EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN A TIME OF CRISIS, 1932-1940 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES EDWARD MEULENzDYKE' . 1970 .. fl;u,1.is..._a‘ _: -. ‘ . e a i' 1.12:; .- 2A R Y Michigan State University This is to certifg that the thesis entitled ERICATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN A TIME OF CRISIS 1932-19140 presented by JAI‘ES EWARD HEUIENDYKE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration Major professor Date August.11- 1970 0-169 r" "“ ‘Nm l ? amome BY ‘3‘ “*3 "MG 8 “PW I BUUK BINDERY INI‘ | Lit, ARYi : 3-‘ ABSTRACT EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN A TIME OF CRISIS, 1932-1940 BY James Edward Meulendyke The purpose of this study is to trace the history of educational leadership from 1932-1940. This period of history presents an opportunity to study the impact on education of forces generated by an economic and social crisis. Educators need to know more about why they act and react as they do. They need to know which social forces act as catalysts upon them and what traditions in education cause them to take the positions which they do. Education is an important part of social history and is best understood in context. There are two major theses to this study. One is that education and the schools remained a refuge for individualism, pragmatism, and middle-class dominance in spite of trends in the political and economic sphere away from laissez faire toward a more planned society. The other hypothesis is that much of what schools do in James Edward Meulendyke the name of change is for expediency and is mechanistic rather than phiIOSOphical. The ideas of American social, intellectual, and educational historians were reviewed to assess the rela- tionship of society to the schools. The writings of education professors were surveyed in order to ascertain changes which were being advocated--both social and cur- ricular. A study of the 0.8. Office of Education and state departments of education was undertaken to determine how and to what degree their roles changed and what their impact was on local school districts. Board proceedings, journals, annual reports, curriculum offerings were studied to determine the real effect of all of these forces on local administrators and to find evidence of change or resistance. It was concluded that: 1. There was a dichotemy between theory and prac- tice. Sufficient administrative theory had not been developed to combat the pragmatism and provincialism of the local administrator. 2. Democracy and ideal citizenship were never de- fined. While democracy was accepted as a method, the liberal values of educators kept them from defining it as an end. The individual was placed above institutions, resulting in iconoclasm rather than a positive attitude toward society. An education emphasizing immediate needs James Edward Meulendyke encouraged isolationism in both time and space and did not provide a universal perspective. 3. The change which did take place was merely a shift from economic to social and political individualism. There was no real difference between liberals and conserva- tives in education. Neither abandoned individual rights nor self-realization. However, this doctrine had lost its relevancy to a technical, interdependent, and shrink- ing world. The schools not only failed to purge society of its old values, but they indoctrinated a new generation into them. Inequalities within the school were justified by a respect for individual differences. 4. The Depression experience showed that if change were to occur it probably would come from the government or some other outside agency. Educational leaders failed to use the opportunity presented by the crisis to change education from an institution deve10ped for an agrarian society to one which could exalt universal human values and the common good in a complex, technological society. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN A TIME OF CRISIS 1932-1940 BY James Edward Meulendyke A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 fl 709$ $§=Copyright by James Edward Meulendyke 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deep gratitude to the chair- man of my committee, Dr. James Heald, for not only giving me encouragement during my entire doctoral program, but for the invaluable assistance he gave in the writing of the dissertation. I want to especially thank him for his continued consideration and concern after his departure from this university. I also am indebted to the other members of my committee, Dr. Justin Kestenbaum of the History Department and Dr. Keith Anderson and Dr. Sam Moore of the College of Education. I also wish to thank my professors in the Department of Administration and Higher Education--Dr. Heald, Dr. Moore, Dr. Stan Hecker, Dr. Don Leu, Dr. John Suehr, and Dr. Fred Vescolani. I would like to acknowledge the consideration given to me by the East Lansing Public Schools allowing me to take the time to complete my doctoral program. I wish to especially thank my colleague Jerry Kusler for his thoughtfulness and understanding. My greatest appreciation is for my wife, Nancy, who not only gave me considerable assistance with several phases of this paper, but also gave the inspiration and support needed to complete such a project. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION 0 O O O I O I O O I 0 THE SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL SETTING Background . . . . . . . . . . . . Intellectuals and the Schools . . Social and Political Forces . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . TURMOIL ON THE CAMPUS . . . . . . Growth and Professionalization . . Administrative Training . . . . . Educators As Social Engineers . . A Profession Without Goals . . . . The Radical Progressives . . . . . Other PhilOSOphies . . . . . . . . Education For Democracy . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE PAPER TIGER . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Programs . . . . . . . Building Up State Departments . . Relationships With the Profession General Trends . . . . . . . . . . Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . STATE DEPARTMENTS TO THE RESCUE . Background . . . . . . . . . . . The Depression . . . . . ... . . . iii Page 15 21 31 34 34 39 46 51 54 62 72 73 77 77 87 94 96 97 101 106 106 110 Chapter VI. VII. VIII. Minimum Educational Programs . . . . . State Departments As Leaders . . . . . Reflections 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O CONSERVING DEMOCRACY . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background and Training . . . . . . . Criticism of Administrators . . . . . Reaction to the Depression . . . . . . The Depression and Youth . . . . . . . Views of Administrators . . . . . . . Educational Practices and Techniques . Education for Democracy . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRICULAR CHANGE FOR SOCIAL STABILITY Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local Reports and Surveys . . . . . . National and State Surveys and Advice Surveys of Students . . . . . . . . . Sociological Study . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . summary I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommended Research . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 113 124 135 140 140 142 147 154 158 164 168 175 181 184 184 187 191 204 207 209 212 212 216 220 222 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper will be to trace the his- tory of educational leadership during the period of 1932- 1940, to analyze the impact of social and economic crisis upon schools and educators, and to examine the impact of schools and school leaders on society. During the depres— sion period, the school administrator was surrounded by forces generated by a growing educational hierarchy and by a distressed society. The educational establishment con- sisted not only of a greater number of teachers and stu- dents, but also of an increasing number of influential university-connected educational scholars and specialists, state and federal bureaucrats, and local school adminis- trators. At the same time, communities, states, and the nation were facing an economic crisis, political conflict, and social change. The 1930's like 1970 were years of crisis and conflict. The country was on the verge of complete economic collapse. There was poverty amidst plenty. Economic and social justice had not been achieved by all segments of society. The nation had gone through a decade of material prosperity which raised questions about values 1 in the American democracy and brought about a disillusion- ment with the social, economic, and political systems. Totalitarianism threatened the world. Extremists on both fringes of the political spectrum were being heard and followed. There was a growing polarization over the best way to attack the economic problems and how to cure the social ills. The spirit of change was in the air and educators, in attempted to reevaluate the role of the school, were suggesting many curricular changes. Schools were criticized both by society in gen- eral and by the leaders of the profession. Many of the leading educational theorists questioned the basic and traditional economic and political systems. Their ideas for changing and improving the system revolved around collectivism and the curtailing of individualism and com- petition. They sought to institute economic planning along collectivist lines, bringing about greater social and economic equality, and educating for cooperation and interdependence. Even the more moderate social recon- structionists thought that schools should intervene actively in the community to purge it of outworn values and that the problems of the community should form the core of the curriculum. The loss of faith in business created a leadership vacuum which some thought that the schools could fill. A few educators even advocated indoctrinating children after the Soviet model in order to bring about a new social order. After the first phase of the crisis and the pas— sage of some of the reforms of the New Deal, the social reconstructionists were able to join with curriculum reformers in supporting "education for democracy." By the late thirties these former radicals had become doc- trinaire liberals working within the system. The emphasis was anti-authoritarian. Schools were to be freed from all pressure groups and power structures. There was to be a complete absence of indoctrination, and controversial sub- jects and opposing points of view were to be encouraged. Students were to be actively involved in the planning of lessons and teachers were to have a share in curricular and administrative decisions. Friendliness, cooperation, and tolerance would replace such values as material success and individual striving. There should be an admission and realization that different economic, racial, vocational, and religious groups existed and that these groups should be recognized for their contribution. Likewise, they were to be involved in all of society's institutions. On the other hand, there remained in the profes- sion and within the general society a tradition of rugged individualism, and faith in capitalism and the profit system. There was also an a priori faith in the individual public servant at the local level and a suspicion of plans by teams of experts handed down from "on high." Many edu- cators also believed that education and the schools existed to pass on the social heritage, and that it was not within their sphere to attempt to change society or to indoctrin- ate students with new social and economic ideas. Another prevailing argument was that educational opportunities and the nature of educational experiences should be the same for all. While there was little dis- agreement concerning opposition to totalitarianism, ideas of conventional school discipline remained. There also remained the tradition that education should train minds and not merely meet the needs of the students. The teach- ing of subject matter still was advocated by many. Educators need to know more about why they act and react as they do. They should realize what forces in society act as catalysts or motivators. They should be aware of the forces in American society and in the tradi- tion of American education which cause educators to take the positions and champion the causes which they do. Much has been learned about educational leaders through the techniques of social science. There is also a fertile field for the study of educators through historical re- search. The EncycloPedia of Educational Research (1960 edi- tion) states that only 5 per cent of the research in educa- tional administration is historical. More is needed. A period in history can serve a s a laboratory in which to study educational leadership. Educators made statements and advocated courses of action while boards of education, local administrators, and teachers carried out educational programs. This was all done within the context of certain economic, political and social conditions. All of this can be viewed with a perspective which a contemporary does not possess in viewing his own time. The historical re— searcher does not have to pretend the same kind of objec- tivity which the statistical researcher must. And yet, he may be even more surprised at what he finds. He can get inside a situation or period in a way that a contem- porary can only through drama or literature. Education in any period needs to be examined as a part of social history. This paper will attempt to answer such questions as did educators play a significant role in meeting the challenges of the period, or did the schools follow society's mandate? What kind of changes were educational leaders in the universities and in departments of education advocating, and what kind of influence did this have on local administrators? What was the relation- ship of American education to American political thought? What philosophy and goals of American education could be seen emerging? There will be two major theses in this paper. One is that in spite of the feeling during the Depression by many political and intellectual leaders, including educators, that Americans should accept the idea of a more planned, collective, and cooPerative society; education and schools remained a refuge for individualism, pragmatism, and middle- class dominance. The other thesis is that much of what schools do in the name of change is for expediency and is mechanistic rather than philos0phical. In spite of the crisis which briefly drew educators together to save the schools, educators had neither agreed upon goals and objec- tives for American education nor found a unity and cohesive sense of purpose. The ideas of American social, intellectual, and educational historians will be reviewed in Chapter II with regard to the influence and develOpment of education and the schools in the 1930's. The many differing points of view, interpretations, as well as the omissions of some of the social and intellectual historians will be placed in perspective. Some inferred relationships between edu- cational developments on the one hand and social and political developments on the other will be considered. The growth of the profession of education and edu- cational administration in the education schools will be discussed in Chapter III. There will be brought together the varying points of view of the university professors who wrote and were active in the period. Their writings in various periodicals and organizational proceedings will be surveyed extensively, and some of the writings of the more influential members of the profession will be examined in more depth. An attempt will be made to ascertain the extent to which social change was advocated as opposed to curricular changes or the restating of older ideas. The changing leadership role of the federal and state educational agencies in improving or changing educa- tion in the thirties will be examined in Chapters IV and V. Publications of state departments of education and the U.S. Office of Education will be the primary references. Secondary sources will be consulted to help determine the influence of these governmental agencies. Statements and action of local school administra- tors from as broad a spectrum as possible will be reviewed in Chapter VI. It will summarize many studies pertaining to their background and training. An extensive sampling of the writings of administrators in proceedings of their organizations and in various other education journals will be taken. Also to be reviewed are board proceedings, annual reports, and other data from several local school districts. In Chapter VII the curricula, methods, contents of courses, and in-service training will be examined for evidences of change and lack of change. Chapter VIII will further summarize and interpret the research. Some conclusions will be stated and further research suggested. CHAPTER II THE SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL SETTING The decade of the thirties was a time of domestic crisis and public soul-searching. For the first time in American history the national ideals of individualism, capitalism, and limited government were widely questioned. Political, social, and intellectual leaders were looking for new patterns and forms after which to model United States society. As economic and political reforms were sought, a hard look was also taken at education. For decades American educational institutions had been slighted by both American and foreign intellectuals. Now for the first time many hoped that domestic necessity would pro- vide the social climate for general educational reforms which would bring a nineteenth-century agrarian institu- tion more in line with the needs of an advanced industrial state. Social and intellectual history can help explain how and why American schools were lagging so far behind other American institutions, and whether during the social and economic crisis of the depression years, educators were able to seize leadership in establishing national goals. Background Most social and intellectual historians as well as other observers of American culture generally place the schools in a shirttail relationship to other aspects of American society. Education is regarded as a means of perpetuating the status quo instead of a catalyst for change. Many do not mention education in any more than a superficial way. Schools and what is taught in them are not presented as a spawning ground for political, social, or economic develOpments. General historians usually trace very briefly the evolution of the public school system before the Civil War and then comment cursorily in quantitative terms about the growth of the schools and the impact of industrialism upon them in the late nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries. Social and intel- lectual historians, while devoting chapters to literature, law, and philos0phy, barely skim over education. Even as the educational hierarchy mushroomed in the twenties and thirties, and writings by members of the profession be- came voluminous, historians seemed to deal with schools and education even less. Until ten years ago, the educa- tional historians were virtually ignored by other intel- lectuals. Merle Curti's The Social Ideas of American Educa- tors is the standard historical reference on education. In it he related the ideas and accomplishments of American 10 educators to the social, economic, and political ideas of the times in which they lived. Curti believed that most educational spokesmen "aligned themselves with the estab- lished order and have asked for support from the dominant classes on the ground that they were protecting these classes from possible or even probably danger . . ."1 He also stated that educators lagged behind in almost all reform movements; even liberal leaders like Horace Mann shied away from controversial issues. The historian Bernard Bailyn advanced an interpre- tation to account for this subservience of American schools to society. His thesis was that in Europe education for the masses had taken place within the confines of the broad kinship community--that all of the necessary trans— mission of religious and cultural heritage, as well as the teaching of necessary skills, had occurred at the family level. It was only because that in the wilderness the extended family did not exist, that schools were needed to perform some of its functions. Therefore, schools were conceived of differently than in Europe. "The whole range of education had become instruments of deliberate social purpose."2 lMerle Curti, The Social Ideas of American Educa- tors, With New Chapter on the Last Twenty-Five Years (Pat- terson, N.J.: Pageant Books, Inc., 1959), p. 583. 2Bernard Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study (New York: Vintage Books, 1960), p. 22. ‘— 11 At the close of the nineteenth century, I. W. Howarth and his colleague John Dewey had viewed the schools in a similar manner. They, too, saw the schools as a substitute for disappearing institutions of society. They believed that previously rural, village, and small town societies had provided the socializing functions necessary in a democracy. With the growth of the imper— sonal urban society, schools were needed to usurp and preserve this socializing function. This sensitivity to community pressure continued down to the present. Samuel Eliot Morison emphasized that education was to be "a training for citizenship and service in a civilized state, rather than as a vehicle for sectarian propaganda or 'caste' dominance."3 Schools were to be in every sense public and middle-class. Another unique development of the colonial period was a shift to forced taxation for the support of the schools after the old world practices of endowments, con- tributions, and land rents had failed. Bailyn pointed out that an economic basis for self-direction failed to deve10p, and therefore schools came under the "direct control, not of those re5ponsible for instruction, but of those who had created and maintained the institutions."4 3Samuel Eliot Morison, The Intellecutal Life of Colonial New England (Ithaca, N.Y.: Great Seal BooEs, A Division of Cornell University Press, 1956), p. 67. 4 Bailyn, Education in American Society, p. 44. 12 Other historians emphasized the utilitarian and anti-intellectual nature of American education. Richard Hofstadter saw the development of mass education as utili- tarian rather than for the training of the mind. This is a perpetual reason for despair on the part of many educa- tional reformers.5 Popular attitudes are not conducive to the development of a profession which can overcome this.6 Schools for intellectuals, therefore, never became inte- grated into the school system. Hofstadter used some of Curti's ideas to develop his thesis of anti-intellectual— ism. Many other intellectuals have observed the emphasis on quantity and utility rather than on excellence. Max Lerner brought attention to the anti-intellectualism of the American public along with its great reliance on and faith in "education."7 Foreign observers, while marveling at the compre- hensiveness of the schools and the physical plants and sometimes even admiring the informal pedagogy, almost uniformly are critical of the lack of scholarly discipline. One of the most recent professional observers of American 5Richard Hofstadter, Anti—Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), p. 301. 6 Ibid., p. 309. 7Max Lerner, America as a Civilization: Life and Thought in the United States Today (New York: Simon andi Schuster, 1957), p. 733. 13 life, D. W. Brogan agreed with others that American educa- tion was more of an indoctrination into American life than training of the mind.8 A visitor from England, William Orton, criticizing American schools said that the value of education should not be merely for life as it is currently lived. Education looses and democracy does not gain when mathematics is taught as only that computing necessary for life, or when spelling or grammar are ignored because they are not what the students actually use.9 Another never-ending theme about American educa- tion as well as about American society in general is individualism as opposed to collectivism. Rush Welter stated that individualism was advocated by early educa- tional reformers, not only because of economic and politi- cal liberty, but also to maintain a spiritual freedom which would insure a sound morality.lo Many of the his— torians of the Progressive school have pointed out that education, as an adjunct of big business, has promoted individualism. Charles A. Beard traced the origins of the very word back to a translation of Alexis de 8D. W. Brogan, The American Character (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1944), p. 135. 9William Orton, America in Search of Culture (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1933)) p. 270. loRush Welter, Popular Education and Democratic Thought in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967): PP. 90-97. 14 Tocqueville who found it necessary to coin a word to de- scribe this American idiosyncrasy. Social Darwinism rein- forced individualism,according to Beard, and educational 11 The virtues of work and "getting leaders promoted it. ahead" were stressed in all of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century education. James Truslow Adams thought that education had given people neither values nor intel- lectual training, but had emphasized only individualism.12 Some of the more recent historians go even further. They believe that progressive education gave more impetus to individualism than formalism had, not in the sense of competition, but in the unwillingness to accept external restraints.13 This lack of restraint was even further supported by the American Protestant heritage--private interpretation of Scripture, and the Puritan ethic of moral righteousness. Historians are not anti-education. They all ad- mire the development of America's vast public education system which has striven toward making schooling an in- creasingly better and more meaningful kind of experience. 11Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, The American Spirit: A Study in the Idea of Civilization in the U.S. (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1942), pp. 33-35. 12James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1931)) p. 322. l3Oscar Handlin, The Americans: A New History of the People of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963), p. 360. 15 They are not even consistent in seeing schools as institu- tions where traditions and the status quo are preserved. Curti pointed out that there were systematic social 14 Bailyn saw educa- thinkers among educational leaders. tion as an agency of rapid social change because it re- sponded to the immediate pressures of society.15 Henry Steele Commager said: "Schools were not only an expres- sion of American philos0phy; they were the most effective agent in its formulation and dissemination.16 Intellectuals and the Schools Turning now to the thirties,intellectuals, partly lured by foundation grants and also disturbed by the national disarray, enjoyed a brief flirtation with the schools. A group of historians who wrote for or served on the American Historical Association Commission on the Social Studies in the Schools took an active, though crit- ical, interest in public education. This organization, endowed by the Carnegie Foundation, published several volumes concerning social studies and education all through the thirties. Philosophically and politically these historians hovered close to the liberal and radical group 14Curti, Social Ideas, p. 581. lsBailyn, Education in American Society, p. 48. l6Henry Steele Commager, The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880's (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 38. 16 of educators at Teachers College. However, they did not view education as optimistically nor as the same panacea that the educators did. The Social Ideas of American Educators was a part of this series. Writing in 1935, which Curti called the late stage of the depression, he observed that outside of the ranks of the radicals, educators were confused. At first they were shocked and nonplussed that business had let them down, but then resumed, as they had one hundred years earlier, in seeking business support by selling middle-class America on the idea that the best way to pre- vent revolution and to produce a mass of high-grade con- sumers was through public education.17 Howard K. Beale wrote two books for the series. In these volumes Beale traced the various political and social pressures brought to bear on teachers and what they taught. He saw administrators as an inhibiting force in the freeing of teachers because of their primary devotion to efficiency--a non-educational goal. He characterized them as psychologically oriented to the carrying out of mandates from above, and thus they also wanted tractable teachers.18 He was of the opinion that even though during 17Curti, Social Ideas, p. 576-77. 18Howard K. Beale, Are American Teachers Free?: An Analysis of Restraints Uppn the Freedom of Teaching in American Schools, Report of the Committee on Social Studies of the American Historical Association, Part XII (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1936), pp. 744, 686, 475, 489. 