Such teachers lack the empathy to adequately perform their duties. These teachers come to see themselves as motivators to children who would otherwise prefer avoidance of the assigned lessons. Accordingly such teachers assume the role of curriculum determinator and authority figure for verification of truth. Consequently, many pupils take on defensive strate- gies as they scheme to satisfy teachers. Too often, charge the critics, children's spirits are broken as they become increasingly dependent upon their teachers. Self concept falters rather than increases with each additional year of schooling. Self-reliance and investigative prowess of in- fancy becomes thwarted through formal traditional schooling. These defensive strategies take several forms. Critics, such as Holt, contend that even pupils who succeed and seemingly enjoy traditional schools pay the price by being unthinking pawns by never experiencing true intellec- tual freedom. Many other students simply tolerate what they consider a necessary trivia required for the bounties of adult life. The boredom also turns many students toward anti-social behavior resulting in problems of discipline 288 including vandalism. A precious few bright and perceptive students are truly successful in school. They are usually characterized, claims Holt, by striving to satisfy their personal intellectual desires rather than their teachers'. Yet another group chooses to drop out of school -- not for personal intellectual shortcomings but rather the school's. Such students come to regard schools as interruptions of ed- ucation. Teachers too are often victimized by the traditional school system, so charge the critics. The teachers feel I trapped between ambivalent administrators who succumb to public pressure and the restless students. Consequently, the very teachers who entered the profession with a mission- ary zeal soon become disheartened so as to regard their function as babysitters rather than as educators. Open educators acknowledge that such criticisms of traditional schools, even if indisputable, become hollow victories unless a viable alternative is available. Propo- nents contend open education is a solution to many of the problems which plague public education. As suggested ear- lier, open education is founded upon faith and trust in stu- dents. Open education is primarily the operationalism of attitudes toward children reflective of humanism. Accord- ingly open education advocates contend the experiments of Piaget, Maslow, and Rogers serve to buttress open education practices. 289 The open educator tends to see himself as a facilita- tor or guide to learning rather than as a taskmaster. The teacher conducts the classroom in accordance with a belief that children learn at different rates and in different styles. Accordingly the open classroom is typified by a wide variety of simultaneous activities during which time the teacher confers with students and takes notes. The teacher tends to suspend judgment concerning the students. Likewise the teacher typically recognizes a wider variety of behavior for a typical student age level than would apt to be toler- ated by a traditional teacher. Also lesson plans are re- garded as being suggestive of learning experiences rather than being compulsory. Spontaneity and serendipity thus play an important facet of open education. The open classroom is typified by a wealth of re- source materials although commercially produced materials are shunned, for they often tend to mandate ready made an- swers. Open educators are also suspicious of the systems approach utilizing behavioral objectives inasmuch as deter— mination of learning often rests solely with the teacher. Furthermore the systems approach may guarantee certain learn- ing but forecloses on the unexpected. Also the systems approach tends to be mechanistic training rather than educa- tion. One strategy employed includes family grouping where- by students of different ages learn and teach each other. Another is the integrated day which breaks down subject 290 matter boundaries to allow for more natural use of time as activities call upon subject matter as needs arise. Education should be a pleasurable experience, argue open educators, but this is not to say it should be hedonis- tic frivolity. Pleasure results when educational experi- ences are real and meaningful. Boredom, resentment, and apathy result when artifical trivia is foisted off on stu- dents. Open educators appear determined that their fare not duplicate the publicized excesses of the worst of the progressive education era. Proponents of open education strive for a system which balances the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Now is the time for the educa- tional pendulum to stabilize itself. Many open educators are fearful of an orthodoxy if open education is misinterpreted. A great deal depends up- on teacher education institutions. Also a number have ex- pressed fear that open education will not survive without public support. Such support is only possible if the pub- lic has an enlightened view of the social, political, and economic consequences of life develOped through open edu- cation. This study also set out to suggest that many open education beliefs are less than original. An investigation of the writings of Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, and Bode demonstrates that open education was con- ceived many years ago. In fact the best of progressive edu- cation has been rekindled in open education. 