17 the depression more criticism from teachers was tolerated, there was a greater imposition of the administrative will 19 "As the technique and personnel of than ever before. administration developed, its control over the teacher be— came greater." There was a "growing slavery to pedagogical theory, too great a faith in the power of the 'scientific' method. . ."20 Charles A. Beard, one of the seminal thinkers of the twentieth century, was also a leading member of the Commission and generally is regarded as being responsible for the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commission. Published in 1934, Conclusions, not unanimously endorsed by the Commission members, reflected both Beard and the educational radicals. A scathing attack was unleashed on individualism. Society was seen as marching toward an interdependent collectivism. The implication of this for educators would be to get the current generation to recog- nize "that the old order is passing, that the new order is emerging and that knowledge of realities and capacity to cooperate are indispensable to the develOpment of American 19Howard K. Beale, A History of Freedom of Teach— ing in American Schools, Report of the Commission on the Social Studies of the American Historical Association, Part XVI (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1941), xi. 201bid., p. 170. 18 21 At the same time, Beard and his colleagues society." did not have a high regard for educational administrators; underneath they were nostalgic for old-time leaders who had been learned men. The demise of social philosophers and statesmen in the ranks of educational administrators was lamented. To upgrade educational administration and to develop leadership, they urged that social science, social philoSOphy, and statecraft replace or supplement mere technical skills in graduate training.22 All during the thirties, even after other histori- ans lost interest, Beard continued to be one of the few academicians who rose above the apathy toward the schools. Perhaps it was because he was not connected with any university. As to educational purpose and method, Beard was more of an essentialist believing that the primary function of education is the training of the mind and the dissemination of knowledge and that schools do and should follow the dictates of society. As the thirties came to a close and World War II and the forties began, the breech widened again between historians and the educational establishment. While Beard emphasized his ideas on education in his 1939 book 21American Historical Association Commission on the Social Studies, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commission (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1934), p. 35. 22 Ibid., pp. 141-43. 19 America in Mid-passage,23 by 1942 when he wrote The Ameri- can Spirit, a history of American thought, he had little to say about education. Curti's range in The Growth of American Thought, published in 1943, is so broad that he is able to do little more than briefly mention the ideas of his old associate George Counts. In the 1959 edition of The Social Ideas of American Educators, he suggested that to follow social ideas of educational leaders from the late thirties on was difficult because: "The whole school business became so big and complex, and professional training so narrow that the educator approach was more and more restricted."24 The breech between educators and other intellec- tuals was never greater than in the thirties. One searches in vain in historical journals of the thirties and forties for articles or reviews pertaining to the history of educa- tion. "Professionalization" of subject matter was advocated by many in the schools of education. Educators had come to believe that academic English, or mathematics, or phi- losophy were not relevant to the needs of future teachers, so the schools of education began to teach subject matter in a more applicable fashion. The history of education was written by education specialist. This elicited 23Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, America in Midpassage (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939), p. 903. 24Curti, Social Ideas, p. xxv. 20 acrimonious criticism from the liberal arts faculty. Leaders of the "professionalization" movement retorted that it was this critical spirit among the academicians against teachers colleges and education professors which stimulated education faculties to teach more and more subjects by more sympathetic personnel.25 While Bailyn correctly assessed the purposes of these histories which were read in normal school classes as a means to "dignify 26 a newly self-conscious profession," he also pointed out that this left the educational historical field "in almost total isolation from major influences shaping the minds of 27 twentieth century historiography." Cremin pointed out the almost total insulation of the entire Teachers College from the rest of Columbia University during the thirties.28 Hofstadter concluded: "Professional educators were left to develOp their ideas without being subjected to the in- tellectual discipline which might have come out of a "29 dialogue with university scholars. Historians with 25Bailyn, Education in American Society, p. 7. 26O. K. Latham, "The Teachers College Versus the Liberal Arts College in the Education of Teachers," Na- tional Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXIV (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1936), 141. 27Ibid., p. 9. 28Lawrence Cremin, The Transformation of the Schools: Progressivism in American Education, 1976-1957 TNew York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), p. 176. 29 Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism, p. 338. 21 such views were not apt to include schools or educational leaders as catalysts in the development of ideas and in- stitutions. This chasm has begun to be closed within the past ten years with a greater acceptance of the scholar- ship of educators, and the renewed interest (aided by grants) of liberal arts professors in elementary and secondary education. It also should be pointed out that the present-day professors of educational history have met the charges of the academic historians head on. They have pointed out the lack of expertise of the general and intellectual historians, their reliance on histories by educationists, and have deprecated their poor scholarship.30 However, even in the post-Sputnik era, historians tend to be more obsessed with the critics of education than with education in any positive sense. Social and Political Forces Although education seemed to deve10p at least in partial isolation from other intellectual forces, it could not escape the political and economic forces of the times. The Depression affected education as it did other indus- tries. Educational leaders faced economic crises, read 30William Brickman, "Revisionism and the Study of the History of Education," History of Educationguarterly, IV (December, 1964), 209-223; William Brickman, "Conant, Koerner, and the History of Education," School and Society, XCII (March 21, 1969), 135-39; H. Graham Lewis, 1‘Bainn and Cremin on Cubberley and the History of Education," Educational Theory, XVII (June, 1967), 56-59. 22 newspapers and magazines, voted, and went to church. The political and social backgrounds of educational leaders will be taken up in a later chapter. The historian's in- terpretations of the social forces operating in this period can be briefly stated here. Political Progressivism, which gave impetus to progressive education, was dying. Even in 1930, Vernon Parrington saw liberals as mourners at their own funerals-- liberalism had died in the cynicism of the twenties.31 The old liberalism of the Progressives with its logical, principled, moralistic kinds of reforms was fading and was being replaced by a more realistic, organizational, trial and error approach to the improvement of society.32 Revisionist and New Left historians alike have viewed Progressives as conservatives and Progressivism as a con- servative force. Hofstadter portrayed the Progressives as a conservative, professional, and small business class which was opposing the monopoly of big business.33 Christopher Lasch protested against both the Progressives and New Deal liberals for being allies of the corporate- industrial system. He castigated them for becoming more 31Vernon Louis Parrington, Main Currents in Ameri- can Thought, Vol. III: The Beginnings of Critical Realism in America, 1860-1920 (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1930), pp. 401, 412. 32Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), pp. 318-19. 33 Ibid., chap. iv. 23 and more conformist themselves with their unions, profes- sional organizations, and acceptance of token reforms.34 The Progressives also are regarded as mere dissenters who did not visualize how democracy could be made the source 35 The political Progressives of creative social change. who carried on in the thirties also were seen as a conserva- tive force. They were essentially individualists and had no heart for the New Deal. They were as against collectiv— ism and big government as they had been against monopoly. They were against the New Deal policy of catering to groups or classes. They preferred majority rule to pressure group politics.36 The New Deal itself was portrayed as a period of change only in its bold trial and error attempts to "do something" through the force of government action. Al- though many radical reforms were advocated in the thirties by the Marxist and Socialists on the left and by the 34Christopher Lasch, The Agony of the American Left (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), pp. 10-17. 35John Chamberlain, Farwell to Reform: The Rise, Life and Decay of the Progressive Mind in America (Chicago: Quadrangie Books, 1965), P. 203; Charles Forcy, The Cross- roads of Liberalism: Croly, Weyl, Lippman and the Pro- gressive Era (New York: Oxford Ufiiversity Press, 1961), p. 315. 36Otis L. Graham, An Encore for Reform: The Old Progressives and the New Deal (New York: Oxford University Press, I967), p.*ii; Russel B. Nye, Midwestern Progressive Politics: A Historical Study of Its Origins and DeveIop- ment, 1870-1958 (East Lansing, MiEh.: Michigan State University Press, 1959), p. 373. 24 "share the wealth" demogogues on the right, the New Deal was considered by many as only another way to preserve the 37 The old old values of capitalism and individualism. liberalism and earlier philosophic Pragmatism seemed naive and out of touch with reality at a time when the demand was for more goals, objectives, and planning than these could offer. The new realism was reflected in literature, art, and religion. Writers, typified by Steinbeck and Farrell and by a changed Sinclair Lewis and John Dos Passos, were more socially conscious. Experimentalists in art gave way to the social consciousness of such regionalist painters as Grand Wood, Charles Burchfield, and John Steuart Curry. Other literature and art were purely es- capist, while the press, radio, and motion pictures tended to be conservative and less socially conscious.38 Protestant churches in the thirties also were essentially conservative. They turned from the liberalism of the social gospel to the neo-orthodoxy of Reinhold Niebuhr. Although, like Niebuhr, many church conferences and newspapers embraced socialism and denounced capitalism to express their social concern, their theology was based 37Ralph H. Gabriel, The Course of American Demo- cratic Thought (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1940), 38Harvey Wish, Society and Thought in Modern America: A Social and Intellectual History of the American Pe0ple from 1965 (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952), p. 523. 25 on individual man united in his needs and weaknesses. Therefore, the politics of the grass-roots membership re- 39 The same Methodist Conference mained relatively stable. which in 1932 adopted a socialistic report went 86 per cent for Hoover. The kind of socialist resolutions pushed through at a conference were not likely to be preached from the pulpit. The conservative Baptists were voting for the New Deal, and the more liberal, middle-class Presbyterians and Methodists were supporting the Republi- cans.40 Several contemporary educational historians have examined education in the Depression years and have rein- terpreted it with the advantage of being thirty years removed. Many of the same patterns are observed in educa- tion as in other aspects of society. On the one hand, education and its leaders were a force to preserve and perpetuate the political and economic heritage. On the other hand, educators felt the same social consciousness being expressed by socially sensitive members of society during this time of crisis. Educational organizations and educational leaders expressed their hopes that 39Donald B. Meyer, The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941 (Berkley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1960), chap. xvii. 40Robert Moats Miller, American Protestantism and Social Issues, 1919-1939 (ChapeIiHill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1958), pp. 114-15. 26 education could bring about a better society. Their vision of a better society, however, was conditioned by the American tradition of individual competition within a framework of equalitarianism. In a time of rapid politi- cal and economic change, Americans looked to the schools as a conservator of traditional values. Most contemporary historians do see progressive education, which began in the pre-World War I era, as a force which made education vital to the perpetuation of American values, and they equate it with the Progressive movement in politics. In the most often quoted of recent educational histories, Lawrence Cremin called progressive education "American Progressivism writ large."41 Thus, Cremin equated progressive education with a moral crusade in the same sense that political reform, the women's rights movement, and the social gospel. Cremin is supported by other historians who cite the pre-World War I period as a period in which educators dared to experiment and insti- tute radical changes in the schools with no fear that such revolutionary innovations would unleash social forces they 42 later would not be able to control. An example of the close parallel between political Progressivism and 41Cremin, The Transformation of the School, p. viii. 42Welter, Popular Education, pp. 262—63. 27 progressive education was the advocacy of participant democracy in the political realm and a greater amount of pupil participation and activity in the educational sphere.43 Cremin ignored the decline and change of the political Progressives in the thirties and had progressive education rolling merrily along until the fifties. Others saw progressive education changing or dying in the twenties and thirties just as Progressivism was doing politically. One educational historian, Henry J. Perkinson, pointed out that the Progressive Education Association in the twenties ignored the union which had been formed with the political Progressives and that, therefore, the schools in the twenties and thirties had less of a political function and were concerned less with social reform. Progressive education became merely a pedagogic attitude.44 This observation was supported by other historians of the 45 progressive education movement. Perkinson also saw the New Deal as breaking with the reformist tradition by 43Henry J. Perkinson, The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education, 1865-1965 (New York: Random House, 1968), p. 194. 44 Ibid., p. 199. 45Patricia Graham, Progressive Education: From Arcagy to Academe: A History of the LProgressive Education mAssociation, 1919- 1955 (New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1967), p. 75. 28 changing the role of government. The old idea of a liberal government was to prevent tyranny. With the onset of the New Deal, the government became protector; hence, people, rather than being political participants, were merely passive objects of governmental paternalism. Education followed suit and became an agency of the state to be used in rewarding middle-class conformers and ostrasizing radi- cals.46 Progressive education became, like religion, more moderate and introspective. Cremin saw even the radicals' efforts as an attempt to preserve the American way of life.47 Another educational historian C. A. Bowers also disagreed with Cremin and did not see how progressivism could have lasted fifteen years longer in the schools than in politics. The Progressives, he said, became conserva- tive, remaining "wedded to an eternal world order in which 48 And in progress was equated with moral perfection." the meantime, as he saw it, the progressive educators be- came radical by advocating that the schools be used to in— doctrinate for something which sounded like Marxism. 46Perkinson, The Imperfect Panacea, p. 220. 47Cremin, The Transformation of the School, pp. 48C. A. Bowers, "Ideologies of Progressive Educa- tion," History of Education ngrterly, VII (Winter, 1967), 452, 455. See also his book, The Progressive Educator and the Depression: The Radical Years (New York: Random House, 1969). 29 The political Progressives were men who had been proPelled by moral causes--individual liberty, justice, and freedom from control by a plutocracy. They were protestors during a reasonably stable period who thought in terms of ideals rather than practices. The New Deal was all prac- tice. It was too busy trying to find out what worked to worry about principles. Education leaders during the thirties likewise were more concerned with keeping the schools running than coping with pupils of a socio-economic class which had never stayed in school before. They continued to be con- cerned with administrative structure and methods and not with reforming education or altering it as a social force. The educational bureaucracies which continued to expand at all levels, tended to further isolate education from society just as the huge governmental complex developing during the New Deal left people further removed from the political forces affecting them. The Depression and the New Deal were not solely responsible for this development. There was much tradi- tion and precedent in American education for it. Even though nineteenth-century education was regarded as par- tially utilitarian, the twentieth century brought an even further shift in education from a moral philosophy based on reason to a materialistic way of life. Emphases shifted to methodology and vocational education. It has been 30 pointed out that the influence of Thorndike and his pro- nouncements on individualism and individual differences--on how children learn rather than on what they learn--has been 49 The nineteen thirties saw an greater than that of Dewey. even greater emphasis on the learner himself than on what he should learn. Even the P.E.A. members saw curriculum 50 Others reform as more important than social reform. arguedthat Dewey's ideas were beginning to filter through to educators by the thirties and the important thing was that he perceived progressive education as an intellectual reform--the reconstruction of experience-~and not as a social reform.51 Rush Welter concluded that American child-centered education does not relate directly to making a political democracy more effective. He pointed out that the politi- cal Progressives were trying to preserve economic individ- ualism and competition, but that economic competition cannot be effective in modern society with its oligarchic combina- tions of capital and labor. He recognized, however, that "although the American people commonly accept the economic 49William E. Drake, "Philosophy of Education and the American Culture," Educational Theory, XVIII (Fall, 1968), 365-75. 50 Graham, Progressive Education, p. 75. 51Robert M. Weiss, "Review of The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education by Lawrence Cremin“ in HiStory of Education Quarterly, II TJune, 1962), 131. 31 revolution of the twentieth century, they continue to press for formal education as if it would serve their traditional liberal values. . . . They have grown skepti- cal of purely economic competition for success only to substitute educational competition for the rewards that 52 economic competition used to promise." The idea of egalitarian education is used to disguise a hierarchically divided and stratified social order.53 Summary In summary, formal education in the thirties branched off from the mainstream of society and from social and intellectual thought. Although there was a fleeting involvement with education by some historians in this decade, the chasm between educators and other intel— lectuals was never so great. Even the more recent educa- tional historians have a difficult time relating education to other social forces. Most social and political histori- ans write superficially about education or ignore it when writing about this period. Much of twentieth century education had its roots in the Progressive era, but, as with the political move- ment, by the thirties its relevance to society was more 52Welter, Popular Education, p. 328. 53Ibid., p. 329. 32 difficult to see. As with the older liberalism of the Progressive Era, it became more difficult to discern its goals. Like religion and the arts it outwardly professed a social concern, but apart from its few extremists, was inwardly cautious, reluctant to look for new structures and new ideas. Another factor in the growing separateness of education was the growth of the educational hierarchy. The bigness and top-heaviness seemed insurmountable to intellectuals outside of the profession. As in other areas, this corporateness made it difficult to find the essences of the ideas and trends in education. As with government and business, educators were anxious through trial and error to find what worked, and they tended to move from one new method and cliche to another. The empha- sis was on justifications rather than goals. The general tendency in education to emphasize the practical and the utilitarian was underscored in the thirties. Schooling moved even further away from content toward education for citizenship. Equalitarianism was tempered by the idea of meeting individual needs. Although many pieties concerning the relationship of education to democracy were professed, there was a continued emphasis on methodology. The most consistent observation of the historians probing into education was that the schools continued to 33 mirror society, reacting to what was expected of them by community leaders. Like the theology professors, the educators at the universities could preach about new social orders from their ivory towers, but the decisions of the school administrators were more complex and closer to reality, and influenced by the liberalism which had formed them and the nation. Later chapters will deal more specifically with the ideas of these education professors and the ideas and actions of school administrators. The educational his- tories have not covered school administrators per se to any great extent. One of them which did, concluded that administrators had to show themselves to be conventional and practical minded. Because the ordinary American wanted to "focus attention on the machinery and forms rather than on the spirit and intrinsic substance of education, the majority of their school administrators seemed to share that outlook."54 54Willis Rudy, Schools in an Age of Mass Culture: An Exploration of Selected Themes in the History of Twentieth-Century AmeriCan Education (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1965), p. 80. CHAPTER III TURMOIL ON THE CAMPUS Growth and Professionalization The 1920's and 1930's saw a great increase in the shift of educational leadership from public school admin- istrators to university professors of education. Where charismatic educators of the past, such as William T. Harris, spent most of their lives as school administrators, by the thirties men such as Jesse Newlon, who began their careers as administrators, spent most of their productive lives at universities. As time went on, having been a successful public school educator was no longer a requi- site to a career as a professor of education at a univer— sity. The growth of the "educational establishment" and the great mass of educational literature which appeared during the period did not make education a more important force. Much of the energy of educators went into making education more of a profession. The certification of teachers was-delegated in large part to colleges and universities. A technical language was developed and a 34 35 great number of trade secrets were exhanged in a growing number of educational journals. The diffusion of the power and authority, and the growing specialization resulted in a great many experts who had difficulty in agreeing on goals either for society or for education. Many retreated into method and curricu- lum as means became the only ends which the profession could agree upon. Much of the rhetoric of those who es- poused the use of education for social change was long on principles and short on practical suggestions. Like many of the older political Progressives, many of the progres- sive educators could not understand or cope with the New Deal trial and error type of social planning. The professionalization of public school education also intensified the cleavage between the educationists and academicians. As far as non-educationist intellectuals were concerned the pattern for American education had been set, and the great prophets of American education belonged to a formative period of the past. They did not want to sift through the writings of the educational experts at the universities, state and national bureaus, and local school districts. At the same time, the public continued to view the schools as the agencies which would reinforce the middle- class American ideologies and folkways which they held and 36 wanted to pass on to their children. The teaching profes- sion accepted this and probably believed the same thing.1 Although giving them a platform on which to speak, the removal of some of the educational leaders to the universities took them away from not only the responsibili- ties but from the source of power which was still residing at the local level. The proliferation of teachers and researchers in education occurred because more and more teachers, admin- istrators, and potential administrators were seeking their wares. The progressive period before World War I had focused attention on the schools and the importance of the education of youth as well as children. More comprehensive compulsory attendance laws and teacher and administrative certification requirements were considered "progressive" measures. Most state normal schools had, by the 1930's, become four year colleges. Some of them offered advanced degrees. Education departments at universities grew by leaps and bounds. Local districts differentiated salaries partially on the educational level of the teachers. Preparation for public school teaching became not only a specialized discipline in the first three decades of the twentieth century, but became the fastest growing 1John L. Child, "Whither Progressive Education?," Progressive Education, XIII (December, 1936), 585-86. 37 of the so-called professions. More significant than the steady growth of enrollments in teacher preparation was the number of advanced degrees in education in general and in administration and supervision in particular. While most statistical reports indicated that the number of men and women entering teacher preparation declined slightly in the depths of the Depression, in the period 1932-34 the number of advanced degrees in education increased considerably. The number of masters' degrees increased from 5,310 with 1,350 institutions reporting in 1931-32 to 5,370 with only 562 in- stitutions reporting in 1933-34. In 1931-32, 1,380 insti- tutions granted 172 Ph.D. degrees. In 1933-34, 167 doctor- ates were earned in just 567 institutions. Based on the number of institutions reporting, this would amount to a substantial increase. These figures jumped to 7,225 and 271 respectively with 585 institutions reporting in 1937-38. The number of graduates in administration increased from 1,033 (1,460 reporting) in 1930-32 to 1,128 (only 376 re- porting) in 1932-34. This number jumped to 1,577 for the period 1936-38 (431 reporting).2 Statistics from indi- vidual schools bear this out. At the University 2U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Edu- cation 1930-32, Bulletin, 1933, No. 2 TWashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935), 80-100; Biennial Survey 9f Education 1932-34, Bulletin, 1935, No. 2 TWashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937), 76-88; Biennial Survey of Education 1936-38, Bulletin, 1940, No. 2 (Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1942), 92-106. 38 of Michigan, while the number of bachelors' degrees de- clined, the number of masters' degrees increased.3 The number of courses in administration for graduate students in twelve institutions climbed from 74 in 1926-27 to 177 in 1930-31. Classes in supervision also increased signifi- cantly in the same period.4 At the University of Michigan the number of graduate courses in administration increased from 26 in 1928-29 to 38 in 1937-38.5 The total number of students enrolled in colleges of education in universities and in four-year teachers colleges also increased significantly during the decade of the 1930's. For example, at Teachers College, Columbia University, the enrollment increased from 4,625 in 1929 to 6 7,983 in 1939. The staffs of these institutions not only 3Cameron W. Meredith, "An Account of Changes in the School of Education at the University of Michigan During the Period 1921-49," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1950), p. 47. (Microfilm) 4Earle Rugg, et al., Teacher Education Curricula in Seven Parts, Vol. III of National Survey of the Educa- tion of Teachers, Bulletin, 1933, No. 10 (6 Vols.: Wash- ifigton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935), 447. 5University of Michigan, School of Education Gen- eral Announcement 1937-38 and 1938-39, Part X of Ehe Gen- eral Register, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1937), pp. 98-104; School of Education General Announcement 1928- 29, Part X of the General Register (Ann Arbor: University 5? Michigan, 1928), p. 65. 6John Henry MacCracken, ed., American Universities 299 Colleges (2nd ed.; Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1930), p. 401; Clarence Stephen Marsh, ed., American Universities and Colleges, (4th ed.; Washington, D.C.: American Council on EducaEiOn, 1940), p. 320. 39 grew in number, but their educational level was also higher. They were less likely to be trainers in a labora- tory.school and more likely to teach and write about theories of instruction and of education. Administrative Training Two major themes in educational writing concerned what should constitute the best education and training for educational leadership. One was that education should be considered a profession just as medicine was and that professional status could be achieved only through special- ized training in a separate college of a university. The other often-stated idea, which seems somewhat dichotemous, was that future educational leaders should have a broader education with an emphasis on the social sciences. The Department of Superintendence Yearbook of 1933, Educational Leadership. contains the following statement which indicated the emphasis which the profession had placed on its growing specialization: From its humble beginnings of thirty and forty years ago, the subject-matter for the training of education- al school administration has grown to such proportions as to require the equivalent of three full academic years of graduate study on the part of a student who desires to prepare adequately for the entire field. Educational leadership has now become definitely de- pendent on specific training. 7Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association, Educational Leadership: Progress and Possibilities, Eleventh Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: The Department of Superintendence, 1933), p. 271. 40 Some authors in the same volume praised the trend toward the concentration of educational leadership in institu— tions and its attendant specialization of function which marked the coming of the expert.8 Other authors thought that, like other professions, the emphasis should be placed on laboratory or field work.9 State certification for administrators was pushed by training institutions. Because of the emphasis on professional training, those who majored in subject-matter rather than education, even as undergraduates, felt the need to apologize.10 By the mid-thirties a vast majority of superintendents had ad- vanced degrees and over 80 per cent of these had majored in education.11 By 1937 no potential educational leader was majoring in anything else.12 Even those who were beginning to advocate a broader education for educational leaders stressed that educational administration must be a profession unto it- self and not dependent on other disciplines. Educators 81bid., p. 37. 9Ibid., pp. 296-97. 10Clarence Carl Moore, "The Educational Administra- tor and His Opportunities," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIII (November, 1937), 623. ll Ibid., p. 624. 12Frederick Elmer Bolton, Thomas Raymond Cole, and John Hunnicut Jessup, The Beginning Superintendent (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1937), p. 23. 41 who criticized school administrators for their emphasis on business efficiency insisted that the principles of educational administration were quite different from the authority-based, managerial traditions of industry and the military. Science alone should be used to determine 13 And while future adminis- educational aims and methods. trators were encouraged to take more social sciences, there was much argument for the "professionalization of subject matter" for the administrator as well as for the teacher. Therefore, in some schools cognate courses were taken with- in the professional school. Such courses as educational sociology, educational psychology, educational philosophy, educational history were offered to supplement the more practical courses. While this great crusade was going on to make education an applied science and its study a professional course apart from the liberal arts, there also was a great deal of self-criticism about the narrowness of education received by educational leaders with its over-emphasis on methods and techniques. The criticism within the 13Ernest O. Melby, "Building a Philosophy of Lead- ership," School Executive, LVI (September, 1936), 17-18; Arthur B. Moehlman, School Administration:_ Its Develpp- ment, Principles and Future in the United States IBoston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940; Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1940), p. 249; Obed Jolmar Williamson, Provisions for General Course§_in the Professional Educa- Eion of ngchers TNew York: Bureau of PublicatiOns, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936), p. 86. 42 profession was so extensive that if one did not examine courses of study he would be brought to think that there was an exclusion of all but technical courses. One author writing about a survey of the professional education of secondary school principals found that most of the courses taken and recommended were technical in nature and all within education. The principals themselves rated courses such as administration and supervision high and philosophy and history low in usefulness.14 In reality, most programs included some electives in the liberal arts areas, mostly recommended in the social sciences. The professional courses remained largely technical with the social concern of the period beginning to be reflected in some of the new courses. In examining the University of Michigan offerings for the years 1937-38, one finds that most of the 38 courses listed for the seven sequences in administration were of the technical variety, and included much duplication. These included such courses as Child Accounting, Public School Finance, Principles of Educational Administration. There was a Seminar in Secondary School Supervision, Seminar in the Secondary School Curriculum, and Seminar in Secondary School Administration, as well as other courses in these three areas. However, while in 1928-29 the only l4Arvid J. Burke, "Professional Courses for Second- ary School Principals," Educational Administration and Supervision, XX (October, 1934), 508-51i. 43 non-technical course was one in curriculum, in 1937-38 there appeared such courses as Reading in Current Prob- lems and Social Interpretation.15 In addition, a student took only sixteen of the twenty-four credits in the School of Education with an additional six in lieu of a 16 thesis. Likewise, at Columbia Teachers College, most of the courses were "Principles of . . ." or "Essentials of . . . ," but there were a few courses such as "Social Aspects of School Administration."17 There was also criticism about the selection of graduate students in education and the lack of selectivity. It seemed that in most schools students were accepted on the basis of a baccelaureate degree only. Candidates for doctoral programs were screened more thoroughly, being admitted on about the same basis as graduates in other fields of study. In many schools the graduate program at the doctoral level was not yet under the control of the schools of education. The recommended courses of study at the doctoral level included courses outside of the field of 15University of Michigan, School of Education Announcement, 1928-29, pp. 69-75. 16University of Michigan, School of Education Announcement, 1937-38 and 1938-39, p. 85. 17Teachers College Bulletin, Announcement of Teachers College 1935-36 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935), pp. 115-130. 44 specialization ranging from a whole year of liberal grad- uate study at Harvard to six courses outside of the field of specialization, but within the school of education at Columbia.18 Graduate students at the doctoral level at Michigan were required to take sixty semester hours, two- thirds of them in education and twenty of them in a field of specialization.19 There was some soul-searching about the prolifera- tion of degrees and the quality of graduate education. University professors did not view graduate programs in teachers colleges as being truly graduate level programs. They too often contained what were really undergraduate courses or courses which were simply "rule-of-thumb" ad- vice.20 Others worried that too often the graduate degree was attained merely because of state requirements and salary differentiation and not to become more profes- sional. This was reflected in the sometimes inferior 18Timothy O'Leary, An Inquiry Into the Gegeral gurpose, Functions and Organizations of Selected University Schools of Education With Special Reference to Certain Aspects of Their Growth and Development (Washington,5.C.: Catholic University of America Press, i941), pp. 89, 164. 19University of Michigan, School of Education Announcement, 1937-38 and 1938-39, p. 91. 20National Society for the Study of Education, Graduate Study in Education, Fiftieth Yearbook, Part I (Chicago: University ofCHicago Press, 1951), 10-21; W. A. Stumpf, "Graduate Work in State Teachers Colleges," School and Society, XLVI (December 25, 1937), 834-838. 45 graduate programs themselves. The colleges and universi- ties were accused of offering graduate programs only to compete for numbers of students.21 A large part of the energies of the educational establishment at colleges and universities was thus being put toward developing a profession. One objective was to elevate teaching from something anyone could do to a vo- cation that only a specially trained person could perform. The training of these teachers also was to become a specialized function which could not be left to traditional college professors. Another objective was to establish educational administration as a profession within a profession. This profession was to wrest control of the schools from lay- men and then share the power with the teachers. This could be done by "educating" the lay boards of education. There were also suggestions in the 1930's that lay boards could be done away with entirely or their composition changed to include members of the profession.22 This is 2J'Stumpf, "Graduate Work," p. 834; Edgar W. Knight, "Getting Ahead by Degrees," School and Society, LIII (April 26, 1941), 527; James E. Wert, 1fThe FunctiOn of Graduate Education in a Teachers College," Educational Research Bulletin, XVII (February 10, 1938), 29-35. 22Jesse Newlon, "The Importance of a Point of View in Educational Administration," National Education Association, Proceedings, LXXV (Washington, D.C.: Nation- al Education Association, 1937), 498-501; William Heard Kilpatrick, ed., The Educational Frontier (New York: Century, 1933), p. 255. 46 in line with the idea of social planning prevelant in the 1930's; and who but the professionals should do the plan- ning? Educators as Social Engineers It was in the 1930's that members of the profes- sion began to call themselves and think of themselves as social engineers. According to some writers, educators had been caught up in the "cult of efficiency" prevelant in industry and government in the post—World War I era.23 The profession, especially those members in the universi- ties, worked hard at changing its image and disassociating itself from business and business administrative practices. That this objective absorbed much of their time and atten- tion is evidenced by the tremendous amount of self- criticism and the search for an identity as seen in the writings of these professors. In the summary of a survey on the education of school administrators, one author felt compelled to state that in no other professional program was there as much confusion.24 The call was for common aims and a common philoSOphy. It also was for a 23See Raymond Callahan, The Cult of Efficiency; A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Adminis- tration of the Public Schools (Chicago: UniVersity Of— Chicago Press, 1962). 24John Lund, Education of School Administrators, U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin, 1941, No. 6 TWashing- ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1942): P- 77- 47 unique body of knowledge and-a technical vocabulary. In the training of school administrators, a need was expres- sed for clarification, sequence, and differentiation in the professional courses. In this time of cirsis, educators as social en- gineers were to use education administration to change or to have some kind of impact on society. There was not agreement on what kind of society should result, how edu- cation could bring about change, or even whether educators should play this role. Education and its administration, therefore, came to be regarded as an applied social science rather than one of the humanities or an institutional hierarchy of individuals. Many writers pointed out that educational administrators needed to be more knowledgeable in the social sciences, particularly in sociology.25 On the other hand, there was not an equating of social science with education. No one suggested that social scientists would do well as educators. The great emphasis was still on educational administration as a profession 25Everett H. Fixley, "Governing Factors in the Construction of a Training Program for Superintendents of Schools," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIV (November, 1938), 634; James Collins Miller, "Educational Administration Must Be More Highly Trained," Nations Schools, XII (November, 1933), 40; Jesse Newlon, Educa— pignal Administration as Social Policy, Report of the Commission on the Social Studies, Part VIII (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934), 267-268. 48 with a special body of knowledge. Although many schools were developing a liberal education for graduate students in education,26 many in the profession thought that the advanced degree should be for the select few who would be researchers in the same manner as the scientists. In reality, the average administrator was a practitioner who needed some certification to substantiate his position. The number of writers who saw the educational administra- tor as the teacher-scholar or saw education as one of the humanities was very small.27 In trying to improve and enhance their profession, professors of education were as much concerned with whether or not administrators and professors were social, politi- cal, and economic "liberals" as they were with their scholar- ship and training. In citing Frederick Bair's study of the social backgrounds of school administrators?8 Newlon expressed concern that they accepted the political and 29 economic system without question. A study written by R. Bruce Raup showed education professors to be more 26Clyde Hill, "Progressive Procedures in Graduate Study," Progressive Education, XII (May, 1935), 352-57. 27Carroll Champlin, "The Scholarship of Graduate Students of Education," School and Society, LI (February 10, 1940), 186-188. 28See Frederick Bair, The Social Understandings of the Superintendent of Schools. 29 Newlon, Educational Administration, p. 167. 49 liberal than subject-matter teachers in colleges. This study was based on a questionnaire measuring such issues as static—dynamic, academic-direct life, science- philosophy, individualism-socialization, heredity- environment.30 One could argue about using these terms to determine liberalism, but the results do illustrate that there were some common ideas, theories, and at least a common vocabulary among professors of education. William Bagley crticized the study and by using one of Raup's own criteria for illustrating clear and con- sistent thinking was able to reverse the order of the liberal rating and place the education professors lowest.31 Raup himself stated that although the professors must have been influenced by the doctrine of socialization, when confronted with particulars: "there is evidence, that, although they would be willing to socialize conduct in general, they would not change things so much in par- ticular to do it."32 One of the chief uses Raup makes of his study is to advocate an increase in the shrinking number of courses in education which students were taking.33 30Rugg, et al., Teacher Education, pp. 459-507. 31R. Bruce Raup, "What Teacher-training Faculties Believe," Educational Administration and Supervision, XX (May, 1934), 353. 32Rugg, et al., Teacher Education, p. 460. 33Raup, "What Teacher-training Faculties Believe." p. 347. 50 If education professors were liberal, should not their courses also be more liberating and enlightening? The removing of much of the educational leadership to the universities gave it a safe vantage point from which to criticize educational administrators in the field. The professors claimed that at a time when administrators should have been leaders in developing a better society, they were still influenced too greatly by the politics and pressures of their own constituencies. At a time when they should have been more broadly educated in terms of curriculum, instruction, and the relation of schools to society, they were still concerned mainly with the skills needed to efficiently manage a large institution. The articles written by professors of education about practicing school administrators were very critical and indicated that, for the most part, the administrators were not held in high esteem by them. Administrators were seen as authoritarians, technically educated with narrow vision. Frederick Bair stated that "nothing in the education of the present administrator has prepared him for strategic social action."34 George D. Strayer empha- sized that administrators no longer could simply deal with 34Frederick Bair, "School Administration and Free- dom," Educational Freedom and Democracy, 2nd Yearbook of the John Dewey Society, edited by Boyde H. Bode and Harold R. Alberty (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938), p. 186. 51 externals, but had to be familiar with curriculum. They should be technically competent and social engineers.35 While educators gave lip service to lay participa- tion, they wanted no part of lay control. Many articles dealt with the distinction between the policy-making role of the Boards of Education and the planning and decision- making roles of the educational expert. Administrators were taken to task for allowing boards of education to decide content, method, and philosophy. A Profession without Goals But the criticism by education professors did not give the administrators well-defined goals, purposes for education in general, or theories of educational leader- ship in particular. The educational leaders were to be narrowly trained specialists who would be truly profes- sional just as the doctors and lawyers, and yet there was no agreement on a body of specialized knowledge for these leaders. Their leadership was to be based on this undefined expertise and not on their position. Their colleagues were their equals and should share equally in policy and decision making. But the differences between educational administration and business administration were not 35George D. Strayer, "Changing Concepts of Educa- tional Administration," Teachers College Record, XL (March, 1939), 473. 52 clearly stated. Education was to be instrumental in changing or improving society, but how educational tech- nology was to accomplish this, to say nothing of what kind of a society it should be, were questions on which there was very little unanimity. While government in the 1930's was forced by the crisis into action without theory, much of the energy in education went into the stating of principles without ar- riving at goals or purposes. Laissez faire and individ- ualism remained more strongly entrenched in education than in other social and economic institutions. Moreover, education professors were not called to Washington to develop programs. Unlike welfare and many other social and economic developments, the firing lines in education remained at the local level, which were often far removed from educational spokesmen at universities. The lack of goals and purposes was often associated with "progressive" education. This criticism was made by its advocates as well as by its critics. George Counts, who considered progressive education as one of the only promising movements in education, severely criticized the movement for its lack of a theory of social welfare and 36 for its emphasis on individualism. Theodore Brameld, a 36George S. Counts, Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? (New York: The Johfi Day Company, 1932), p. 7. 53 social reconstructionist defined progressive education as being "strong in teaching us how to think--weak in teach- 37 The leading ing us the goals toward which to think." essentialists of the period, William Bagley, Isaac L. Kandel, and Henry C. Morrison have all characterized pro- gressive education as being too general, broad, and aim- less. Frederick Breed complained that even in their methods, progressives accepted as improvements ideas which had never been tested.38 Progressive education was criticized because it was based on the philosophy of pragmatism which, as a method was antithetical to ethical standards. The essen- tialists believed that man needs the moral security of being able to absorb his ethical nature.39 This lack of philosophy and lack of goals may be seen to be an extension of political Progressivism which has been accused of the same shortcomings. The political Progressives crusaded against big business and the power it held. They railed against the machine politicians who 37Theodore Brameld, Toward a Reconstructed Philos- Ophy of Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), 92. 38Frederick 5. Breed, "On Changes in Methods of Teaching," School and Society, XLI (April 27, 1935), 559. 39M. J. Demiashkevich, "Philosophy and the Philos- ophy of Education," Educational Administration and Super- vision, XVIII (February, 1932), 123; Margaret Noel, "What K1nd of Education?," Educational Administration and Super- vision, XVIII (March, 1932), 218. 54 kept the "people" out of power. The progressive education of the 1920's had been exclusively for the upper-middle class and was completely child-centered. Each individual was encouraged to pursue that which interested him at the time. Prescribed curricula with imposed ideas were kept to a minimum. The Radical Progressives With the advent of the Depression many of the progressive educators turned to theory and objectives. They advocated collectivism, cooperation, interdependence and social planning. Representing only a part of the leaders of the progressive education movement, the "radi- cal" progressives advanced ideas which seemed extreme. But at least they received some attention in the educa- tion journals of the time. These radicals said that there should be a new social order and that education and schools should be responsible for creating it. George Counts, John L. Childs, William H. Kilpatrick, R. Bruce Raup, all from Teacher's College were among the chief proponents and promoters. Their ideas have been inter- preted variously as straight Marxism, democratic socialism, or simply a better planned economy in which more people had a share. After all, the radicals argued, we as in- dividuals had already lost the freedom to act independent- ly in most ways. Business, labor and most social 55 activities were no longer matters of individual enterprise. In order to achieve this new social order, the radicals felt that it was necessary to indoctrinate, that is, for schools to shape attitudes and impose ideas. This, too, they said, was something that had always been done.40 Some historians felt that the influence of these radicals in changing education, to say nothing of society, 41 Other historians attributed the was slight or moderate. demise of individualism during the early 1940's and the rise of the life adjustment movement to the influence of 4 2 However, one can the radical progressive educators. present a strong case for the View that the progressive educators were essentially promoting individualism by fighting the same old Populist-Progressive battle against the plutocrats of industry. They were against an economic structure over which the vast majority of people had no share or no control. They were against any forms of authoritarian control, managed news, or any kind of monopoly. As noted in Chapter II they were protestors and reformers with purposes not always clear. Their goals were idealistic rather than scientific or practical. 40Counts, Dare the Schools, p. 19; Kilpatrick, ed. Educational Frontier, Chapter 1. 41Cremin, Transformation of the Schools, p. 233; Curti, Social Ideas, pp. 575-580. 2Bowers, "Ideologies of Progressive Education," pp. 459-471. 56 Even the radicals who said that there was no longer any opportunity for competition in the economic sphere, ad- vocated the development of the individual and independent thinking as the means of fighting the "system." Perhaps the radicals were quixotic, but certainly their emphasis on individuality and expressing one's own individual ideas completely overrode the indoctrinating for socialism. They denounced the conformity that brought about big business and hoped that free thought and the better side of man could bring individuals to think in terms of helping their fellow-man. They held to the old idealistic idea that freeing man would make him more apt to work for a better world. Even though the radicals advocated something which sounded like socialism, their writings, along with the writings of other progressive educators continued to stress nineteenth-century individualism. The first part of every statement about the new education had to do with the development of the individual and his ability to think for himself with no settled truths thrown at him by adults. Only as an afterthought or second statement was regard for one's fellow—man brought in. For example, Educational Frontiers, one of the more radical books published during the depts of the depression, stated: We are concerned, rather, that the process of education from beginning to end operate so that students think their own thoughts and live their own lives, but with an ever growing appreciation 57 of the significance of their conduct as bearing upon the lives of others.4 The same book stated that although the administrator or instructor might be concerned about specified ways of thinking, acting, and feeling, the striving should be for self-directive behavior. "The learner's ideas must be self-grown, his actions must ring true to the qualities 44 of his own nature." The authors inferred more of a sharing of power than the development of socialistic or collectivist enterprises.45 A differentiation was made between egoistic individuality and "normal" individual- 46 ity. There was seen no opposition between individuality and social ends. "The opposition is between the public and shared on one side and the private and isolated on the other."47 The social reconstruction which many had in mind emphasized that each individual would formulate his own social philosophy. This formulation "may be socially motivated to any degree, yet it remains a per- sonal matter."48 43Kilpatrick, ed., Educational Frontier, pp. 211- 212. 44Ibid., p. 229. 4SIbid., p. 386. 461bid., pp. 291-92. 47Ibid., p. 64. 48Ibid., pp. 27-28. 58 More than one writer has pointed out that progres- sive education and the social planning, centralization, and consolidation advocated in the 1930's did not go together. The kind of simulationenui"socializing" activ— ities did not teach the students how to cope with modern problems, but rather perpetuated rugged individualism.49 The progressive concepts in education which derived from John Dewey himself were based on Progressivism. One of the main premises of Dewey's ideas on education was that the social development which had taken place in farms and villages in pre-industrial days now had to be preserved in the schools. The nineteenth-century idealism which idealized the individual and especially the child remained present in progressive education and in political Progres- sivism. The rejection of established principles and the sometimes equating of reform with change were seen in both education and politics. In the 1930's Dewey, who had become an avowed socialist, found himself forced to condemn much of what was being done in his name and in the name of progressive education. For example, he condemned the rejection of subject matter, the lack of adult direction and guidance, 50 and the diminishing of the study of the past. He also 49William Withers, "Is Progressive Education on the Wane?," School and Society, XLVI (September 25, 1937), pp. 401-403. 