291 Of particular significance to this study is evidence that industrial education and in particular industrial arts when at its best has a legacy of advocacy toward open edu- cation concepts. Manual training and manual arts, predeces- sors of industrial arts, pioneered in progressivism in American education. Industrial arts is and has been open education by bringing technology to children through a multi- plicity of experiences. The experiences have centered on reality and thus brought great satisfaction to many pupils. The literature repeatedly signifies greater concern for the effects on the child rather than how he affects his under- taking which has usually taken the form of a project. So much which is now a part of open education has for many years been advocated for industrial arts. The practical arts of which industrial arts is a part pioneered in offering children experiences which are reflective of real life situations and compatible with natural impulses. The project method and individualized instruction have for many years been advocated in industrial arts. Furthermore industrial arts offers personalized experiences by adapting itself to the needs of children rather than vice versa. Class sizes have been kept reasonably small for safety con- sideration and to facilitate greater rapport between teacher and students. This study found that industrial arts literature abundantly contains sentiments virtually identical to those expressed by today's open educators. Admittedly, other 292 industrial arts leaders have expressed beliefs which are opposed to open education. However, in the main industrial arts leaders have been supportive of open education beliefs. After the study reported such beliefs held in the past, it turned to investigate whether industrial arts teacher educators continue to hold open education beliefs. For this purpose a questionnaire designed by Dr. Roland Barth was administered to a sample drawn on the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education (ACIATE). The questionnaire contains twenty-nine Likert type statements of attitude which was validated by Anthony Coletta at the University of Connecticut. Illustrative of the Barth scale is Assumption 7, "Children have both the competence and the right to make significant decisions con- cerning their own learning."685 The ACIATE includes professors of industrial arts throughout the United States. The membership for 1970-1971 includes 1,096 of which 300 were randomly selected to parti- cipate in this study. 83.6% of the participants returned usable reponses. The positive skew of Figure l on page 257 indicates the ACIATE participants in this study are quite receptive to open education concepts. Further examination of the data revealed no signifi- cant correlations by age or years of teaching with accept- ance of open education assumptions. Also a univariant 685Barth, pp. cit., p. 98. 293 analysis of variance disclosed no significant variance within eight geographical regions throughout the United States. Conclusions This study has collected evidence which suggests that industrial arts teacher educators held and continue to hold beliefs about learning and knowledge consistent with open education. Such evidence is significant for its curricular implications. Industrial arts may well be at a crossroads. Its mission must be clearly understood and realized especially in light of increasing programs in vocational education. In- dustrial arts content and methodology must be of the highest order if it is to remain viable in American education. Industrial arts would appear to have a bright future if it derives its content from modern technology, perhaps along the lines of the 1934 Prospectus while demonstrating an open education methodology.686 Lee Hornbake said it best, "Industrial arts for all should also mean industrial arts for each."687 Over the years industrial arts has actively campaigned to serve all students even prior to public senti- ment or enactments of federal legislation. Open education is much more than a wishfully con- ceived theory. Programs in Great Britain, North Dakota, and . 686Warner et al., A Prospectus for Industrial Arts 1n Ohio, pp, cit. 687 Hornbake, "Industrial Arts for A11,'l pp. cit. 294 Massachusetts are of such size and duration as to provide substantial evidence of open education's credibility. How- ever, open education has to date been largely restricted to the elementary level. Only a scant few secondary open educa- tion programs have been successful. It appears industrial arts and probably the rest of the practical arts have been most successful at providing open education at the secondary level. Industrial arts does not require coercive strategies to cajole student interest and cooperation. It succeeds be- cause it isn't limited to future value. Children come to find industrial arts meets immediate needs and interests as well as those of the future. In other words, industrial arts succeeds because students succeed. Thus industrial arts teachers can and should serve as facilitators to learning rather than as taskmasters. It would seem the recently publicized research of James Coleman, Christopher Jencks, Daniel Moynihan, and others impinges upon open education. A hasty and premature summary of the Coleman report is that schools make no dif- ference in significantly alleviating the difference of achievement levels of black children in comparison to white children. It appears that while schools tend to make little difference, if one is to accept the work of Coleman and Arthur Jansen, the difference is attributed to differences in home environments and heredity.688 688Godfrey Hodgson, ”00 Schools Make a Difference?," The Atlantic Monthly, CCXXXI (March, 1973), 35-46. 295 What the Coleman report attacks is the question of whether such inequality can be eradicated by investing more money in the schools. It might well be that additional money for education only allows schools to do better those things which shouldn't be done in the first place. Those things which shouldn't be done are what the open educators attack. Accordingly open educators try to see education from a broader perspective than only formal schooling. Al- though schooling may make little difference in improving one's station in life, education can and should make a dif- ference. The solution to educational problems may not be so terribly expensive, but it might be no less difficult to im- plement. The solution may lie in reordering attitudes about learning and knowledge toward those held by open educators. So it is that industrial arts has a vested interest in the welfare of open education, for it would seem indus- trial arts when at its best is open education. Granted some of the problems facing industrial arts are financial. How- ever, additional monies alone are not the salvation. The mission of industrial arts must be clearly understood and articulated. With the emergence of more vocational programs, industrial arts programs on weak foundations are in jeopardy. However, there is no reason to either fear or resist voca- tional programs. In fact, contemporary vocational education literature should relieve certain industrial arts educators of the anxiety they appear to hold for vocational education. Indeed there should be a place for both industrial arts and 296 vocational education. Instead industrial arts must refrain from protectionalism and isolation by turning to concern for the total educational enterprise which affects children. For its openness and faith in all children indus- trial arts has an excellent opportunity to nurture healthy self concepts while providing students exciting experiences in the technology of industry. Unquestionably industrial arts is to be available to all children of both sexes and irrespective of their abilities. Industrial arts must con- tinue its mission by offering meaningful content and peda- gogically sound methodology. Perhaps now is the time for implementation of Froebel's belief that industrial education should be especially brought to young children. Industrial arts has much to offer career education if interpreted from a broad perspective. To reiterate with greater specificity, this study has led to the following conclusions: 1. Contemporary Open education has a heritage of what might be understood as legitimate progressive education -- what was advocated rather than the aberrations which resulted. 2. Open education as well as progressive education is but- tressed by considerable philOSOphic support by such notables as Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, and Bode. 3. This study has identified considerable literature authored by previous leaders in industrial arts teacher 297 education, which suggests endorsement of open education concepts. 