50John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1938), pp. 21-22. 59 criticized the "progressive" practices which gave individ- ualism full rein. He said that there "is no reason why progressive education should identify impulse and desire with purpose . . . .51 Like John Dewey, George S. Counts did not think that in the early stages of the Depression the New Deal had gone far enough in controlling capitalism. In many ways his ideas had the ring of the older Progressivism. The enemy was industry. Individualism as an evil was associated only with economics. Counts shared that opti- mistic view of man which said that freed from concern about his daily needs he would cooperatively build a better world, fulfilling an American dream. Like the Pro— gressives he was long on criticism and principles and short on designating ways in which to carry out a revolution or suggesting who should control the collective society. Although he advocated that an intensive effort be made by teachers to indoctrinate students as to the benefits of collectivism and social planning, he mentioned no plans for indoctrinating the teachers or administrators. Counts may have been treading new ground in suggesting that educators rise up and take the lead in creating a new society, but he was following a long line of Populists and Progressives in advocating a greater sharing of power with- in a democratic structure. SlIbid., p. 70. 60 Counts defined democracy as "a sentiment with re- 52 This belief out- spect to the moral equality of man." weighed the indoctrinating for collectivism and placed a priority in education on the development of the individual. He was concerned in the later 1930's that the individual would be swallowed up by totalitarianism.53 In his later writings, he also placed a higher priority on the develop- ment of the individual than on his socialization.54 Other radical writers and publications also com- mitted themselves more to the protection of individual rights and the development of individual uniqueness than to the c00perative, collective society. Kilpatrick in at least one article said, in effect, that we should change the economic and social system which was competitive, but we should not change American progressive education which 55 Likewise the Educational placed the individual first. Policies Commission of the N.E.A. which was dominated by university professors, including George Counts, emphasized in a 1938 publication individual rights, the uniqueness of 52Counts, Dare the Schools, p. 41. 53George S. Counts, The Prospects of American Democracy (New York: The John Day Company, 1938), pp. 2-3, g1-92 o 4George S. Counts, Education and American Civili- zation (New York: Bureau of Publications, TeaChers College, Columbia University, 1952), pp. 312-13. 55William H. Kilpatrick, "The Social Philosophy of Progressive Education," Progressive Education, XII (May, 1935), p. 293. 61 56 the individual, and individual initiative. By 1937 rather than collective society, writers were using the term associational society. However, the essence of the thinking about the relationship of education to democracy was that while education was to prepare man to live in an associational society, it was also the agency that pro- 57 In 1941, a publi- tected and developed the individual. cation of the same Commission stated that "man's first loyalty is to himself as a human being of dignity and h."58 wort Democracy was identified "as a way of life in which the individual is made the center of things and is encouraged to develop freely according to his own nature."59 One can agree with the contemporary educational historian C. A. Bowers, that progressive educators failed to resolve the dilema of modern liberalism--that it is difficult to control social change without controling the 56Educational Policies Commission, The Purposes of Education in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: Nation- al Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, 1938), pp. 20, 21, 23. 57Educational Policies Commission, The Unique Function of Education in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and the Department of Superintendence, 1937), p. 92. 58Educational Policies Commission, The Education 9f Free Men In a Democragy (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and American Association of School Administrators, 1941), p. 55. 59 Ibid., p. 32. 62 life and minds of the student.60 However, one has to disagree with him that progressive education--even that advocated by the radicals--caused the demise of individ- ualism leading to the despised organization man of the 1950's. Progressivism of the pre-World War I era did live on in the schools and the conservatives as well as the radicals of the profession of the 1930's continued to see the schools as institutions where the cultural heritage of the middle class would be passed on. This heritage included the "right" of each individual to develop to his fullest potential. Individuality would be nurtured and the individual differentiated. It was not suggested that material as well as non-material rewards would not serve as a reward or an incentive. The Progressives were still fighting against the unearned affluence of the plutocracy made rich and powerful at the expense of others, not against individual achievement. Other Philosophies There were, of course, many progressive social reconstructionists who were aware of the dilemas facing progressive educators. Boyd Bode was particularly con- cerned about the "one sided absorption in the individual pupil" and was concerned about the lack of a democratic, 60Bowers, "Ideologies of Progressive Education," p. 171. 63 social and educational philosophy by progressive educa- tors.61 He did not believe in indoctrination in the same way the radicals did, but neither did he believe that schools should continue to teach traditional ideas of society or of the teachers. Mutual interests, he said, had to be recognized.62 There were also progressive educators who continued to believe in and stress the child— centered approach of the 1920's. The most united and vocal of the conservative educators of the 1930's were known as essentialists. Rather than believing that education should take the lead in changing society, they believed that, especially in a time of crisis, education could maintain a much-needed stability. Most of them felt that coOperation in a democ- racy can come only from self-directed individuals. The essentialists continued to view American edu- cation, as had earlier American educators, as something which should be the same for everyone. It would help to serve as an equalizer and melting pot for persons of all classes, nationalities, and races. This education would stress time-tested content, guided discipline, and orderly sequence. Unlike the progressives who stressed individualism 61Boyde H. Bode, Progressive Education at the Crossroads (New York: Newson, 1928), pp. 43-44} (GZBoyd H. Bode, "The Meaning of Freedom," Educa- tional Freedom and Democracy, pp. 11-13. 64 during the educative process, the essentialists believed that education should provide an equal start for all. They did stress competition, since this was a traditional American value. The essentialists were among the first to point out the contradiction of democratic collectivism, particu- larly if the schools were to indoctrinate. They emphasized that you can not have laissez faire education in the school and social control in the state. The "indus- trial discipline" brought in by the New Deal was incom- patible with progressive education, said the moderate Frederick S. Breed. He pointed out that emphasis on and respect for the individual could be balanced by respect for a common culture based on tradition.63 The essentialists believed that the schools should follow the dictates of society and should prepare young people for life, imbued with middle-class cultural values and trained for useful occupations. Vocational education and many other fads of the twenties and thirties, often erroneously associated with progressive education, came about more because of social demands than because of 64 educational leadership. The essentialists also 63Frederick S. Breed, Education and the New Realism (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939), p. 189. 4Frederick Rudolph, "Review of the Transformation of the Schools: Pro ressivism in American Educationiby Lawrence A. Cremin, in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVIII (December, 1961), 550. 65 emphasized content over method, believing that there was an irreducible body of knowledge which should be taught through subject-matter disciplines. They did not think that the pupil could discover all of this knowledge by himself, and unlike some of the progressives, believed that the child should be guided, disciplined, and in- structed. The survey of over 100 articles written by pro- fessors of education indicated above all their dissatis- faction with and uneasiness about the lack of philosophy and goals. This feeling was expressed by both those within and those outside of the progressive education movement, but it was expressed mostly about progressive education. Boyd Bode, one of the leaders of progressive education became dismayed that while every government could have its own truths, when educational aims were under consideration, growth was considered to be its own end "with the disquieting implication that truth and 65 A critic of progressive validity do not really matter." education, Isaac L. Kandel, believed that it was impossible for the progressives to lead the way in a planned society while their path was still strewn with the disorder re- sulting from their emphasis on individualism and their 65Boyd H. Bode, "Education as Growth: Some Con- fusions," Prggressive Education, XXXIV (February, 1937), 154. 66 66 The essentialists refusal to define goals or ends. could not accept the idea that a moral value was only the average ethical judgment of the time. As one writer put it, while the fabric of society changes frequently, the fundamentals of society change slowly. Therefore, "the more kaleidoscopic society becomes, the more reason there is why school and university should hold firm to the eternal verities and inculcate them."67 Other writers thought that there was too much change for the sake of change and not enough on what was being accomplished. Frederick Breed objected that too often innovation preceded scientific experimentation.68 The very emphasis of progressive education on experimental methods meant that evaluation had to play a greater role. They were beginning to advocate and plan experiments with evaluation, such as the Eight Year Study. It was empha- sized that evaluation had to be based on measurable, be- havioral objectives.69 66Isaac L. Kandel, "Education and Social Disorder," Teachers College Record, XXXIV (February, 1933), 359. 67Henry C. Morrison, "Sincerity In the Present Situation," Educational Administration and Supervision, 68 Breed, "On Changes," 559. 69Ralph W. Tyler, "Evaluation: A Challenge and An Opportunity to Progressive Education," Educational Record, XVI (January, 1935), 121-31. 67 The essentialists did not quarrel so much with the methods advocated by the progressives as with their lack of direction and purpose. The essentialists claimed that it was the progressives who almost wrecked American society on the rocks of individualism.70 They also criticized the progressives' emphasis on the means and on the "now" aspect of society. Bagley attacked especially the idea that an experience which was not of immediate value had no place in the schoolroom. He also blasted the idea of using a value such as freedom as a means rather than seeing it as an aim.71 Another leading essentialist, M. J. Demiashkevich, called progressive education "a contemporary version of the age-old s0phistic tendency toward the extreme individualist emancipation from all permanent criteria of values and from all tradition.“72 Bagley indicated that more than two-thirds of the National Society for the Study of Education membership representing much of the leadership in education adhered to the theories of immediacy.73 However, an examination 7oWilliam Bagley, "Modern Educational Theories and Practical Considerations," School and Society, XXXVII (April 1, 1932), 414. 71 Ibid., p. 409. 72M. J. Demiashkevich, "'Traditionalists' Before a 'Progressive' Tribunal," Educational Administration and Supervision, XIX (December, 1933), 641. 73Bagley, "Modern Theories," p. 410. 68 of many articles by university and college professors of the 1930's indicated a trend toward a middle ground on this issue. For example, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Chicago thought that the moderates among both the progressives and conservatives were in substantial agreement. He thought that independent discovery was valuable but students also needed to accept ideas on the basis of authority. He also thought that activities resulting from interest had to be differentiated from those resulting from drives. Drill and discipline, he thought, were as valuable as spontaneity.74 Thinking educators were asking that their colleagues stop and ask what they were trying to accomplish before instituting or 75 Other doing away with certain educational practices. educators attempted to redefine progressive education in the later 1930's showing that it did not mean extreme ideas, that direction and structure were needed and advo- cated.76 Frederick Breed was a moderate who rejected in- strumentalism and adopted a philosophical position of 74Frank N. Freeman, "Proposed Educational Reform-- Some of the Major Issues," Nations Schools, XII (July, 1933), 30-33. 75William Bruce, "Some Sources of Conflict in Public Education," Educational Administration and Super- vision, XXI (April, 1935), 281-88. 76Denton L. Geyer, "What is Progressive Education?" Educational Method, XVII (October, 1937), 8-11. 69 realism related to the ideas of Whitehead and Russell. He believed that the very fact that we have educators illustrates the fact that life is not education. He be- lieved that there was a reality apart from experience. Therefore, one learned apart from experience in subject matter, and content had to be accepted along with activ- ities and projects.77 Another group of progressives took a modified stand on both the freedom of the child to develOp his own ideas and on indoctrination to change the social order. This group called for independent reconstruction. Accord- ing to this point of view, democracy was a method of achieving liberty and equality of opportunity and not a doctrine or creed. It was the "obligation of the schools to stimulate the young people to reinterpret their earlier beliefs and attitudes without pre-determining the con- clusion."78 Of course, most educators of the thirties, as evidenced by their writings, would not have categorized themselves as either essentialists or radicals. Most would have considered themselves "progressives" with many different connotations of the word. Few would have 77Frederick S. Breed, "The Liberal Group in Educa- tion," Educational Administration and Sgpervision, XXII (May, 1936), 328-29. 78Pedro Orata, "Conflicting VieWpoints in Contem- porary American Education " Educational Administration and Supervision, XXII (May, 1636): 374- 70 themselves counted as traditionalists. None wanted to return to the extreme formalism in instruction of an earlier day, and essentialists claimed as much credit for newer methods as did the progressives. Most of the writings of the professors of educa- tion dealt more with methods and curriculum than with social or political ideas. Although there was a smatter- ing of articles about indoctrination, mostly against, most educators retreated into curriculum reform as a more appropriate professional activity. Most educators offered neither support nor alternatives to the ideas of the radicals. This limited amount of social criticism from educators suggests that this is at least in part the rea- son for the isolation of the profession from other scholars and intellectuals who were being called upon by the govern- ment or who were creating a literature of constructive criticism. A broad survey of the writings of the professors of education in the colleges and universities during the period indicated the trend of ideas which were emanat- ing from this part of the educational hierarchy. One trend which was more a reflection of society and the times rather than of any particular group was the emphasis on the practical rather than the theoretical. Subjects had to have a close relationship to the student's life. Theoretical mathematics was to be shunned by most. 71 The only math needed was for everyday and household use. Vocational and technical education were stressed over science. Latin lost ground even though its advocates attempted to show how useful it was for budding doctors or lawyers. Although a few radicals had endorsed indoctrination for collectivism as the only way in which the schools could change society, the trend was in the opposite direction. The emphasis was on teaching students to think for them- selves and the improvement of their problem-solving ability. Controversial subjects were encouraged with the idea that students should arrive at their own conclusions about them. There was a great deal of anti-subject-matter feeling, the only vocal support coming from the more staunch essentialists. The turning from subject-matter structure to the use of a core or central problem approach was considered "progressive" much as the teaching without textbooks made one feel up-to-date in the 1960's. Although never well defined, the stress was on the "needs" of children and of youth rather than on lessons to be learned, or on subject matter. Although there was little emphasis on theories of learning, the popularity of Gestalt psychology brought about an emphasis on deal- ing with the whole child and individual differences con- tinued to be stressed. 72 Education for Democracy The later part of the thirties saw social reform- ers, progressives who wanted curriculum change, moderates who wanted to emphasize American tradition, all able to unite under the rubric "education for democracy." Democ- racy was the philOSOphy which could preserve the dignity of the individual, protect his rights, and place him above institutions. It would also be on guard against minority groups who would trample on these rights. At the same time democracy meant an interest in the other fellow and in the general welfare. The rise of fascism in Europe and of proto-facism at home was responsible for much of this thought. Education, both as a model of life experi- ences and as a preparation for life,should use and teach democracy. This idea of practicing democracy was nowhere more emphasized than in educational administration. It would seem from some of the writings and textbooks of the period that almost the sole task of the educational administrator. was to involve the total staff in planning and decision- making in the schools. One would assume from the heavy emphasis on democratic administration that most adminis- trators were authoritarian. On the other hand, it could mean that the administrators were so much better trained in education than the teachers (for which there is evidence) that the teachers had little to offer. Perhaps it was a 73 good way in which to institute in-service training. At any rate, the involvement of teachers in curriculum-making and decision-making was promoted by the idea of education for democracy. Research is needed to determine whether this increased or moderated curriculum change. Summary In summary, there was a rapid growth during,the 1930's of colleges of education in universities as well as the expansion of two—year normal schools into four- year teacher colleges. The number of advanced degrees granted in education and in educational administration and supervision increased more rapidly than the profession in general. As the number of teachers and administrators who were trained and the amount of training they received increased, the number and influence of college and univer- sity professors of education also grew. The spokesmen for education, whether representing teacher and administrator associations or contributing to a variety of education journals, were more often than not college or university professors of education. According to these university and college faculty members, education had to become truly professional in order to guide or change society. Educational administra- tion was to be a science consisting of a body of special- ized knowledge and techniques comparable to medicine or law. 74 One needed to partake of at least some portion of this professional training in order to practice the trade. Just as important was the building up of a large group of experts who from the vantage point of a university, through the scholarly exchange of ideas, and through re- search could develop theories and a more extensive pro- fessional body of knowledge. It also was suggested that educational administra- tion become an applied social science and that administra- tors should become agents instrumental in changing society. The training, therefore, of administrators was no longer to consist of technical courses in administration, but would include heavy doses of the social sciences, particu- larly sociology. Business efficiency was something to be downplayed in those days of business breakdown and social concern. A group of radicals of the Progressive Education Association, a small minority of educators, advocated that ’the schools be major and forceful agents in the changing of a society and economy which seemed in 1932 in desparate straits. Many of their colleagues gave lip service to the idea of a new social order, even if they were not quite as sure that the schools could or should help develop and lead it. However, most of the educators in higher education continued to be more concerned with methods, curriculum, 75 and the business and technical aspects of administration than with changing society. Most of the writings of educa- tion professors were about curricula and methods which would cater to the needs of students. Units or contracts, activities, and student involvement centering around a core subject were emphasized. The student, rather than subject matter or knowledge, was to be the focal point of education. Moreover, the subject matter studied had to be immediately useful in order to be relevant. Essentialists fought a rearguard action, stressing that there were es- sentials to be learned and some unchangeable values to be taught. Most of the internal criticism of professors of education about education and about their profession was the lack of goals. This was inherent in the nature of Progressivism and progressive education. In addition, both the crisis of the Depression and the recovery and reform measures of the New Deal caught educators unpre— pared. The idea of educators building a new social order was almost absurd for a profession which almost had been oblivious of society in moving from one panacea to another and which catered to the needs of the individual. The goals for the whole society were vague or unstated and, therefore, it was a relief for educators to be able to join together in the late thirties under the threat of Fascism andadvocate something called "education for democ- racy." 76 A case can be presented that the ideas of most educators, even the radicals of progressive education, were more like the idealists and protestors of the Pro- gressive Era than the reformers of the New Deal. As with the experimentalism which they followed, the progressive educators were without a philOSOphy and their goals and aims were vague. Although there was some advocacy of a more cooperative, collectivist society, most educators remained primarily concerned with the development of the individual and individual self-realization. The educa— tional progressives had not become completely severed from the ideas of Political Progressivism which spawned them, and education remained a sanctuary for individual- ism and competition. CHAPTER IV THE PAPER TIGER In times of crisis, a different kind of leadership is sought; autonomy ranks lower in most people's hierarchy of values than order and survival. Like the businessmen who were forced to look toward the national government for leadership and support, schoolmen too sought help from Washington. The administrative structure to provide aid for education to the states and local districts was already there, although in embryonic form. The question, then, re- mained: How much aid would be both tolerated and forth- coming, and how much leadership and control would come with the federal money? Background Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Repre- sentatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That there shall be established at the City of Washington, a Department of Education, for the pur- pose of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school 77 78 systems and otherwise PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF EDUCATION throughout the country. 39th Congress, 2nd Session Approved by President Andrew Johnson, March 2, 19671 Since education is not mentioned in the United States Constitution and the Tenth Amendment provides that powers not enumerated in that document should be reserved to the states, schooling is acknowledged as the province of the various states. De facto power due to historical circumstances and a unique system of financial support has rested with the local districts. This localism provided a fundamental problem from its inception; how could empiri- cally obtained educational results from thousands of local, independent laboratories become organized into a body of knowledge and how could better techniques thus reported be disseminated back again to the practitioners? The Of- fice of Education was the nation's answer to the problem. In its early years, the Office of Education was a mere bureau of statistics. As time passed it was commis- sioned with other activities: the administration of Eskimo and Indian schools in Alaska, more s0phisticated surveys, comparative education, Howard University, and the distri- bution of funds to land-grant universities. When the office was reorganized in 1930 there were five major divisions and five minor ones. The large number 1Department of Education Act, U.S. Statutes at Large, XIV, 434 (1867). 79 of employees seemed to imply growth, but the office was still a long way from a bureaucracy. However, the way had been found to broaden the scope of the Office by what came to be called the elastic clause of the Office, "pro- mote the cause of education." The first effect of the Depression on the Office of Education was to enforce greater efficiency and economy. Its budget was slashed along with every other budget in the country. Cut-backs were made; growth was paralyzed. Commissioner William Cooper in his Annual Report for 1933 felt that conferences of experts to discuss problems and make specific recommendations would be much more economical than adding more specialists to the staff, and yet would enable the Office to maintain its expert service.2 The staff also immediately mobilized to provide assistance to the state departments of education and the schools. Three investigations were immediately undertaken. One was to find out the exact situation and what the schools were doing to combat the problem. Another was to ascertain desirable economic practices. The other invest- igation, looking beyond the present crisis, was to seek out the innovations that would have lasting value, 2U.S. Department of Interior, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1933i(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1933i, p. 262. 80 especially such practices as related to desirable size and the benefits coming from federal and state financing.3 The Office distributed studies which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of small districts, the economy of larger districts and of central financing.4 They also as- sisted districts in streamlining their accounting systems. The research division put their efforts into kindergarten programs in a valiant effort to save them.5 The Commissioner also was cognizant as early as 1932 that unemployed adults would need educational opportunities.6 Nineteen thirty-three marked a milestone for the Office because it was the first time that federal funds were given directly to individual schools or paid to teachers in wages. Federal monies were used in school construction in all forty-eight states. Salaries were paid to teachers in rural schools to prevent their closing and also to teachers in nursery work, adult, and vocational education.7 3 4 5 Ibid., p. 239 Ibid., p. 240. Ibid., p. 242. 6U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Education, Annual Report of the Commissigner of Education to the Secre- tary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1932 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 27. 7Timon Covert, Federal Grants for Education, 1933- 1934, U.S. Office of Education, Leaflet, No. 45 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935), pp. 6-10. 