4. The adminiStration of the Barth scale (purported to re- present attitudes toward learning and knowledge consis- tent with open education concepts) to a sample drawn on the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Educa- tion suggests acceptance of open education concepts as displayed in Figure 1. Of the seven factors within the Barth scale, as determined by Coletta, the factor labeled "Learning Facilitators" was found most acceptable to the ACIATE. "Learning Facilitators" addreSses itself to self concept, a rich learning environment, and rejection of discrete disciplines of subject matter. Another fac- tor labeled "Curriculum Flexibility" with a mean approach- ing "no strong feeling" represents the least acceptable factor to the ACIATE. "Curriculum Flexibility" concerns whether there is certain knowledge essential for every- one and whether students have the right to make signifi- cant curricular decisions. It would appear the member- ship of the ACIATE joins open educators in learning theory, method, and evaluation but becomes hesitant lest the industrial arts experience becomes laissez-faire when students begin making significant curricular deci- sions. Implications for Research As this study proceeded, numerous implications for further research became evident. Each of the following 298 proposals is tangential to this study and would enhance its significance: 1. 2. Replicate this study. Research educational beliefs held by industrial arts teacher educators on a wider continuum. Compare open education beliefs held by industrial arts and vocational teacher educators. Compare open education beliefs held by industrial arts teacher educators with their students. Compare open education beliefs held by general shop teachers with unit shop teachers. Construct and administer an instrument which examines an industrial arts teacher's stated educational beliefs and the consistency with classroom performance. Administer the Barth scale on teacher educators in other disciplines in an attempt to determine whether indus- trial arts teachers have educational values unique from other teachers. Prepare a curriculum model whereby industrial arts ex- emplifies open education while introducing elementary level pupils to industrial arts as career education is implemented. Institute a study to attempt to determine why the ACIATE reacted with "no strong feeling" to a factor on the Barth scale labeled "Curriculum Flexibility." BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Reports Addams, Jane. Democracypand Social Ethics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920. American Council of Industrial Arts Supervisors, American Industrial Arts Association. Industrial Arts Edu- cation. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: American In- dustrial Arts Association, Inc., 1969. Anderson, Lewis Flint. Pestalozzi. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1931. Benjamin, Harold R. The Saber-Tooth Curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1939. Bennett, Charles Alpheus. History of Manual and Industrial Education, 1870 to 1917. Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1937. Bode, Boyd H. Conflicting Psychologies of Learning. New York: 0. C. Heath and Co., 1929. Bode, Boyd H. Democracy as a Way of Life. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1937. Bode, Boyd H. Progressive Education at the Crossroads. New York: Newson & Co., 1938. Bonser, Frederick G. The Elementary School Curriculum. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1921. Bonser, Frederick G. Life Needs and Education. New York: J. J. Little and Lives Co., 1932. Bonser, Frederick G., and Mossman, Lois Coffey. Industrial Arts for Elementary_Schools. New York: The Mac- millan Co., 1925. Bowen, H. Courthope. Froebel and Education through Self- Activity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913. 299 300 Brown, Mary, and Precious, Norman. The Integrated Day in the Primary School. New York: Ballantine, Inc., 1973. Central Advisory Council for Education (England). Children and Their Primary Schools. Vol. I: The Report. A Report PreparEd by the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) Commonly Known as the Plowden Report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 967. Comenius, John Amos. The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius. Translated by M. W. Keatinge. New York: Russell & Russell, 1910. Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the School. New York: Vintage Books, 1964. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: The Mac- millan—Company, 1926. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1963. Dewey, John. The School and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899. Dewey, John, and Dewey, Evelyn. Schools of Tomorrow. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1962. Evans, Rupert Nelson. Foundations of Vocational Education. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill PDBlishing Co., T97T} Evans, Rupert N., Mangum, Garth L., and Pragan, Otto. Edu- cation for Employment: the background and poten- tial of the T968 vocational education amendments. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute of Labor and Indus- trial Relations, University of Michigan and Wayne State University, 1969. Friese, John F. Course Making in Industrial Education. Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1946. Friese, John F. Exploring the Manual Arts. New York: The Century Co., 1926. Froebel, Friedrich. The Education of Man. Translated by W. N. Hailmann. New York: 0. Appleton and Company, 1891. Games, Paul A., and Klare, George R. Elementany Statistics/ Data Analysis for the Behaviorai Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. 301 Goldhammer, Keith, and Taylor, Robert E. Career Education: Perspective and Promise. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1972. Griffith, Ira Samuel. Teaching Manual and Industrial Arts. Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1920. Gutek, Gerald Lee. Pestalozzi and Education. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. Ham, Charles H. Mind and Hand. New York: American Book Company, 1900. Hart, Harold H. (ed.). Summerhill: For and Against. New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc., 1970. Heafford, Michael. Pestalozzi. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1967. Hoffman, B. B. The Stpyd System of Wood Working. New York: American BooRCompany, 1892. Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1970. Holt, John. How Children Learn. New York: Dell Publish- ing Co., Inc., 1970. Holt, John. The Underachieving School. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1969. Hornbake, Ralph Lee. Professional Progress in Industrial Arts Education. CoTumbus: Epsilon Pi Tau, Inc., 1951. Hughes, James L. Froebel's Educational Laws for All Teachers. New York: 0. Appleton and Company, 1911. Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harrow Books, T972. Kilpatrick, William Heard. The Project Method. New York: Teachers College, CoTDmbia University, 1929. Kohl, Herbert R. The Open Classroom. New York: The New York Review, 1969. Larsson, Gustaf. Elementary Sloyd and Whittling. New York: Silver Burdett and Co., T906. Lawrence, Evelyn (ed.). Froebel and English Education. New York: Schocken Books, Inc., 1969. 302 Leavitt, Frank Mitchell. Examples of Industrial Education. New York: Ginn and Co., 1912. Lilley, Irene M. (ed.). Friedrich Froebel/A Selection from His Writin s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 196 . Mehrens, William A., and Ebel, Robert L. (eds.). Principles of Educational and Psychological Measurement. Chi- cago: Rand McNale 8 Company, 1967. Monroe, Will S. Histony of the Pestalozzian Movement in the United States. New York: TArno Press & The New York Times, 1969. National Union of Teachers. Plowden/the Union's Comments on Some of the Major Issues of the Plowden Report. A Report Prepared by the National Union of Teachers. London: Hamilton House, 1969. Olson, Delmar W. The Evolution of Industrial Arts. Colum- bus: EpsiTon Pi Tau, 1957. Parker, Francis W. Notes of Talks on Teachinngiven by Francis W. Parker at the MarthaTs Vineyard Summer Institute. Reported By Lelia E. Patridge. 9th ed. New York: E. L. Kellogg Co., 1888. Perrone, Vito. Open Education: Promise and Problems. Bloomington: The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1972. . Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich. Pestalozzi's Leonard and Gertrude. Translated by Eva Channing. Boston: 0. C. Heath & Co., 1903. Postman, Neil, and Weingartner, Charles. The Soft Revolu- tion. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1971. Postman, Neil, and Weingartner, Charles. Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Rathbone, Charles H. (ed.). Open Education: the Informal Classroom. New York: Citation Press, 1971. Richards, Charles R. The Gary Public Schools/Industrial Work. New York: General Education Board, 1918. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Emile. Translated by Barbara ———-_— Foxley. New York: Everyman's Library/Dutton, 1911. 303 Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Rousseau's Emile or Treatise on Education. TransTated by William H. Payne. New York: 0. Appleton and Company, 1904. Salomon, Otto. The Theory of Educational S1pyd. New York: Silver Burdett & Co., 1906. Selvidge, R. W., and Fryklund, Verne C. Principles of Trade and Industrial Teaching, 2d ed. rev. Peoria: The Manual Arts Press, 1946. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Van Til, William (ed.). Curriculum: Qpest for Relevance. Boston: Houghton MifflihTCompany, 1971. Wall, G. S. (compiler). Industrial Teacher Education Directony. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education and National Asso- ciation of Industrial and Technical Teacher Educa- tors, 1971. Warner, William E., et al. An Industrial Arts Curriculum to Reflect Technology at ATT School Levels. Colum- bus: EpsiTon Pi Tau, T947. Warner, William E., et al. A Prospectus for Industrial Arts In Ohio. ColumEus: The Ohio Education Association and the Ohio State Department of Education, 1934. Wilber, Gordon 0. Industrial Arts in General Education. 2d ed. Scranton, PennsyTvania: International Text- book Co., 1954. Woodward, C. M. The Manual Training School. Boston: 0. C. Heath & Co., 1887. Articles and Periodicals Ashley, L. F. "Chronological Development of the Industrial- Arts Concept," Industrial Arts and Vocational Edu- cation, XXVI (October, 1937), 309-312. Barth, Roland S. "So You Want to Change to an Open Class- room," Phi Delta Kappan, LIII (October, 1971), 98-99. Bawden, William T. (ed.). "The Manual-Arts Shop and Normal Activities Of Boys," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXIII (May, 1932), 279. 304 Bennett, Charles A. "Changes in Manual Arts Instruction in Relation to Changes in the Philosophy of Education," Industrial Education Magazine, XXVI (June, 1925), 362-363. Bennett, Charles Alpheus. "Improvement of Instruction in the Arts," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXVIII (September, 1936), 184-186. Bennett, Charles A. "Value of the Manual Arts in General Education," Industrial Education Magazine, XXVIII (August, 1926), 33-34, Bick, Alexander Frederick. "Some Dangers in Standardization," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXVIII (September, 1936), 205-260. Bonser, Frederick G. "Is 'Prevocational' a Needed or Desir- able Term?," Manual Training and Vocational Educa- tion, XVII (Aprii, 1916), 585-588. Cox, George B. "What Next in Progressive Education?," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (July, 1937), 207-209. Dean, Arthur. "Change in Our Attitude toward Boys," Indus- trial Education Magazine, XXVI (March, 1925), 264- 267. Dewey, John. "The Need of an Industrial Education in an Industrial Democracy," Manual Training and Voca- tional Education, XVII (February, 1916), 409-414. Ericson, Emanuel E. “Aiming at the Bull's Eye," Industrial Education Magazine, XXV (September, 1923), 65-66. Ericson, Emanuel E. "Grading ShOp Work," Industrial Educa- tion Magazine, XXVIII (January, 1927), 227. Ericson, Emanuel E. "Implications of Progressive Education for the Industrial Arts," Industrial Education Maga— zine, XLI (January, 1939), 7-11. Felmley, David. "The Educational Value of Manual Training," Manual Training Magazine, XII (October, 1910), 1-8. Friese, John F. "Manual Arts Teaching Methods, a Vehicle for Developing Procedure in Reasoning," Industrial Education Magazine, XXX (August, 1928), 45-47. Friese, John F. "Social Security and Industrial Education," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (April, 1937), 114-116. 305 Fryklund, Verne C. "From Concepts to Techniques," Indus- trial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (April, Fryklund, Verne Charles, "Intent to Learn," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXIX (March, 1937), 92-93. Fryklund, Verne C. "Learning Integrates," Industrial Educa- tion Magazine, XXXIX (September, 1937), 197-199. Fryklund, Verne C. "Learning is Specific," Industrial Edu- cation Magazine, XXXIX (May, 1937), 145-147. Fryklund, Verne C. "Organization and Learning in Industrial- Arts Education," Industrial Arts and Vocational Edu- cation, XXVII (March, 1938), 112-113. Griffith, Ira S. "The Boy or the Trade as an Aim?," Manual Training and Vocational Education, XVII (September, T915), 1-5. Griffith, Ira S. "Individual Differences and How to Provide for Them in the Manual Arts," Manual Training and Vocational Education, XVII (February, 1916), 426- 427. Hodgson, Godfrey. "00 Schools Make a Difference?," The Atlantic Monthly, CCXXXI (March, 1973), 35-46. Hook, Sidney. "John Dewey and His Betrayers," Chan e in Higher Education, III (November, 1971), 22-26. Hornbake, R. Lee. "A Place for the Arts in the Elementary Program," Western Arts Association Bulletin, XXI (September 1, 1937), 50-58. Hunter, William L. "PhiloSOphy of Industrial-Arts Educa- tion," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (November, 1937), 355-356. Hunter, William L. "Socializing Tests and Measurements," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVI (December, 1937), 405-407. Hunter, William L. "Socializing Tests and Measurements," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXVII (January, 1938), 5-7. Kozol, Jonathan. "Free Schools Fail Because They Don't TEACH," Epychology Today, V (April, 1972), 30, 32, 34, & 114. 