81 The year 1933-34 was an active one under the able, invigorating leadership of a new Commissioner, George F. Zook. Commissioner Zook was with the Office only one year, but during that time he helped fashion the New Deal educa- tional emergency plan and brought to the Office of Educa- tion new heights of educational leadership. It was also during this year that vocational education, previously governed by a different board, came under the supervision of the Office of Education.8 Commissioner Zook worked closely with the PWA, NRA, and CCC in helping them to set up their educationa pro- grams.9 He also loaned personnel to the Federal Emergency 10 The Office administered and staffed the educational program of the CCC.11 In January, 1933 the Relief Agency. Office of Education in conjunction with the American Coun- cil on Education held the Conference on the Crisis in Edu- cation which had been called by President Hoover. The Conference established Citizens Councils on Education across the nation. These Councils became the bulwarks of 80.5. Department of Interior, Annual Repprt of Secretary of the Interiorfor the FiscaI_Year ended June 30, 1934 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, , p. 254. 9 Ibid., p. 254. loIbid., p. 261. llIbid., pp. 263-64. 82 defense against educational budget cutting and the cur- tailment of art and music classes.12 The Commissioner called another large conference for June to discuss education in relation to guidance, leisure, and employment. The conference developed a statement of basic principles to serve as a guide for the development of youth.13 Zook also took the initiative in developing pro- grams of federal legislation. In November, 1933 he called a select group of leaders to Washington to plan a confer- ence to discuss and adopt a legislative plan. As a result, a comprehensive legislative plan was projected and a lobbying committee appointed to push these bills through Congress. The bills failed, but it was not deemed a total loss because it helped to sensitize Congressmen to the educational needs of the nation.14 The Commissioner also kept the states alert re- garding vocational education. The Federal Board for Voca- tional Education reported in 1933 that schools must act as agents for industrial recovery through rational planning, training, and retraining for new and expanding fields of 12Ibid., pp. 257-58. 13Ibid., pp. 255-57. l4Ibid., p. 258. 83 employment.15 The Commissioner prodded the states to make greater efforts toward updating the programs of local dis- tricts and kept the state departments abreast of changing conditions, and even provided courses. Dr. Zook resigned on June 30, 1934 to become Director of the American Council on Education. By 1936 the worst of the crisis was over. Commis- sioner J. W. Studebaker asserted that it was a year of progress and development. Less federal money was needed and services and salaries were being restored. He also noted that educational objectives were shifting from sub- ject mastery to individual development and social well- being.16 Although the federal government had met the crises caused by the Depression, no permanent plan for federal aid had been formulated. The pre-Depression policy of patching up the established schools and filling in where there was the greatest neglect continued. Until the De- pression both of these policies had been pursued by per- suasion and by grants to the states. The Depression changed this and for the first time the Federal government 15Interior, Annual Report 1933, p. 289. 16U.S. Department of Interior, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1936 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 84 financed and administered, as emergency measures, educa— tional programs of its own. These programs were never in direct competition with the public schools, but sought to reach the extremely young, the old, the maimed, and the displaced. Through research, study, and conferences the Office of Education also sought to make the traditional middle-class public schools aware of children they were overlooking. Commissioner Cooper stated in his 1932 Report that while 100 per cent of the children in a democ- racy should be provided educational Opportunity, conven- tional schools were organized for the "normal majority."l7 If the relief programs were the most dramatic, the traditional policy of research, conferences, and demonstrations was the most consistent and in the long run more productive. Policies on adult education and pre- school education were a combination of traditional and temporary emergency programs. In both cases an effort was made to increase public education vertically--upward and downward. Commissioner John W. Studebaker was personally concerned with adult education. He had been very success- ful in establishing, with the help of a Carnegie grant, an adult forum in Des Moines, Iowa when he was superintendent there. By 1939 these local forums had spread to 17Education, Annual Report 1932, p. 14. 85 18 The adult education programs of thirty-eight states. the NYA, CCC, and WPA were also highly successful. For the first time adults outside of cities had access to educational programs above and beyond the traditional vocational fare.19 To combine these two movements Studebaker, with $600,000 allotted from the Federal Emergency Relief Appropriation, set up demonstration cen- ters in twenty-two diverse localities.20 The stated pur- pose of these forums was to continue the traditions of local democracy formerly expressed in New England town meetings, lyceums and Chautauquas. They were an attempt to arouse civic interest and provide training in democracy. While federal funds were used, the forums were administered by the local superintendent, and the school district selected the personnel. The movement was not without its critics. Many feared that it was a propaganda devise. Others charged that the forum leaders were too highly paid—- 18John B. Holden, "Adult Education and the Public Schools," Chap. 1 of Education in the States: Nationwide Qevelopment Since 1909L_ed. by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa- tion, 1969), p. 318. 19 Ibid., p. 317. 20Maris M. Proffitt, "Adult Education," Chap. iv, Vol. I of Biennal Survey of Education 1934-1936, U.S. Of- fice of Education, Bulletin, 1937, No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940), p. 69. 86 $450 a month, but no travel allowance.21 There was a policy change in 1938-39. Local districts no longer ran the program. Instead, the Office of Education, working with state departments of education, designed a plan to reach smaller communities. Regional centers were set up in 15 states with 196 communities being served.22 This was not and was never intended to be a per- manent program. The demonstration centers were to serve as models of good adult education. It was another way of showing the importance of adult education as an integral part of the public school system.23 Reforms in prison education were instituted in the Federal prisons in 1930 by providing trained educational staffs. No other area of adult education presented a more desperate need. The curriculum was broadened to include cultural subjects. The State of New York was the first to follow the government example.24 21U. S. Office of Education, Choosing Our Wey, Bul- letin, 1937, Misc. No. 1 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1937),p. 47. 22U. S. Department of Interior, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, ’i939 (Wash1ngton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1939), pp. 78- 79. 23U. S. Department of Interior, Office of Education, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education to the Secretary of thej Inter1or for Tthe Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1931 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, , p. 24. 24Proffitt, "Adult Education," p. 67. 87 Studies had been made in 1930 of pre—school and kindergarten education. One of the New Deal emergency measures was the establishment of federally financed nursery schools in 1933.25 The demonstration purposes of these nursery schools were deemed of great value. It was predicted that nursery schools would be incorporated into existing local units.26 Traditional Programs One of the most consistent progressive policies was the promotion and development of radio for educational purposes. Unfortunately, by the end of the decade it had reached a dead end. Beginning in 1930, a section of the Office was devoted to the educational implications of radio.27 In 1932, a senior specialist in education by radio was added to the permanent professional staff.28 Radio projects were begun in earnest in 1935. "Democracy in Action" went on the air in 1939. This was a half-hour 25U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Education, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended—June 30, 1930 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1:93—7—0 , p. 27. 26Interior, Annual Report 1936, p. 230. 27Education, Annual Report 1930, p. 42. 28Education, Annual Repert 1932, p. 3. 88 program which explained the federal exhibits at the WOrld's Fair. Historical, scientific and political science 29 To stimulate radio broadcast- programs were also begun. ing by school districts and colleges, a radio script ex- change was coordinated by the Office. About 72,000 scripts were exchanged. Local educational radio projects grew from 300 in 1936 to 800 in 1939 due to the service and encouragement provided by the Office. The office of educa- tion also put on a radio series with the National Congress of Parents and Teachers which was carried by seventy-five N.B.C. stations.30 The radio program was greatly curtailed in June, 1940 when the funds of the WPA were cut back by Congress and the Education Office lost its allotment.31 Thus, a great source of influence, information, and communication for educational direction was largely lost. Commissioner Studebaker summed up the difficulties of launching educa- tional radio programs: Congress, in drafting the basic legislation for radio evidently envisioned local stations serving local needs and interests much after the fashion of 29Interior, Annual Report 1939, p. 82. 3°Ibid., p. 80. 31Federal Security Agency, U.S. Office of Educa- tion, Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Education for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1940 (Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 194i), p. 93. 89 local newspapers. This would include service to local educational needs. But local educational programming has been retarded due mostly to difficulties of learn- ing new techniques and high cost of radio production. Without federal funds, advice, and service the educational radio venture had slim chances of getting off the ground. When the Office of Education was reorganized in 1930, a Division of Special Problems was created. The three main sections in this division were: special educa- tion, including physically or mentally handicapped and gifted children; atypical groups such as Indians, Negroes 33 and other minorities; and rural education. Of the na- tion's children, 49.3 per cent attending school in rural 34 The Office of Education, state areas as late as 1934. departments of education, as well as the National Educa- tion Association considered rural education as a separate problem because children in these areas were not consid— ered to have equal educational Opportunity. By 1931, a need was seen for a specialist in the socially delinquent, an indication of new displacements as society changed.35 The Division of Special Problems was strong on surveys but lacked aggressive leadership. The ghost of 321bid., p. 87. 33Education, Annual Report 1930, p. 27. 34Katherine M. Cork, "Review of Conditions and Developments in Education in Rural and Other Sparsely Set- tled Areas," Cahp. v, Vol. I of Biennal Survey of Educa- tion 1934-1936, p. 7. 35 Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 6. 90 Federal control was closely and emotionally intertwined with the Negro question. Rural areas were strongholds of localism. While surveys were made, and data collected about the education of Mexicans, the Appalachian poor, Negroes, and migratory workers, and deficiencies were found, little action was taken.36 The Office hired a specialist in Negro education, Dr. Ambrose Caliver, in 1930. His studies documented the Negro child's plight.37 He made speeches, wrote articles, and attended hundreds of conferences, but either there were more pressing problems or local middle-class leaders responded with apathy.38 As the curricular movement became more and more centered on individual differences and on instruction, the emphasis on the Special Problems Division shifted from atypical groups to individual "exceptional" children. In 1935 a report on curriculum construction for retarded 39 children was issued. In 1939, the two large projects for the year were studies on the education programs of 36Education, Annual Report 1932, pp. 15-17; Inter- ior, Annual Repert 1933, p. 247. 37 Interior, Annual Report 1933, pp. 248-49. 38Harry Kursh, The United States Office of Educa- tion: A Century of Service (Philadelphia, Pa.: Chilton Books, A Division of Chilton Company, 1965), p. 134. 39U.S. Department of Interior, Annual Report of Age Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30: 1935 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935): P. 298. 91 handicapped children in residential schools and of the provisions made for socially maladjusted children in regu- lar schools.40 In 1939-40, the staff visited delinquent residential schools to assist them in curriculum reform and in establishing better communication with their own state departments of education.41 By far the greatest effort put forth by the Office of Education during the thirties was in the field of voca- tional education. Vocational education included agricul- ture, homemaking, trades and industry, and after 1936, distributive education. Federal funds first went to the states for public schools in 1917 under the Smith-Hughes Act for vocational education. In 1934, when Congress passed the George-Ellzy Act, three million dollars were annually pumped into the states for vocational education. Two years later this legislation was modified by the George-Deen Act which raised annual Federal expenditures to over fourteen million dollars and extended coverage to distributive education. This money was distributed to the states on a matching fund principle with no further earmarking of funds.42 The Secretary of Interior's Report 40Interior, Annual Report 1939, p. 94. 41Education, Annual Report 1940, p. 6. 42Gordon I. Swanson, "The World of Work" Chap. vi of Education in the States, p. 297. 92 for 1935 noted that in the past the United States had re- lied on European apprentice programs to train skilled artisans who later immigrated into this country. With new immigration laws this source had dried up. An apprentice plan set up under the NRA had been declared unconstitutional. Since Wisconsin was the only state to have assumed responsi- bility in this area it fell to the Federal government to insure that programs were set up which were in the national interest.43 In addition to the distribution of federal funds, the Office of Education did studies, held conferences, and provided curriculum materials. Part of the funds went into the training of vocational teachers. For example, the home economics specialists campaigned for courses in sociology, science, and child development for both boys and girls so that they would be prepared for the effects of change on the home.44 Two massive surveys were completed during the decade: a survey of teacher training and a survey of 45 secondary education. The teacher training survey was useful to states for improving curriculum in teacher 43 Interior, Annual Report 1935, p. 322. 44Education, Annual Report 1932, p. 20. 45U.S. Office of Education, National Survey of Secondary Education, Bulletin, 17, 1932, Monographs 1-28 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1933-34); Education, National Survey of the Education of Teachers. 93 training institutions and in reforming teacher certifica- tion requirements. The survey on secondary education was necessary because it was here that the pressure of indus- trialization and the effects of the depression were hitting hardest at the schools, both because of increasing enroll- ments and curricular demands. A review of the publications and conferences held reveal further concerns of the Office of Education. Lead- ership was offered in the following areas: conservation, consumer education, motion picture evaluation, visual aids, guidance, parent education, and a bibliography was prepared 46 on religious education. The staff worked with the National Council of Teachers of English on a three year program to develop a structured English curriculum from first grade through college.47 Through library services and thousands of publica- tions, the Office of Education was able to reach out to even the smallest hamlet. Curriculum materials were col- 48 lected and loaned. Doctoral and master's theses were on 49 inter-library loan. Publications were sent without charge to state departments of education, libraries, 46Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 27. 47Ibid., p. 47. 48Interior, Annual Report 1939, p. 101. 49Education, Annual Report 1930, p. 30. 94 colleges, superintendents--over fifty thousand addresses 50 in 1931. School Life, the Office of Education magazine, led in sales all government publications. By 1939, the address list had grown to 186,992 and in that year alone 903,000 copies of the various publications were sold or 51 issued. Encouragement and advice were given to state school librarians in developing and evaluating libraries in every school in their states.52 BuildingyUp State Departments The Office of Education tried to exert its great- est leadership through the state departments of education. Equalization of educational opportunity within the states required strong state departments. The United States Of— fice of Education staff served as consultants on the states.53 They helped state departments of education -draft legislation.54 The National Survey on Teacher Pre- paration was done for state use as was a study on school financing.55 Advice in school plant planning was of great 50Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 28. 51Interior, Annual Report 1939, p. 103. 521bid., p. 99. 53Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 12. 54Education, Annual Repert 1932, p. 21. 55Education, Annual Report 1930, p. 11. 95 help to the States. Regional offices were established at state request to conduct research and offer consultant services.56 The federal office stimulated state departments in various ways. In 1936, a state school specialist was added to the Federal staff.57 The Federal Office promoted the equalization of state library facility access. Through extension services three million more people were served 58 Conferences were held with state in 1939 than in 1934. supervisors on elementary education. With state coopera- tion, conferences also were conducted on integrating the secondary curriculum. The elementary conferences worked up a program for the American Association of School Administrators Conference of February, 1939.59 In 1938 the Office of Education staff began a coordinated study of the programs of the state departments of education. It was a major study of about twenty vol- umes.60 In the same year, the office made an effort to establish standards for teacher training institutions.61 56Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 31. 57Interior, Annual Report 1936, p. 240. 58Interior, Annual Report 1939, p. 74. 59Ibid., p. 90. 60Education, Annual Report 1940, p. 6. 611bid., p. 15. 96 But the time was not yet ripe for the major role of pro- viding funds to equalize educational opportunities among the many states. Relationships With the Profession The relationship between the United States Office of Education and the National Education Association was always most cordial. In fact, the N.E.A. regards the Office of Education as its own creation.62 During the thirties the N.E.A. Legislation Committee lobbied for a Federal Department of Education and helped secure federal emergency grants to the states.63 But by 1938 the N.E.A. and the A.A.S.A. through their Educational Policies Com- mission were saying that there was danger of encroaching federal control. In the Commission's report, The Struc- ture and Administration of Education in American Democracy,64 were aspects of the Smith-Hughes law which controlled curriculum planning, personnel selection and the organiza- tion of schools. The Commission also objected to the con- cept of matching funds, arguing that this was a way of 62Edgar B. Wesley, NEA: The First Hundred Years: The Building of the Teaching Professicn (New York: Har- per & Brothers Publishers, 1957), p.52. 63 Ibid., p. 305. 64Educational Policies Commission, The Structure and Administration of Education in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, 1936). 97 pressuring state departments of education to spend their 65 money in Federally determined ways. The Commission, however, did feel that Federal support was more and more necessary due to increased mobility and communications among the population, making for a greater need for 66 The Commission 67 equality and uniformity among the states. recommended appropriations to states with no earmarking. General Trends Tremendous growth occurred in the Office of Educa- tion from 1930 to 1940. The greatest single factor affect- ing the number of employees was the absorbtion of vocational education late in 1933. This immediately added eighty personnel. The regular staff grew from slightly over ninety in 1932 to 225 in 1938. This excluded the CCC staff and those engaged in emergency and relief pro- jects. Appropriations also increased. Regular appropria- tions jumped from 300 million in 1932 to 900 million in 1938. Special expenditures for land—grant colleges, vocational education, and rehabilitation skyrocketed from two and a half million to nearly twenty-eight million 651bid., pp. 111-12. 661bid., pp. 108-10. 67Ibid., p. 116. 98 during the same period.68 There was a 50 per cent increase in incoming mail in one year as the decade drew to a close.69 The Depression years also brought about policy changes within the Office of Education. From 1930 to 1935, statements about aims and purposes of the Office of education were self-assured and consistent. As stated in the organic act, the purpose of the Office was to collect facts and disseminate the information. As the decade wore on, statistics gathering was implemented by more SOphisticated research such as in-depth field studies, historical research, direct experiments under emergency grants. But fact-finding was still the most emphasized activity. The Commissioners not only considered this as their basic function, but saw this as the best way to bolster the American system of local autonomy--a bias which they shared with other educators. Their second ob- jective--to influence the public--was consistent with this. The Office of Education should influence the public and educate them so that they could build better, more efficient schools. Adult education, parent education, and 68U.S. Office of Education, To Promote the Cause of Education: A Pictorial Presentation, Bulletin, 1938, Misc. No 2. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938). PP. 20-22. 69 Interior, Annual Repprt 1939, p. 104. 99 radio were all ways of promoting this objective. Not federal money, not federal control, but informational service was the toal.70 Commissioner Cooper's report for 1931 contains some slight suggestions of doubt that per- haps this was not quite enough. He characterized the year as one of searching "on the part of the Office of Educa- tion to find its real place in the scheme of American 71 It was the policy of the Office to hire education." young Ph.D.‘s to build up its research bureau. It was also to give these future educational leaders a national outlook,72 suggesting that national goals were not issu- ing forth from the heartland. Nineteen thirty-six was the first year of appear- ance for a section of the Commissioner's Report entitled "Policy Making in Education." The section stated the im- portance of working with state departments of education in "initiating and developing progressive educational practices." And further: "Handicapped groups are in serious need of special attention everywhere."73 70Education, Annual Report 1930, p. 1; Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 2; Education, Annual Report 1932, p. 27; Interior, Annual Report 1933, p. 263; Interior, Annual Report 1934, p. 277. 71 Education, Annual Report 1931, p. 1. 721bid., p. 10. 73Interior, Annual Report 1936, p. 251. 100 While educators throughout the nation were en— thusiastically embracing child-centered, individualized instruction, Commissioner Studebaker from a different perspective was able to say: The primary purpose of a free public education in a democracy should be to prepare youth for intelligent and independent exercise of citizenship. The improve- ment of personal competency and culture is second in importance. The CCC educational programs were able to state objectives by 1936. There had been no eduCational goals when the Corps was started. It was strictly a pragmatic approach typical of the early New Deal. The objectives were compensatory. They were consistent with the philoso- phy which gathered momentum in the Office during the de- cade--that of stimulating educational endeavor in all areas which were missed or bungled by the local systems. The first three goals of the CCC were these: eliminate illiteracy, provide remedial programs to cover school de— ficiencies, and job training.75 A 1938 survey found that 88 different courses were offered in the CCC, but 97 per cent of the young men were enrolled in 9 courses--basic- ally the skills and social studies. There was no per- scribed curriculum. In fact, no one was obliged to take part in the educational program at all. 74Michigan, Department of Public Instruction, News of the Week, Vol. III, No. 25 (January 25, 1936), p. l. 75 Interior, Annual Report 1936, p. 233. 101 Reflections It was inevitable that the United States govern- ment would have to intervene financially in education. There were too many inequalities. .Minority groups in some cases were almost completely overlooked or inadequately served. Antiquated tax systems based on an older economy could not bring in the money to do the job. Technical, remedial, and applied arts courses were much more costly than the straight academics had been. There was a tre- mendous imbalance of ability among the states to finance education. The highest proportion of youth to adults was in rural areas where there was the least ability to pay. Something had to be done. The Depression was the impetus to get the equali- zation of educational opportunity in a technical society started. In 1933, when the crisis was at its worst, local administrators sought and were given federal aid. The relief measures of the early thirties were exactly that-- relief and not a planned program. By 1937, it was quite evident that some form of federal aid should continue. In 1933, local administrators said they needed help, and by 1937 national leaders conceded the need. Help was needed in more fundamental ways than just to meet a crisis. Educationally, this crisis brought to national attention the problems of change from an agrarian to an industrial 102 society. If the social scientists are right in their as— sessment of change in saying that the greatest impetus for organizational change comes from the outside, then the Depression was a mixed blessing for the schools.76 President Roosevelt created an Advisory Committee on Education in 1937. The original purpose of the com- mittee was to study vocational programs, but it was en- larged to consider the whole relationship of the federal government to general education. The Committee recommended that federal aid should be continued. Grants should be made to the states for general aid, improvements of teacher training, school construction, improvement of state depart- ments of education, administration, adult education, and rural libraries. In addition, a grant which would reach three million dollars per annum should be made to the Office of Education for planning and research.77 Commissioner Studebaker recommended various ways in which the commission report could be implemented by the Office and legislation that would be needed to carry it out. Throughout his recommendations the two criteria of 76Daniel E. Griffith, "The Nature and Meaning of Theory," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, Sixty—Third Yearbook of the National Society fbr Ehe Study of Education, Part II (Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 117-18. 77U.S. Department of Interior, Annual Report of Ehe Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1938 (Washington, D.C.: GovernmenEiPrinting Office, 19387, p. 300. 103 equality and excellence were evident. It may be signifi- cant that he found it necessary to say that the government had another leadership role to play because: While industry may be expected to subsidize those sciences which are basic to industrial development, government must see to it that deve10pment in the social, economic, and civic phase of life keeps pace with the industrial developments of this machine age. There is little criticism that the federal govern- ment and the Office of Education played too dominant a role during the Depression. The criticism is of a dif- ferent sort. It can be said that the Office was too pragmatic--a finger in the dike approach which shied away from the more basic issues. It was initially without planning or goals. One writer asserts that it diversified and fragmented educational energies. Federal relief agencies such as the CCC, PWA, and NYA remained under federal responsibility and control. Federal programs sought not to duplicate state programs but supplement them. However, because of the way they were administered they never became integrated into the state systems. Nursery schools and adult education are good examples which thirty-five years later still cannot get off the ground without federal stimulus. The same writer argues that by not giving control of these programs to local educators 781bid., pp. 346-65. 104 (or even to the Office of Education), they never became traditional; they alienated educators, and caused a split in the profession about federal aid.79 In rebuttal there may have been something in the system of local control itself which would not warrant this transferral or faith that local school districts could carry out the reforms. There was not always a high level of local leadership. Hundreds of districts were too large or too small to be administratively efficient. The greatest deficiency of localism, however, was its re- sistance to change. The government meant many of these measures as stimulants for local school districts. It was hoped that local districts would permanently adopt some of the programs which were demonstrated and funded. Even programs such as pre-school education were dropped. Local district leadership followed the dictates of a citizenry which had not been sold on a program, and who were reluc- tant to alter priorities or to assess additional local taxes. On the other hand, the leadership of the federal government had stopped short of control. The Office of Education had an equal fetish about the sacredness of localism which deterred it from pushing harder. 79Harry Zeitlin, "An Abstract of Federal Relations in American Education, 1933-1943: A Study of New Deal Efforts and Innovations," Dissertation Abstracts: Ab- stracts of Dissertations and Monographs in Microform, XIX, Part I, No. 2 (August, 1958), 268-69. 105 Many economic and social reforms were carried out by the New Deal and yet, educators were reluctant to press for change in education. Educators from top to bottom did not seize the opportunity presented by crisis to carry out reforms which would have been equally as radical. CHAPTER V STATE DEPARTMENTS TO THE RESCUE? Background The responsibility of the state to provide free public schooling for the children of America has long been established. No state in 1930 had assumed this re- sponsibility in any great measure. The states performed only superficial supervision, and the schools were left to local financing and control. The varieties found among the forty-eight state departments of education are so great that to generalize much further is hazardous, but certain trends can be discerned. There were several trends operating toward school centralization. Control of teacher certification was definitely in this direction. Theorists, administrators, and teachers were advocating state certification of teach- ers and the raising of professional standards. Legislation was on the books in most states regulating attendance, minimal qualifications for county superintendents, certain areas of the curriculum, and in some states adoption of textbooks. These laws set the minimums very low and usually were the result of eratic political pressure rather 106 107 than of any comprehensive plan. Their impact on the schools consequently, was negligible, and state financial support actually was waning. An education text published in 1931 went so far as to say: "The suggestion that the state pay the major part of school costs would today meet with violent opposition in nearly every state in the Union."1 This was not the fault of educational planners. One could make quite a list of men in the profession who had spoken out on the issue of state support of education. The list would begin with Ellwood P. Cubberley in 1905 and continue with G. D. Strayer, R. M. Haig, and F. H. Swift in the twenties. Probably the best known of all was Paul R. Mort who was a prolific writer and speaker and had great influence in the thirties. All of these men advo- cated greater state action to equalize the disgraceful diversity of educational opportunity within the nation. Most state departments of education lacked the funds, personnel, and organizational structure to take any leadership role. Perhaps even worse was their subservience to party politics. In a 1930 survey of state departments, lFletcher Harper Swift, Federal and State Policies in Public School Finance in the United States TEoston: Ginn and Company, 1931), p. 96. 2R. L. Johns, "State Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education," Chap. iv of Education in the States, pp. 183-88. 108 two states listed political interference as impediments to their effectiveness. None of them listed lack of funds, lack of authority, or a need for federal aid. Only one mentioned the prevalence of tiny local districts and the taxation system as conditions needing reform. Only nineteen of forty-eight even replied--a further indi- cation of their conservatism.3 In the agrarian period of American history, a state department of education was not needed. Each vil- lage was educationally self-sufficient. State superin- tendents were appointed to gather statistics for the legislatures to serve as an indication of needed legislation. At the turn of the century, school inspec- tion and supervision was assumed by these departments. Administration of federal funds for vocational education became another responsibility for some departments, but some states provided for separate boards of vocational education. A 1933 study found that the staffs of educa- tion departments spent most of their time in routine unimaginative tasks--preparing curriculum outlines and bulletins, inspection and supervision, and working with 3Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association, Educational Leadership: Pregress end Possibilities, Eleventh Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: The Department of Superintendence, 1933), p. 255. 109 individual teachers.4 Even their non-statistical reports were more concerned with facts than with interpretations.5 In May, 1930, the N.E.A. Research Division pub- lished a handbook of standards for state departments of education.6 In an evaluation using those criteria, it was found that only half of the state departments could measure up on eleven of the twenty standards. The largest failure was the state boards of education. Most had too many ex officio members. Boards also lacked the authority to appoint the state superintendent. Top men were kept from the leadership post by residence requirements, poor salaries, and minimum professional standards, even when they were not elected. Their staffs were too small and poorly paid. The range of staff size was truly phenomenal. It varied from 8 employees in Arkansas to 594 in the state of New York. The study concluded that as presently 4M. R. Steffens, "The Relationship of State Depart- ments of Education to the Administration and Supervision of Local Secondary Schools," Department of Secondary- School Principals of the National Education Association, Bulletin, No. 47 (May, 1933), Abstracts of Unpublished Masters' Theses in the Field of Secondary School Adminis— traticn (Berwyn, 111.: Department of Secondary-School Principals, 1933), pp. 84-85. 5New York, University of the State of New York, Twenty-Eight Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year ending June 30, 1931, Vol. I (Albany, N. Y.: University of the State of New York, 1932), 42. 6Department of Superintendence, Educational Lead- ership, p. 253. 110 constituted state departments of education were a hindrance to education.7 Educational confusion was rampant in most states. No state had organized all educational functions under one board. One state had as many as 18 educational boards, and the total number of state boards for the nation was 348. In thirty-two states the superintendent was elected on a partisan basis.8 It was toward these types of organi- zations that local administrators would have to look for leadership during this period of economic depression and social disorientation. The Depression Even before the major effects of the Depression jarred the schools, school administrators knew they had problems. By 1933, they were saying: "The demand now is for leadership. Local school systems need guidance in overcoming their many difficulties."9 Some of the prob- lems were financial difficulties; lack of efficient administrative size; a need for curricula; research and 7Ibid., pp. 253-256. Italics mine. 8Walter D. Cooking and Charles H. Gilmore, Organi- zation and Administration of Public Education, Staff Study No. 2, Prepared for the Advisory Committee on Educa- tion (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938), pp. 98-99. 9Department of Superintendence, Educational Leadership, p. 265. 111 better personnel which involved certification and teacher- training reform. Some of these needs could only be met by the state, At first states were able to do very little. In 1932, with a staff of 703 employees (far from typical), 1,200 calls for advice and inspection of school buildings alone had to go unanswered in New York.10 However, as the Depression worsened, states did respond. State legislatures like the federal government passed emergency legislation. They lowered property taxes and teachers' salaries. They assumed more state control over budgeting and extended free textbooks. State finan- cial aid was increased. School consolidation was begun in earnest.11 While the efficiency of consolidation had been demonstrated and accepted in theory, application worked against strong local sentiments and caused antago- nism against the state.12 The federal government and new research were also putting additional demands on the educational facilities of the states. The number of standardized tests doubled during the thirties to a total of 2,600. The George-Reed 10New York, Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of Educa- tion, p. 10. 11Ward W. Keesecker, "A Review of Educational Legislation 1933 and 1934," cahp. viii of U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1932-1934, pp. 1-2. 12Robert M. Isenberg, "State Organization for Service and Leadership to Local Schools," chap. iii of Education in the States, 138. 112 Act of 1929 and the George-Deen Act of 1936 provided funds for vocational guidance--another service to be directed by the state.13 There were also the programs of adult education, vocational rehabilitation, improvements in special education which were being passed on by the feder- al government. State legislators were making their demands, too. Twenty-nine state surveys were made during this decade, at the request of the legislatures or the governors. In- terestingly, only two surveys in all forty-eight states were initiated by the state departments of education them- 14 Legislation involving state funds for textbooks selves. and state selection of texts also involved the departments. Compulsary attendance was achieved by the mid-thirties necessitating more sophisticated child accounting and bringing into the schools the social and psychological problems of those who had to attend. Legislative reform bills gave them new powers and duties: distribution of more state aid, district consolidation, budgetary controls, regulatory functions over certification and teacher train- ing, administration of tenure laws and retirement funds, 13Walter S. Crewson, "Pupil Personnel Services," chap. viii of Education in the States, pp. 349-52. 14Robert F. Will, Louise R. Murphy, and James E. Gibbs, Jr., State School Administration 1900-1955: Reports ef Major Surveys and Studies, U.S. Office of Education, Circular, No. 580 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1957), et passim. 113 and supervision over loyalty oaths. Legislatures also prescribed curricula. This involved supervision and the 15 Regulatory and development of outlines and syllabi. supervisory duties were prescribed by law for the depart- ments. Leadership did not come from within the departments. Minimum Educational Programs The financial crisis of the thirties forced educa- tors to look to their state houses for survival. But while they wanted funds, they wanted no strings attached. Local control must prevail. But the state had more than financial responsibilities as the theorists had been pointing out for years. Therefore, the idea of a state sponsored minimum educational program which had been created in the universities became very relevant. Once this concept received adequate support among local admin- istrators and state educational leaders, the division of authority could be worked out politically and profession- ally. Professors of administration were not all unanimous in their fear of state control. The early theorists-- 15Keesecker, "A Review of Legislation 1933 and 1934," p. 2; Ward W. Keesecker, "A Review of Educational Legislation 1935 and 1936," chap. viii of Vol. I of U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1934-36, p. 1; Ward W. Keesecker, A Review of Educational Legisla- tion 1937 and 1938, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1939, No. 16 YWashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939). pp. 1-2, 17-19, 24-25, 29. 114 Cubberley, Mort, Strayer, and Haig--equated democracy with home rule and innovation with local control. During the thirties another generation of financial planners came to the fore. Edgar L. Morphet and R. L. Johns wrote and were consultants to state departments at that time. Arguing that if the schools were the legal responsibility of the state, decisions made in state capitols were just as demo— cratic as those made in Chimney Corners. They also ques- tioned whether discrimination and nepotism were democratic. They thought the state should use its power to censor un- desirable educational practices as well as to provide incentives to districts to adopt desirable ones.l6 An- other theorist, Henry C. Morrison, was even more radical. He would abolish all districts and have the states direct- ly administer the schools, financing them through a state 17 The real income tax. This idea was not well received. influence of Johns and Morphet had impact only later. The theories of Mort were the accepted ones during the thirties. Another variable in state financing theory was how to compute a minimum foundation program in dollars. Cost could be stated in units such as so much money behind each child, or teacher, or classroom. The state also 16R. L. Johns, "State Financing of Education," p. 195. l7Ibid., p. 192. 115 could establish minimum requirements for such things as teachers' salaries and qualifications, school facilities, length of school year, and size of the district. Money then would be apportioned to those districts which lacked the local resources to meet the state standards. The two plans were really complimentary, but the second one, while equalizing many more factors also brought more control. With the high feeling about home rule which then prevailed, it was much easier to get the first plan through the legis- latures. This was the plan advocated by Mort, and it was adapted to various state needs by himself and his follow- ers.18 The states were making some erratic, stumbling attempts to set educational standards. In 1930, not one state specifically demanded school consolidation. Only six states required school closure when enrollment fell 19 below a certain bare minimum. Yet, in 1933 West Virginia achieved consolidation by statute. It abolished 450 dis- tricts and created 55 new ones along county boundaries.20 Under state leadership, 127,531 nationwide school districts 18A. W. Schmidt, Development of a State Minimum Educational Program (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932), pp. 2-3. 19 Ibid., p. 11. 20Isenberg, "State Organization for Service," p. 142. 116 21 The result of in 1931 were reduced to 117,108 in 1939. such consolidation was more course offerings, more ser- vices, and a higher level of professional preparation of the staff.22 There were other attempts at raising minimum standards. In 1935 South Carolina and West Virginia ex- tended the school year.23 Compulsory attendance laws were passed keeping youth in school until they reached sixteen.24 Certification requirements were raised and special cer- tificates were required in certain fields. Growth by legislation occurred in vocational and adult education. Other legislation extended retirment benefits, established tenure, improved transportation, increased health and safety facilities, provided free textbooks, and standard- ized teacher salaries. An Office of Education Bulletin mentioned three general trends for this decade: "(1) Increased state re- sponsibility for the financial support of public education. (2) A.Strengthening of state instrumentalities of control 21Lerue W. Winget, Edgar Fuller, Terrel H. Bell, "State Departments of Education Within State Governments," chap. ii of Education in the States, p. 78. 22Isenberg, "State Organization for Service," p. 148. 231nterior, Annual Report 1935, p. 276. 24 pp. 24‘250 Keesecker, "Review of Legislation 1937 and 1938," 117 over education. (3) The establishment of minimum state- aid foundation programs of State-wide application."25 Early in the thirties state departments set up committees to work with state educational associations on certification. The public was clamoring to lower standards to further deflate teachers' salaries. Departments needed backing from the entire teaching establishment to lobby effectively to deny these demands. It is to the credit of the state leadership that this attack not only was met and defeated, but strides were made in raising certifica- tion requirements. While only two states required bacca- laureate degrees in 1930 for elementary certificates, eleven states had this requirement in 1940. Baccalaureate degree requirements for secondary certificates were established in seventeen states by the end of the period.26 State legislatures also reacted to pressures from abroad. Communist and fascist threats in Europe produced a rash of loyalty oaths.27 The study of state and federal constitutions were prescribed by legislation. Instruction in alcohol, narcotics, and natural resources were ordered by law. Control was extended over private schools.28 251bid., pp. 1, 2, 29, 51. 26T. M. Stinnett, "Teacher Education, Certification, and Accredidation," chap. ix of Education in the States, 27Keesecker, Review of Educational Legislation 1935 and 1936, p. 23. 8Keesecker, Review of Educational Legislation l937 and 1938, pp. l7-l9, 49-51. 118 The most pressing problem for states to face was adequate and equitable financing of public education. The Depression only worsened the financial crises of the schools which was due to local financing. In 1933, there was a change of state policy, and the states began to assume their responsibilities. Property taxes were in- sufficient and inequitable so the states had to find new sources of revenue. Seven added an income tax, eight turned to sales taxes, and six taxed liquor and licences. wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington all made attempts at equal- 29 ization. The greatest increase in state aid in the twentieth century through 1966 occurred during the decade of the thirties--ll.9 per cent.30 Minimum standards for learning fared less well. Standards for courses tended to be expressed in ambiguous or non-measureable terms. State developed courses of study outlines were more concrete and helpful than listing of objectives. Achievement standards measured by testing were emphatically rejected by most educators.31 29Interior, Annual Report 1935, pp. 275-76. 30R. L. Johns, "State Financing of Education," pp. 180, 205. 31Schmidt, Development of Minimum Educational Program, p. 75. 119 Accountability for educational results was not part of the reform package. The trend was for the state depart- ments of education to conduct research and set minimum standards "to safeguard the communities against their own ignorance"32 and to upgrade the profession. However, no change was to occur in actual control. The chief supporters of more state aid and re- sponsibility have already been named. They were professors of educational administration. But the N.E.A. took strong stands on state support beginning in 1933. The Joint Com- mission on Emergency in Education of the N.E.A. and the Department of Superintendence sponsored a National Con- ference on School Finance which emphasized state support based on the Mort plan of equality and efficiency. It also recommended more aid from the federal government. In 1938 the N.E.A. established the Committee on Tax Educa- tion and School Finance to promote state and local financing. It included college and state department representatives. Many state superintendent associations also advocated increased state aid. The Michigan Associ- ation of School Administrators annually resolved that more state aid was needed. 321bid., p. 73. 33Michigan Association of School Administrators, 1933 Minutes of Meetings, Lansing, 1933, p. 177. (Mimeo- graphed.); MASA, 1934 Minutes of Meetings, Lansing, 1934, p. 183 (Mimeographed.); MASA, 1936 Minutes of Meetings, Lansing, 1936, p. 190 (Mimeographed.) 120 The U.S. Office of Education also promoted state financing beginning in 1930. They published surveys every ten years of amounts of state support and the level ob- tained of equality of opportunity in education. The Council of Chief State School Officers which was organized in 1928 and many state governors were instrumental in pas- sing needed legislation.34 In the state financing debate, the two value principles which frequently came into conflict were equal- ization and home rule. The home rule position was a con- servative one. Horace Mann first advocated the theory that all the wealth should be taxed to provide an educa- tion for all the children. Cubberley first advanced the thesis that it was the industrial revolution which caused the inequalities of wealth among the various school dis- tricts. This latter argument is used by state departments of education in securing funds.35 Mort's conservatism on the home rule factor was very influential in the thirties due to his influence as a theorist for state departments. But he was additionally concerned with the slowness of local communities to adapt to change. He found it took fifty years for established, 34R. L. Johns, "State Financing of Education," p. 202. 351bid., pp. 202-204. 121 sound educational practice to spread. Also he was con- cerned that so many districts were satisfied with minimum programs with no desire to improve. He added incentives to his theoretical model to counteract this. Yet, he truly believed that central control stifled initiative.36 The Educational Policies Commission also took a conservative stand on home rule. This seemed odd consid- ering some of the illustrious names who served on it. The new social order did not seem to include state control of education. If the schools were as bad as research had shown them to be, it would seem that a more radical or- ganization of structure would be in order. Schools were not serving minorities. They were deteriorating in the cities, and the curriculum was not keeping pace with rapid change. Yet the educational leaders were defending the local structure which produced all of this and extolling half-trained teachers from county normal schools as cur- riculum developers and decision makers. The Commission rightly condemned lay legislators as curriculum builders, but completely ignored the state departments as bodies of experts which could furnish direction, coordination, and incentives. A study conducted in 1932 to determine the atti- tudes of professors of educational administration, and of 361bid. 122 local school superintendents on the question of state versus local control sheds light on the opinions of work- ing educators. Both groups were more willing to delegate educational decision making to a state department of professional educators than to a lay legislature. The professors were more tolerant of state control than were the superintendents. Over 50 per cent of the interviewees thought the maximum portions of the education program should be left to the localities. Minimums were accepted as state responsibilities. State control over parts of the curriculum, minimum qualifications for superintendents, attendence, census, standards for buildings and equipment, the establishment of libraries, equality of opportunity for all children, and the establishment of taxation was accepted as state functions by 90 per cent of those polled. In addition, 90 per cent of the professors felt that mini- mum teacher certification requirements should be state- prescribed, and 80 per cent of the professors agreed that it was the responsibility of the states to provide lists of textbooks from which local districts could choose. Only 50 per cent of the superintendents would give this perogative to the state. More than 60 per cent of both groups favored state control over time devoted to each subject, standards of achievement, minimum salaries for teachers, tenure, free textbooks, and establishment of special schools. 123 Of those powers enjoyed by the state, administra- tors agreed that state departments should be charged with standards which defined the quality of education. Minimum requirements could be set by law. A majority of professors agreed on only four items which should be left to local control. They were the maximum length of the term, which textbooks should be used, which supplies would be furnished free of change, and the internal budget allotments. City superintendents agreed on all of these items, but in addi- tion, wanted to decide whether or not to employ supervisors, the maximum length of the day, the maximum local tax to be collected, and minimum class size. The report would indicate that superintendents would tolerate quite a bit of regulation from the state as long as they retained leadership in curricular and budgeting areas.37 The study concluded from the data that states had not exercised the control that educators would have per- mitted them. But control was only part of the problem. Existing tax laws would not have permitted the financing of even the minimum program. Regulation of teacher train- ing curricula would also be necessary for real educational reform to be effective. Administrative units would have to be changed. 37Schmidt, Development of Minimum Educational Program, pp. 36-52. 124 Mort had been campaigning for the substitution of county for district units, but his plan was not accepted by the electorate.38 In the end consolidation became more palatable and the worsening Depression was the impetus to solve some of these problems and effect some educational change. State Departments as Leaders There was some leadership growth by state depart- ments during the thirties. Fred F. Beach and Andrew H. Gibbs in their monograph "The Personnel of State Depart- ments of Education," chose 1930 as the beginning leadership stage of state departments.39 Up to 1900 state departments existed primarily for statistical purposes. The inspection stage lasted from the turn of the century until 1930. After 1930, real leadership emerged. No educational leader thought a minimum educational program was enough. State departments were leary about leaving it to local initiative to see that quality programs were pursued. Financial aid alone would not equalize educational opportunity. Guidance, the results of research, and motivation were also necessary. This logically fell to the state departments of education. 38Ibid., pp. 56, 88, 89. 39Fred F. Beach and Andrew Gibbs, The Personnel of State Departments of Education, U.S. Office of Education, Misc. No. 16 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1952). p. 3. 125 Most staffs were too small to provide leadership. In order to raise the educational levels of districts, a highly qualified professional state staff was needed. Staffs also would have to be expanded. In fact, state departments 40 These staffs grew over 100 per cent during this decade. staffs would have to be composed of men with a higher level of training than the former inspectoral staffs. They now began to be called consultants. Their aim was no longer supervisory but to furnish leadership and guidance. The Michigan Department of Public Instruction paper, News of the Week, reflected this policy shift. It reported that school visitations that year would seek to gather informa— tion to form an educational policy for present needs. Helpful service not criticism was the policy. Its ob- jectives were: "Professional growth of the teacher, im- provement in instruction, united effort, formation of a definite educational policy for the whole school, and a bolstering of faculty morale."41 These consultants used new techniques. First, they became available or "on call." They used teachers' meeting, demonstrations, bulletins, handbooks, instead of the old ways of visiting classes and working with 4oIbid., p. 6. 