306 Ludington, John R. "Approaches in Elementary Curriculum Making," Western Arts Association Bulletin, XXI (September 1, T937): 57-58. Mays, Arthur B. "The Enrichment of Manual Arts," Industrial Arts Magazine, XII (April, 1923), 131-134. Mays, Arthur B. "Practical Arts as Moral Education," Indus- trial Arts and Vocational Education, XXV (June, 1936), 165-168. Selvidge, Robert Washington. "Character Traits and Educa- tion," Industrial Education Magazine, XLI (November, 1939), 222-223. Selvidge, Robert W. "Interest and the Shop Teacher," Indus- trial Education Magazine, XXXIII (September, 1931), 58-59. Selvidge, Robert W. "Principles and Purposes of Vocational Analysis," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXII (February, 1931), 25(1252. Selvidge, R. W. "The Real Job," Industrial Education Maga- zine, XXV (August, 1923), 35-38. Selvidge, Robert W. "Teaching Is An Individual Process," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXII (August, 1930), 33-34. Selvidge, R. W. "Teaching of Related Subjects," Industrial Education Magazine, XXVIII (March, 1927), 275-278. Struck, F. Theodore. "The Challenge of Industrial Arts," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXV (Octo- ber, 1936), 295-296. Tatis, Rita. "Opening Up Education: A Guide to New Vocabu- lary," The Journal of Teacher Education, XXIII (Spring, 1972)) 83-91. "United States," World Book Encyclgpedia, XX (1972), 46. Wahlstrom, L. W. "Francis W. Parker -- Pioneer of Educa- tional Reform," Industrial Arts and Vocational Edu- cation, XXVI (November, 1937), 360-363. Warner, William E. "How Do You Interpret Industrial Arts?," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXV (Feb- ruary, 1936), 33-35. Warner, William E. "Industrial-Arts Research," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, XXIV (February, 1935), 38-44. 307 Unpublished Material and Other Sources Angier School, Newton, Mass. Telephone interview with Dr. Roland Barth, Principal, Angier School, Newton, Mass. January 20, 1972. Coletta, Anthony J. "Personality Characteristics and Assump- tions Held by Open and Traditional Teachers of the Poor.‘I Preliminary research results for doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1972. (Mimeographed.) 1 Coletta, Anthony J., and Gable, Robert K. "An Examination of the Content and Construct Validity of the Barth Scale: Assumptions of Open Education." Preliminary research results for doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Connecticut, 1972. (Mimeographed.) Hornbake, R. Lee. "Curriculum Principles." Speech given at the American Vocational Association Convention, Bos- ton, Mass., December 3, 1952. (Mimeographed.) Hornbake, R. Lee. "Industrial Arts for All." Paper read before New England meeting, circa 1955. (Mimeo- graphed.) Hornbake, R. Lee. "Time for Progress." Paper read before meeting at Oswego. (Mimeographed.) APPENDICES APPENDIX A Letter of Permission from Dr. Barth to Use Barth Scale NEWTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 04:43:12»: ScAool 1697 Beacon Street Waban, Massachusetts 02168 ROLMVD s BARTH,I"’.J mm? February 2, 1972 Professor Lowell S. Zurbuch Kent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 Dear Professor Zurbuch: I have your recent letter pertaining to my article in the Phi Delta Kappan. Although I have informally administered this Eddfd'id'a'fifififizr of proponents of informal education in this country and England, to the best of'my knowledge it has never been subjected to any rigorous validation. It may have neither reliability nor validity. Mr. Cbletta, at the University of Connecticut, as part of his doctoral dissertation is attempting to validate the instrument this spring. My dissertation developed these assumptions but did not in any way assess them. Agathon Press, 150 Fifth Ave.. New York 10011 will be publishing my book this spring, the title of which is Open Education and the American School. As I promised, I am enclosing a publication from the Technology For Children Project which you may find corresponds with some of your own interests. I would appreciate receiving a copy of any materials you develop. Sincerely yours, . -.”.444 P 308 acouuauufinsm Mam nouavm mdonmwauom .z¢mmuw on vapouo uoaoun um:u ma unuaouasvou hano use .z mum 03 umnu so» Ham» ca 08 wouosuuwnw mm; amHm .un Nama .H mumsunum .83 .3834. 83:8 5288: .o “88.5 Satan 388 .o .3826 28:—mom .3 55.8 93.—mo .n 33.35 53.8 .m non—=3. 3:3 8855 235-353 so 58.-8 .3938 2:98.." :18 E58 48238. .n Emma... moon .0 .5553 2.2.2.2.. 82.9.»... 33.... wna oumum unoM nommomoum unmumamm< sonnusw .m Haosoq .Hz 83.. 13:12 .285; 3.3.33. do .5935: .3035 ....................... 3.553. .x fix 8%.. an... .838 39.2.3: 33» .38... 5.32 .8985 ......................... 355... .n .35 82.1 «dual— .3353 53.3.55 33¢ =3 nsgua ...................... §