41Michigan Department of Public Instruction, News of the Week, I (September 27, 1933), p. l. 126 individual teachers. Two goals were uniform among the various state departments--equitability and coordination within subject matter and between disciplines.42 Curriculum research came into its own in the thirties. Curriculum laboratories or divisions were es- tablished in leading educational institutions following the example of Teachers College in 1928. Laboratories were established in colleges, city school systems, and state departments of education. In a survey of state departments, eleven of the twenty-three respondents had curriculum laboratories all of which had been established since 1930. The activities of these state curriculum laboratories included course construction, publishing, research, holding conferences, and directing local school systems in curriculum courses. Only one state department evaluated courses and materials. Leadership in curriculum improvement was found to be less common in colleges and universities than in state departments. Curriculum staffs were smaller in city laboratories than in state labora- tories and were often headed by an outside consultant. City laboratories developed courses of study rather than 42Katherine M. Cork, Supervision of Instruction as a Function of State Departments of Education, U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin, 1940, No. 6. Monograph No. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940), pp. 117-18, 122. 127 working with staffs in curriculum development. Long term research was avoided.43 Michigan, California, New York, New Jersey, Ten- nessee, and Alabama all made gains in curricular leader- ship. Michigan had a particularly energetic program. In January, 1934, the state superintendent of Public Instruc- tion established the Michigan Educational Planning Commission. It was a cross section of lay leaders who would chart the future course of education in Michigan. Its tasks were to define the goals of public education, to examine the financing of public education, to study school administration and organization, to determine the extent of free public education, to plan instructional improvement, to study teacher training, and to develop a policy of public relations.44 The goals were formulated in 1934 and adopted by the State Board of Education. Then the important task remained of implementing these goals and putting them into practice. To do this the Curriculum Steering Committee was formed in 1935. This was a com- mittee of professionals from various Michigan educational 43Bernice E. Leary, Curriculum Laboratories and Divisions: Their Organization and Functions in State De- partments of Education, City School Systems, and Institu- tiOns of Higher Education, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1938, No. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Of- fice, 1938), pp. 1-21. 44Michigan, Ninety-Second Report of the Superintend- ent of Public Instruction of the State of Michigan for the‘ Biennium 1931-33 (Lansing, Mich.: Franklin De Kleine Co., Printers and Binders, 1934), pp. 22-25. 128 institutions. They initiated two programs: a crash program to start improving instruction immediately and a long term program for careful review and revision.45 By 1937 lay participation was encouraged in cur- riculum work. By this time the curriculum program was extensive. The emphasis was functional and sought to re- late individual needs to the present society. It was based on the assumption that the community--lay and professional--"must become the dynamic element in planning 46 Bul- and executing an improved instructional program." letins were published, conferences held, a regional or- ganization was established to improve service to more remote areas of the state. New courses of study were developed, and special aids were provided for special groups. In an interpretation of the legal basis for our- riculum development, the Superintendent reported that the state fulfilled its constitutional duties through planning and appraisal, but that executive authority was best 45Michigan, Ninety-Third Report of the Superin- tendent of Public Instruction of the State of Michigan for the Biennium 1933-35 (Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1936), P. 21. 46Michigan, Ninety-Fourth Report of the Superin- tendent of Public Instruction of’the State of Michigan for the Biennium 1935-37 (Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1938). PP. 17, 22. 129 delegated to the districts. Any form of coercion was shunned.47 By 1940, the emphasis had changed in the Curricu- lum Program. Citizenship education was becoming dominant. Evaluation was another major thrust in order "to ground the program in realism and to level all pedagogical theo- ries by subjecting them to the acid test of effective- ness."48 An instructional policy was developed and distributed. Its basic philoSOphy was the school-community concept with experience as the basis of learning. The state department again expressed that the guide was neither authoritative nor mandatory.49 In its Third Report of Progress, the Michigan Curriculum Program listed its administrative policy with a rationale. Items one and three set the tone. 1. The relationships of the Department with local schools are based upon the service concept of educa- tional leadership. This concept is inclusive and democratic and should take precedence over such con- cepts as inspection, supervision, direction, the dis- semination of "rulings" or direct evaluation of local programs by outside agencies. 471bid., pp. 33-34. 48Michigan, Ninety-Fifth Report of the Superintend- ent of Public Instruction of the State of Michigan for the Biennium 1937-39 (Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public InstructiOn, 1940), p. 37. 49 Ibid., pp. 37, 74, 78. 130 3. The local community is responsible for planning, executing, and appraising its educational organiza- tion and curriculum. . . 0 The Lay Advisory Commission which was a descendent of the Educational Planning Commission and which served in an advisory capacity to the Department of Public In- struction had a set of principleswhich were quite similar to those of the Curriculum Program. Number two is es- pecially significant. 2. Adjustments in school organization should follow the general principles observed by the founders of the state, in which they emphasize the formation of school districts for neighborhood and communities of people of like interests, exercising democritic control over the operation of their schools. . .5 According to the educational beliefs of the time, many state superintendents did provide leadership. Lead- ership like teaching aimed at stimulation of activity. In the 1940 Report the Michigan State Superintendent of Public Instruction claimed that nearly all districts had been stimulated by the department to carry on some form 52 of curriculum study. Current theory was calling for democratic leadership. Under state leadership professors, 50Michigan, Department of Public Instruction, The Michigan Curriculum Program: Third Report of Progress, Bulletin, No. 311 (Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1939), p. 4. 51Ibid., p. 6. Italics mine. 52Michigan, NinetygFifth Report, pp. 39-40. 131 deans, labor and business leaders, teachers, citizens, and administrators were taking part in participatory curriculum building. Whether curriculums improved by this method is issue for debate. The advocates of this philosophy were more concerned about the process. They saw benefits in getting everyone involved and the value of in-service-training. The product was secondary. The involvement of the community seemed to erode the autonomy of the profession. Democracy and professionalism are frequent antagonists. There was one area in which state superintendents definitely lost ground. Teachers, especially rural ones, looked to state leadership. State teachers associations worked closely with the departments. They campaigned against elected superintendents and for lay state boards. Until 1934, every state superintendent was an ex officio delegate to the N.E.A. convention. But two things happened during the thirties which weakened this bond. Due to tenure and an increase in male high school teachers, class- room teachers assumed more power. This growth occurred over a short time span. There was a 53 per cent rise in high school enrollment between 1929 and 1934. As teacher power in state and national organizations grew, there was a shift of emphasis from improvement of instruction to teacher benefits. State and teacher goals overlapped but were no longer identical. Also during this decade 132 many state organizations appointed executive secretaries who took over many of the state department's functions in providing teacher services.53 Nevertheless, there still were calls for leader— ship from state departments. The New York Regents' study of public schools led to a call for a whole new educational program. Strong state departments were part of this plan. They recommended that the state department "adopt leader- ship based on research" as its central objective.54 They advised a policy of working to strengthen the professional leadership rather than dissipating their energies by work- ing with individual teachers. They were told to decentral- ize state supervision and encourage local research by using the Regents Examination as a catalyst for evaluation and experimentation in the districts rather than as an instrument of control. A need was pointed out for new materials to keep pace with the new curriculum develop- ments. Teachers often lacked the time to develop their own materials. They were encouraged to sponsor joint councils and conferences to work out problems. For state leadership to be really effective, it was recognized that 53Ibid., pp. 657, 664-65. 54New York, The Regents' Inquiry, Education for American Life: A New Program for the State of New York (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938), p. 64. 133 schools must be large enough to have supervisors and de- partment heads of their own.55 The Regents found that much of the dilemma the schools were facing was a result of lack of planning. Surveys, meetings, and resolutions were not enough. Re- gulatory power only could establish minimums. Persuasive and stimulating leadership had to come from an administra- tive staff devoted to excellence and whose authority was based on knowledge. If the Regents' plan were to be carried out, the actual work could only be accomplished by the department. In order to carry out this mission, the department must first be strengthened and modernized. But the Regents' Inquiry was not only an answer--it con- tained a plea for greater leadership from the state de- partments because the "public school system of the United States now stands at the crossroads. No state knows what to do for youth today."56 But the Regents backed down because they also said: There are two major foundations of the school system of the State of New York. One is the strong centralized State Department just described, the other is local educational freedom. The progress of Schools in this State arises from both of these elements. In spite of the great influence of the State Department for educa- tional advance, it is the conclusion of the Inquiry 551bid.. pp. 65, 107. 561bid., pp. 122-23. 134 that an even greater source of educational progress has been local freedom and the experimentation which this freedom has encouraged.57 This was not only their conclusion but their de- sire. State departments purposely had been kept weak. The President's Advisory Commission was equally insistent that the future quality of the public schools depended on strong state leadership. It found that local- ism had both strengths and weaknesses. Localism was successful in small and middle-size towns, but it broke down in the cities and rural areas. Another inherent danger of local control cited was the difficulty of main- taining a balanced program. There was considerable pres- 58 The arts, sure to get rid of the less practical frills. sciences, and foreign languages often had no local defend- ers. The committee recommended national,state, regional, and local planning boards and general federal aid to be administered jointly by state and federal agencies. The Committee asked for federal funds to aid the strengthening of the administrative services of state education depart- ments.59 57Ibid., p. 98. 58U.S., The Advisory Committee on Education, Ref port of the Committee (Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1938), pp. 7-9. 59 Ibid., pp. 197' 221, 203-04. 135 Reflections There were few educational reforms in the states during the thirties.60 The actions taken were merely ad- justments made to maintain the system. Rural Populists and political Progressives combined to substitute home rule and laissez faire activity for any real educational pro~ gress. Education in the name of democracy was used to maintain class interest. The activity movement and demo- cratic planning favored the middle-class children who did not need as much help with basic skills and whose home environment was less autocratic. Lack of goals and mea- surements hid the glaring deficiencies of the system. Real reform was against the interest of the American Association of School Administrators because reform brings a redistribution of power. Local administrators were seeking more power in the form of state financial aid but with no accountability attached to it. Over half of all state revenue was apportioned according to load without taking into account the districts' ability to pay. Only three states awarded state aid inversely to district 61 wealth. Through state compulsary attendance laws which 60Winget, "State Departments within State Govern- ments," p. 77. 61Timon Covert, State Provisions for Equalizing the Cost of Public Education, Bulletin, 1936, No. 4 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1936), pp. 47-48. 136 the educational establishment had lobbied for for years, the schoolmen had a complete monopoly over youth. But mon0poly did not bring equality. Tracking, not compensa- tory education, was the answer to social differences. While priding themselves on a democratic "one track"62 system, within the system the socio-economic classes were treated differently. This was rationalized by a liberal concern for individual differences. Taking the schools out of politics was consistent with standard Progressive policy. In theory, this would seem to imply more professionalism, but, in fact, it worked out to insure that the schools remained an instrument of the establishment. Minorities were neutralized when edu- cational administration was removed from the arena of public and political debate. At large, non-political school board elections in the districts always had worked to insure that representation would be from the majority constituency. It also insulated educators from the political fact that state school monies were apportioned politically and only through building up support within various political factions could reform legislation and financing be pushed through the legislatures. 62Educational Policies Commission, The Structure and Administration of Education in American Democracy, p. l. 137 Leaving curriculum design to teachers and laymen guaranteed the status quo and encouraged anti-intellec- tualism. It was hardly a group which would produce theory, empirical data, or tough-minded reforms. Education, long hailed as the guardian of democracy, was sacrificed on its altars. State gains in control were mainly illusory. There was actually less prescriptive legislation passed than early in the century.63 Supervision was replaced by "leadership." Achievement testing was going out.64 There was no real reorganization of structure. Consolidation usually involved only the very smallest districts, and in many states this was only at their request. Decentraliza— tion of city systems was neglected. Little administrative machinery was forged to carry quality education to the pupils or the teachers. Many guidelines never reached them. The growth of state education offices was in the lateral, staff direction. But to the sons and daughters of Progressives, these adjustments were reform. There was lay and local 63Alex Baskin, "An Abstract of Education and the Great Depression: An Inquiry into the Social Ideas and Activities of Radical American Educators during the Econ- omic Crisis of the 1930's," Dissertation Abstracts: Humanities and Social Sciences: Abstracts of DiSsertations Available on Microfilm or as Xerographic Reproduction, XXVII, Part I, No. 2 (August, 1965), p. 474A. 64Walter W. Cook, "Tests, Achievement," Encyclo- pedia of Educational Research, lst ed., p. 1285. 138 control, room for individual initiative, activity and a child—centered approach. That this might reduce American culture to the lowest common denominator was not thought through or perhaps sacrificed to immediacy. Schools must be a leavening agent in a leveling society. Stress on individualism hardly prepared students to live in a mass society. The federal experience demonstrated that change comes with grants. Force is needed to bring change. The disorganized, localized, democratic, committee—run educa- tion profession was far too flexible to be any real force at all. State departments lost a real opportunity during the Depression to bring aggressive, determined leadership. State superintendents were too timid to assume vocal positions and herald public support for equalization and rational planning. The law was on their side, but tradi- tion was stronger. Fears of public antagonisms and hostile legislatures prevented superintendents from pursuing strong public relations. Lack of funds was a proverbial handicap.65 Yet, a professional statesman was called for to lead educators on a middle ground between extrinsic and intrinsic extremism. 65Richard G. Gray, "Public Relations in State De- partments of Education," chap. xvi of Education in the States, p. 743. 139 One member of the Educational Policies Commission has since reversed his opinion of how quality is imbued into the schools. Speaking before a meeting of state superintendents in 1964, James Bryant Conant, commenting on his views during the thirties, said: I came to envision the American scene as one in which the local school board and the local superintendent were the all important agencies for carrying out American public school policy.66 The Educational Policies Commission reports were addressed to them, and Conant presumed if they read these reports, they could do the job. He felt then that the less said about state departments, the better. But the demand for educational reform and equalization of educational oppor- tunity never became a mass movement. Without the coercive power of the state real reform would not be forthcoming. Democratic leadership by state departments was not enough. 66Winget, "State Departments within State Govern- ments," pp. 123-24. CHAPTER VI CONSERVING DEMOCRACY Introduction To establish the fact that a large group of edu- cational experts had been ensconced at the top of a large and developing educational hierarchy has not been a dif- ficult task. Much of the growth in educational leadership had come since World War I and continued to grow during the thirities. There was also growth in federal and state interest in and control of education. These leaders, whether at education schools of universities or attached to state or federal bureaus, constituted a profession apart from college and university scholars who had in- fluenced education in the past. They were also different from the officials of the turn of the century, sometimes politically chosen, who passed out information and col- lected statistics from one-room school districts. They wrote voluminously in books and journals about the theo- ries and mechanics of education. The emphasis no longer was on material and numerical growth and with business efficiency as it had been in the twenties, Educational leaders in the thirties wrote curriculum guides and 140 141 suggested new structures and new teaching techniques. Although it had been difficult for educators to articulate goals and objectives for American education, the Depres- sion did cause them to ask questions about American society. They continued to be more concerned, however, with the individual and his role in society than about society itself. To ascertain the extent to which the concerns and ideas of the experts and advisers became the ideas and concerns of the practicing school administrators is more difficult. This chapter will survey, analyze, and sum- marize the stated ideas of school administrators. The background and training of school administrators, the ef- fect of the political, social, and economic developments of the decade as well as the impact of the educational hierarchy on them will be examined. The emerging field of school administration covered a wide range of positions in education. It included superintendents of districts educating a few hundred students to those educating hundreds of thousands. It included principals and supervisors who spent much of their time teaching. Superintendents from the larger districts were in close association with the university professors and state departments and moved frequently into these positions themselves. (The movement in the profession was seldom the other way.) For many, professional 142 training and formal education ended after graduation from the local teacher's college. Background and Training A study of the social understandings of the super- intendents of schools by Frederick Bair gives the follow- ing picture of the background of a typical superintendent of 1933.1 He was born in 1890, was of Anglo-Saxon stock and was long settled in this country. He came from an agrarian culture, usually raised on a farm where a primary concern was man as an individual against nature. He needed to have initiative and to be resourceful. There were few experts in those days. His parents usually had finished common school only. Books were rare and reading was not a common pastime in the home. He went to a small denominational liberal arts college. He had been in the teaching profession for eighteen years. He was likely to live and work in a rural area, village, or small town. He attended church regularly and conscientiously. He was a leader in his community, belonging to one or more ser- Vice clubs, and was a frequent speaker at local gatherings. Bair emphasized that the school administrator's roots were in an agrarian age and that his ideas were lFrederick Bair, The Social Understandings of the Superintendent of Schools (New York: Bureau of Publica- tions, Teachers College Columbia University, 1934), pp. 26-33; Carter Saunders, "Self-Portrait," The Nations Schools. XVIII (August, 1936), 25-27. 143 formed in the pre-World War I era--that he was in essence provincial. Bair rated the superintendents on a scale develOped by Manly Harper2 to show that superintendents were conservative and that they tended to impose tradi- tional and authoritarian prescriptions upon the young.3 Bair, being one of the more radical educators of the period, wrote concerning the superintendent that something should "move him from the firm base of his sturdy Republi- 4 That superintendents in Michi- can (1898) inheritances." gan did tend to be Republican was borne out by a straw vote taken at their 1932 fall meeting which showed them favoring Hoover over Roosevelt forty-six to five.5 A survey by the Department of Superintendence con- firmed much of Bair's findings, but differentiated between the city and rural superintendents. The rural superinten- dent was more likely to have been the product of a normal school while 72 per cent of the city superintendents had been educated at liberal arts colleges.6 It also was 2See Manly H. Harper, Social Beliefs and Attitudes of American Educators, Columbia University Contributions to Education, No. 294 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927). 3Bair, Social Understandings, p. 31. 41bid., pp. 28-29. 5"Third Annual Conference of City Superintendents at Traverse City," Michigan Education Association Journal, X (October, 1938), p. 97. 6Department of Superintendence, Educational Lead— ership, p. 105. 144 found that the city superintendent was better read than the rural superintendent. The Atlantic Monthly was read by 44 per cent of the large city superintendents while only 12 per cent of the rural superintendents reported reading it.7 The number of superintendents with higher degrees was increasing steadily. In Michigan, in 1934, the aver- age superintendent in the larger schools had 1.28 years of graduate training. The average for all superintendents 8 By 1933, 57 per cent of the superintendents was .88 years. in the nation held masters' degrees and a significant number (10 per cent) in large cities had doctorates.9 Most of them had been elevated to their positions from the high school principalship, and a majority of them had majored in and taught math or science. A trend that could be noted is that in their graduate work a larger percentage of rural superintendents majored in education as graduate students than did city superintendents, and a larger per- 10 centage majored in education in 1933 than in 1929. The 71hid., p. 126. 8E. J. Jennings, "The Status of the Superintendent in the Public Schools of Michigan" (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Michigan, 1934), p. 13. 9Department of Superintendence, Educational Lead- ership, p. 106. loIbid., p. 109; w. w. Coxe, The Study of the Secondary School Principal in New York State (Albany, N.Y.: The University of the State of New York Press, 1929), p. 21. 145 implication was that the younger and less experienced superintendents were more likely to have done their graduate work in education (see Chapter III). Not as many facts are available about the social backgrounds of principals and other administrative per- sonnel. It may be assumed that if a large percentage of superintendents came from the ranks of high school principals, the background of the principal would be similar to that of the superintendent. However, in some smaller systems principals were often little more than head teachers. By 1930-31, the number of high school principals with masters' degrees was equal in number to those with bachelors' degrees. There was a lag of about three years behind superintendents.ll Surveys showed that principals had taken more recent professional courses than teachers. They took such courses as Administration and Supervision, High School Administration, Tests and Measurements, and School Finance.12 They ranked supervi- sion and methods of instruction as their most valuable courses. They read their state educational journal and 11J. R. Shannon, "Academic Training of Secondary School Principals in the United States," Bulletin of the Department of Secondary School Principals of the National Education Association, No. 5 (December, 1934i, p. 11. 12G. W. Bannerman, "Principal Facts," Nations Schools, XVI (September, 1935): P. 30. 146 perhaps one other professional journal.13 Most professed to read one professional book per year, but many could not list even one non-professional book which they had read.14 Although in large systems the principal regarded his position as being more challenging than that of the 15 in the smaller systems a principalship l6 superintendent, was regarded merely as a stepping stone. The small high school principal had a heavy teaching load which gave him 17 As late little time for leadership or administration. as 1938 in Nebraska where 42 per cent of the secondary school principals were women, only 12 per cent of them had masters' degrees. They still spent 93 per cent of their time in teaching and supervising study halls.18 The status of the principal had grown during the decade of the thirties. He had been better trained and l3Orlie Clem and James F. Murray, "The Status of the Pennsylvania High School Principal," Educational Ad- ministration and Supervision, XIX (September, 1933), pp. 449-450. 14Thomas H. Briggs, "Some Characteristics of Secondary School Principals," School Review, XLII (March, 1934), p. 14. 15Otto W. Haisley, "The Principal as Social In- terpreter," Clearing House, IX (October, 1939), 100. 16Harlan Koch, "The High School Principal Looks at Himself as Educational Leader," School Review, XLV (June, 1937), 453-54. l7Clem and Murray, "Status of the Principal," p. 450; Bannerman, "Principal Facts," p. 30. 18Cecil Winfield Scott and Harold D. Reid, "The Public High School Principal in Nebraska," School Review, XLVII (February, 1939), 123-24. 147 was given more of a leadership role in the area of cur- riculum and instruction and given greater responsibility in initiating new ideas and in administrative authority. Criticism of Administrators However, professors who did studies on administra— tors were far from satisfied with what they saw and learned about superintendents and principals. Bair told what a superintendent should be. He should be the "purposeful ambassador between an imperfect society that is passing and an improved society that is coming. . ." This "must be apprehended with convincing clarity, first of all by the superintendent himself. He has too largely allowed 19 Bair's findings himself to be shaped in a lesser mold." prompted him to be harsh on the superintendent. The superintendent had to fight such things in his background as "bigotry, narrowness, provincialism, plain ignorance, and a tendency to be satisfied to guide his life with an inadequate search for truth." His college education could not have been functional and his graduate work dealt merely with administrative techniques. He needed to re- educate himself from scratch and to liberalize his social views.20 19Bair, Social Understandings, p. 26. 20Ibid., p. 20. 148 Newlon was also concerned that the superintendent was narrow and that he did not have enough contact with liberal or radical groups.21 He thought that the superin- tendnent had accepted for too long without question the American political and economic systems.22 For example, the superintendents were for prohibition until the bitter end and had endorsed women's suffrage only at the last minute.23 The Educational Policies Commission felt compelled to state: "not all public school officials represent the best of the profession. Education . . . has its share of novices and mediocrities."24 Paul Mort, in a study of schools in 1941, also saw a lack of educational leadership on the part of principals. He found them more concerned with orderliness and regularity than with innovation.25 He attributed this partially to the fact that most of them had been science and math teachers who did not see the broad educational 21Newlon, Educational Administration as Social Polic , Report of the Commission in Social Studies, Part VIII (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934), p. 130. 221bid., p. 145. 23Ihid., pp. 161-62. 24The Educational Policies Commission, The Pur- poses of Education in American Democraey, p. 136. 25Paul R. Mort and Francis L. Cornell, American Schools in Transition: How Our Schools Adapt Their Prac- tices to ChangingeNeeds: A Study of Pennsylvania. (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941), p. 215. 149 26 Another frequent observer of schools dur- objectives. ing the period who favored leadership from principals rather than from specialists said that evidence was lack- ing that the principal made a contribution. He was too 27 Another educa- often judged by a well-organized school. tor who conducted a survey on how superintendents felt about principals said that while principals were respon- sive to forces which made for educational change, the posi- tion of principal had not yet emerged professionally. The principal was still manager of the plant and as yet had not become an educational leader.28 Once again, it should be kept in mind that a large part of education «as rural and scattered. Charles Judd found in New York that most of the district superintendents had received little or no training and that they spent most of their time dealing with reports, school property, and boards, and had little time for supervisory duties.29 Although the school administrators themselves in- sisted on the concept of local control, it was the very 27Harold Spears, The Emergieg High School Curricu- lum and its Direction (New York: American Book Company, 1946) I pp. 32-35, 315. 28Harlan Koch, "The Superintendent Judges the Principal's Contribution to Secondary Education," School Review, XLIV (October, 1936), 594-96. 29Charles H. Judd, Preparation of School Personnel: The Regents Inquiry (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938), p0 340 150 close association with the local power structure that pre- vented them from assuming a real leadership role. That studies of school boards showed them to represent the vested interests and to be educationally as well as politically and economically conservative was not surpris- ing.30 Furthermore, many boards Still maintained a direct kind of leadership and administrative control which boards in business had long delegated to executives. The criticism by fellow educators, historians, and sociologists was that administrators too often followed the path of least resistance and gave in to the established order. Newlon asserted that superintendents acted in the same direction in which pressures were operating.31 Bair indicated that the superintendent had allowed himself to drift into the position of being the community football.32 Melby said that one of the problems of educational leader- ship was that administrators were not assumed to be part 33 of the profession but rather representatives of laymen. An educator from the Office of Education put it another 30George S. Counts, The Social Composition of Boards of Education: A Study in the Social Control of Public Education, Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 33 (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1927), pp. 78-79. 31Newlon, Educational Administration, p. 136. 32Bair, Social Understandings, p. 30. 33Melby, "Building a Philosophy," p. 19. 151 way. "The smaller the school, the closer it is to the people, the closer to the people, the more difficult it is for an educational leader to be progressive."34 Lloyd Warner found that superintendents' success was based on avoidance of criticism rather than on how students were educated.35 Willis Rudy, in his recent history of educa- tion, also characterized specialized school administra- tion as reflecting the dominant currents around them. Administrators had to show themselves to be conventional and practical minded.36 At the same time, much of what was considered to be innovative came from the very pressures resented by educators. Businessmen and the National Association of Manufacturers supported vocational or other subjects which had a direct bearing on business.37 The public in general approved of courses which were "practical." Even the expansion of art and music programs came about because 34W. H. Gaumitz, "Small High Schools in the Na- tional Survey of Secondary Education," Clearing House, VIII (April, 1934), 467. 35W. Lloyd Warner, Democracy in Jonesville: A Study of Quality and Inequality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 199. 36 Rudy, Schools in an Age of Mass Culture, p. 80. 37Newlon, Educational Administration, p. 209: Roger B. Magnuson,_WThe Concerns of Organized Business With Michigan Education, 1910-1940" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963), p. 158. 152 of public pressure, and they were sustained by public de- mands.38 On the other hand, there is evidence that school boards and the public expected the superintendent to be an educational leader and not merely an administrator. The Jackson, Michigan, school board accused its superintendent of failing to correlate courses and methods between ele- mentary, intermediate, and high school; of disorganization of the teaching personnel; and of failing "to reorganize professional educational theories that have laregly been abandoned." The board threatened to hire a director of education responsible only to the board.39 Although there has been a tendency in recent his- tory for laymen to be critical of education in times of crisis, most of the criticism in the early thirties came from within the profession. The public and outside agencies ignored education. A search through several newspapers of the period showed that, except for the financial problems, schools were having, the press gave very little space to education in the early thirties. However, the articles which did appear were more likely to be critical than com- plimentary. The cause of education was not championed until recovery was well under way.40 38"Classroom and Campus: Superintendents Studied," New York Times, March 12, 1933, Part IX, p. 12. 39Jackson (Michigan) Board of Education Proceed- ings, March 9, 1942. 40Educational Policies Commission, Research Memor- andum on Education in the Depression (New York: Social Science Research Council Bulletin No. 28, 1937), p. 123. 153 Business was generally critical of the schools in the early thirties according to a study on the subject. To some businessmen, the education of the period was no 41 Business more than a cruel method of brainstuffing. was also against public spending and in essence was compet- ing with the schools for dollars. However, by the late thirties business undertook a gigantic public relations project to use education to sell the public on free enter- prise.42 Business generally supported programs which produced the kind of worker it wanted-—one who would be politically and economically sympathetic to the nation and to free enterprise.43 One study of the period between 1910 and 1930 in the Mesabi Iron Range towns, where the school boards were dominated by mine superintendents and business men, showed that educational leaders were not always affected by busi- ness pressure. The educational leaders in this study re- peatedly demonstrated their invulnerability whenever educational policies were at stake.44 41Magnusson, "The Concerns of Organized Business," p. 10. 42Ibid., p. 11. 431hid., p. 151. 44Timothy L. Smith, "Review of Educetion and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools by Raymond E. Cailahan" in History of Education Quarterly, IV (March, 1964), p. 77. 154 Farm groups tended to oppose business and wanted to finance education with taxes other than those on pro- perty. Labor backed education, but their efforts on its behalf were negligible. The evidence in at least one state, Michigan, is that the state education association did not speak out on political issues which affected edu- cation.45 Reaction to the Depression The reaction of administrators to the Depression was delayed until the real economic and financial impact hit them. They did not question the basic American social and economic system as did some of the more radical educators. Therefore, up through 1932 their concerns were mildly stated. They recognized that more teaching about economies was needed and seemed prepared to tighten their belts a bit. The resolutions committee of the N.E.A. in 1932 made statements to this effect. In addition, they advocated history and social studies courses which would help citizens to understand economic crisis.46 It was not until the banks failed and school dis- tricts were unable to collect taxes that the normally 45Magnusson, "The Concerns of Organized Business," 46National Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXX (Washington, D.C.: N.E.A., 1932), pp. 671-673. 155 conservative administrators gave their assent to some of the anti-business, anti-establishment feelings of the progressives. The N.E.A. Proceedinge for the year 1933 told quite a different story. In that year schools closed early, teachers went unpaid, and expenditures in many dis- tricts dropped 25 per cent. The Report of the Joint Com- mittee on the Emerging Crisis in Education included the following statement: The fact which should absorb the attention of these [business] leaders is that their shortsighted and in some instances, selfish and dishonest manage- ment is one of the prime causes which has reduced the income of the American people. . . .47 The Committee on Resolutions asserted that there was an "organized attempt by certain vested interests to cripple "48 The same commit- the public school system of America. tee also complained about the unequal distribution of in- come and began to look to state and federal governments for tax reforms to help remedy inequities.49 Between 1933 and 1936, school administrators by the hundreds spoke out against the system, especially against business. The superintendent of New York City took an attitude about businessmen typical of the older Progressives, deploring the selfishness, ineptitude, and 4711616., V01. LXXI (1933), 679. 481bid., p. 675. 491bid., p. 677. 156 complete inability to suggest a way out of the Depression.50 The superintendent of Oakland, California, who claimed to represent 1,000 members of the Department of Superin- tendence, declared that all of the basic industries should be taken over and run by the federal government. Educa- 51 The tion would become a part of this corporate state. superintendent of Pontiac, Michigan, said: "Local control and local initiative are as obsolete as 'rugged individual- ism'." He advocated federal and state control.52 An elementary principal speaking out against the system said that the competitive system, along with the spirit of nationalism, had shown its futility and should be replaced by the idea of service.53 A high school principal lashed out at the press which was advocating going back to the little red schoolhouse and railed against the "wealthy- selfish" who did not want to support public education.54 50Harold Campbell, "The Contribution of the Public Schools," N.E.A., Proceedings, Vol. LXXII (1934), p. 550. 51William Givens, "Education for the New America," N.E.A., Proceedipgs, Vol. LXXII, pp. 647-649. 52James H. Harris, "Can We Have Our Cake and Eat It?" Journal of Education, CXVII (February 18, 1935), 105. 53Rose Bland, "Some Aspects of the Program of the Elementary School as it is Planned to Meet the Challenge in this Period of Social Change," National Education Asso- ciation, Proceedings, Vol. LXXIII, 361. 54H. H. Ryan, "The High School Principal Looks to His Faculty," Clearing House, VIII (January, 1934), 353. 157 The president of the A.F. of T. blamed the Depression on bankers and on the low morals of public servants.55 Many administrators including those mentioned above also used the crisis as an opportunity to express their ideas for needed changes in the content and struc- ture of education. Typical was the MedfOrd, Massachusetts superintendent who wanted to "fearlessly clear the cur- riculum of such subject matter than has no immediate social or economic value. . ."56 The Oakland superintend- ent spoke of a new social science based on contemporary issues which would be the central core of the new educa- tion.57 The general tenor of the published articles of practicing administrators was an emphasis on cooperation, service, and a social motive rather than on individualism. They advocated an increased emphasis on social studies programs which stressed contemporary problems. Life and living, they said, should be the subject of the schools. Children should be taught to desire those things which make for constructive and spiritual growth rather than individual gain and material acquisitions. At the same time, they emphasized more than ever individualization as opposed to mass conformity, 55"Public Mind Held Socially Degraded," New York Times, June 28, 1933, p. 19. 56J. Stevens Kadisch, "A Comprehensive Program of Public Education," N.E.A. Proceedings, Vol. LXII, 626. 57 Givens, "Education for the New American," p. 648. 158 differentiation as opposed to equalization, and meeting immediate as opposed to deferred needs. Also creeping into many of the articles and speeches critical of the system were the older virtues of hard work, honesty, and thrift. The Depression and Youth One of the results of the depression most diffi- cult for administrators to face was the additional number of youth remaining in high school. Of course, this trend had been growing due to more extensive compulsory attend- ance laws, but the lack of employment opportunities accen- tuated it. In spite of the fact that administrators had long spoken out against schools being preparatory for life and for college, they were not prepared for the change. Their middle-class biases seemed to have made them assume that many of these youth could not succeed academically and that some should take nothing except vocational courses. This attitude may have influenced the "catering to the needs" idea for all students. Many statements by admin- istrators gave the impression that they felt that they were saddled with a burden that should not be theirs. The influence of students was considered one of their greatest "problems." This inundation of "inferior" students not only altered the expectations they had for high school students, but had a great deal to do with altering the 159 curriculum. In some cases they frankly spoke of these students as the cause of declining standards and achieve— ments. A report of the U.S. Office of Education expressed the problem as most administrators saw it. The report stated that the NRA minimum employment age would become permanently sixteen and that the fourteen to sixteen age group would, therefore, continue on in day school. The report went on to state: "Obligation rests directly upon school authorities to face the problem of providing for this group of future citizens who cannot benefit by fur- ther formal academic instruction, some alternative educa- tional discipline from which they may be reasonably expected to derive benefit."58 There was a definite feeling that all students cannot and should not go to college. However, the gen- erally held belief that the high schools of the thirties were designed for college preparation is open to question. The conclusion was that over four-fifths of high school students, and especially the "new load" of unemployed youth, needed a different kind of education. Although there was no foot dragging, and there was much emphasis placed on educating all of the youth, there was a feeling of condescension toward those who were referred to as low ability students. Even though much was said condemning a 58Interior, Annual Report 1933, p. 281. 160 caste system, it was accepted that those students who, because of their social and economic status would have been working except for the depression, should have a different kind of education. Terms such as inferior- superior, and top-bottom frequently were used. These "new-comers" of "low mental ability" would be placed in "differentiated" programs where they would be indoctrinated for "citizenship" and be given special vocational courses along with "minimum" essential tools.59 Intelligence tests were relied on and used to point out that a lowering of I.Q.'s of high school students over the years meant that there should be a more "varied" program.60 In a study of vocational ambitions of high school students comparing them with their fathers' occupa- tions, the authors attributed the high ambitions of child- ren of laborers to poor guidance.61 59See for example The Regents Inquiry, Education for American Life: A New Program for the State of New York (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938), pp. 6— 26 and E. D. Grizzell, "A Survey of Secondary Education in Philadelphia," The Harvard Educational Review, VIII (March, 1938, 172-174. 60Havrah Bell and William Proctor, "High School Population Then and Now--A Sixteen Year Span," School Review, XLIV (November, 1936), 693; William A. WetzeI, "Forty Years a Schoolmaster," Bulletin of the Department of Secondary School Principals of the National Education Association, No. 57 (May, 1935), pp. 15-19. 61 691, 693. Bell and Proctor,"High School Population," pp. 161 The director of the NYA in New York City said: "It is dangerous to fill the heads of children with $5 worth of knowledge when they can assimilate only 5¢ worth. The children must be given what they can use." By this he meant vocational usbjects which could get them jobs.62 "Catering to the needs" of students resulted in the integration of subject matter, differentiated courses (tracking), fewer requirements, a greater variety of sub- jects and more electives, an emphasis on vocational educa- tion, and less emphasis on "mastering" a skill or body of knowledge.63 Certainly, reform was needed where retention or "failure" and the repeating of all of the subjects in a grade was common in both elementary and high school. The superintendent of Newark, writing about his school system when he took it over found that one-fourth of the pupils had failed first grade, and one-half had failed one of the first three grades. His answer was an activity pro- gram and an emphasis on individual differences.64 In 62"Big Change Urged in School Courses," New York Times, November 25, 1936, p. 21. 63Chicago, Board of Education, Annual Repert of the Superintendent of Schools for the Year ending June 11, 1936, pp. 103-114. 64John Logan, et al., "Representative School Sys- tems--Newark," Journal of Education, CXIX (April 6, 1936), 198. 162 addition, many of the programs designed for the pupils from lower-class homes seemed to be well-designed and well- executed.65 On the other hand, this trend could be viewed as a typical pragmatic American expedient. Equality was sacri- ficed in the name of progress. The very lack of educational goals for society and the emphasis on meeting individual needs may have helped to bring this about. Not all educators, including those who published, were sure that a formal education was for everyone. One principal stated what might have been in the minds of other educators: The public is even beginning to realize that it is possible to a certain extent to over-educate types and classes who will not only never use the training given them, but will not even appreciate it. . .there has arisen a serious questioning whether a good many pupils did not remain in school to no special advant- age either to themselves or to the school. A New York City assistant superintendent denounced large scale education as it had developed in the United States in the twentieth century. He declared that the efforts to salvage poor-grade students was "largely 65Chicago, Annual Report 1936, pp. 106-114, 145-151. 66James Newell Emery, "Let's Analyze School Costs," Journal of Education, CXVI (June 19, 1933), 318. 163 fruitless" and advocated "super high schools" for the brightpupils.67 That middle-class education perpetuated a caste system cannot be doubted when out of thousands of pages of articles and proceedings from professional education journals of the thirties, not one word was found crying out against segregated education for the Negro in the South. In describing his school system the superintendent in Lexington, Kentucky pointed out as exemplary the train- ing of Negroes as cooks, waitresses, and maids, because this was what 80 per cent of the Negroes did. He said that if the schools did not train them well for such em- ployment, housewives would do their own housework.68 There is a question then as to whether the catering to the needs of individuals by the schools was a democratic movement or whether it was a way of training youth for a more static, pluralistic society with the retention of power by the middle class. There is little doubt, however, that the middle— class idea of education being the gateway to opportunity and a better life still prevailed. When George Counts, 67"Educator Charges Miseducation: Recommends Super High Schools," Journal of Education, CXIX (January 20, 1935), 54. 68Henry A. Hill, "Representative School Systems-— Lexington," Journal of Education, CXIX (December 7, 1936), 518. 164 in a speech in 1933 suggested that education should not be for the purpose of avoiding manual labor, an editorial in the New York Times responded, why not? After all, what is wrong with using education as a way to lift us from brute labor and to provide more leisure?69 The same question might have been asked of the move toward the non-partisan election of school boards. Was it democratic or was it a means of preserving the traditional middle-class power structure? The Democrats, who generally represented a broader spectrum of the people complained in Bronxville, New York in 1936 that the move to a non- partisan board had been prompted by the inroads that the Democrats had made in the traditional Republican territory in recent years. The non-partisan system, they said, was merely a ruse to keep the Republicans in power.70 Views of Administrators The impact of the Depression on the public schools has been alluded to several times. The advice and criti- cism of professors of education have been recorded. The position of federal and state departments of education has been noted. It is also possible through a survey of the 69"Schools are for EverybOdYI" New York Times, May 15, 1933’ p0 12' 7o"Democrats Oppose School Board Plan," New York Times, January 19, 1936, sec. 2, p. 2. 165 writings of practicing administrators to discover how they viewed their roles, how they saw education in rela- tion to society, and how they responded to the criticisms and challenges which had been directed at them. A composite picture of what administrators thought a good administrator should have been in the thirties re- vealed a man not too different from the kind of person one would expect any executive to be. He should have a pleasing personality, be able to meet and handle people, be inspired and an inspiration to others, and be an ef- ficient businessman. He should also be flexible, although in education circles the word democratic usually was used instead. It was also in vogue to emphasize educational as well as business leadership. Most felt that they were progressive, by which they meant that they were willing to change and experiment, even at the risk of some resist- ance by school boards. They did not mention additional traits which education professors thought they should possess--intellectual and scholarly interests and crea- tivity. Neither did they mention professional preparation or state educational goals other than that of preparing individuals for life in a democracy. When it came to the relationship of schools to society, most administrators took a middle or conservative position. They accepted the idea that society and tech- nology were changing and that education should change with 166 it. Most, however, believed that education should reflect rather than lead society. None, except for a few mentioned above who spoke out during the peak of the crisis, wanted to indoctrinate students for a very different kind of society. The important thing was to give pupils free rein to develop as individuals to their fullest capacities. They had no doubt that the romantic and Progressive idea of individual self-realization would create a better society. The superintendent of Spokane, Washington, stated that both the classical and up-to-date scientific think- ing were needed in order to deal with everyday life. He also stated: "It is not the function of the schools 71 either to hamper or enhance social change." Another typical statement is one made by the superintendent of Minneapolis: "The Minneapolis schools cannot build a new social order, but they can train pupils to think clearly 72 about social problems." The superintendent of Indiana- polis made a similar statement: Those who would have the American Public schools lead a social revolution and would have them so train our pupils that they in turn would more or less violently remake the world, have overlooked one of the distin- quishing characteristics of our schools . . . the 71Orville C. Pratt, "Viewing Our Work in Perspec- tive," N.E.A. Proceedipgs, Vol. LXXV (1937), pp. 165-167. 72Carroll B. Reed, "Representative School Systems-- Minneapolis," Journal of Education, CXVIII (October, 1935), 437. 167 freedom of choice of its graduates in the field of politics, economics, and social attitudes.7 A panel discussion of the Yearbook Committee was recorded in the N.E.A. Proceedings for 1935. The two professors on the panel, John Childs and Jesse Newlon, were very critical of American society and its economic system. The three superintendents on the panel supported the social order as it was, emphasizing the development of the individual.74 Some administrators were much more frank and real- istic. A high school principal said, "The high school principal can seldom do much to bring about a radical 75 In writing about the change of view in the teacher." qualifications for a superintendent in a small community, a principal wrote that "He cannot afford to be classified as a revolutionary nor as a reactionary. He must keep his feet on the ground."76 The statements of principles of educational leader- ship were broad and inclusive and were aimed not only at 73Paul C. Stetson, "Representative School Systems," CXIX (November 2, 1936) 466. 74N.E.A. Proceedings, Vol. LXXIII (1935), 534-559. 756. W. Willett, "As the Principal Sees It," The North Central Association Quarterly, V (December, 1930), 404. 76Donald L. Simon, "Desirable Qualifications for Educational Leadership in a Small Community," American School Board Journal, LXCV (November, 1937), 22. 168 conserving the society, but also the profession. For ex- ample, a list of principles in the Elementary School Journal included this one: "All supervisory influences should reach the teacher through the principal."7.7 Nor did they go out on a limb with this statement on philoso- phy. The principal "should be directive or creative, intermittent or continuous depending on the situation."78 Thus, most administrators saw themselves and thier school systems as forward looking and progressive. By this they meant mostly in terms of adopting the latest innovations which were thought to improve learning and help the pupils deal with a "changing world." Their writ- ings did not indicate that they wanted to change the system. Although many held old anti-Wall Street views, they were, by and large, political and economic conserva- tives. They did not seriously question the basic American social system. Their educational mission was to see that their schools gave the pupils the ability to understand and cope with problems and with change. Educational Practices and Techniques Most of the educational methods and ideas about learning espoused by educators in the thirties already 77"Basic Principles of Instructional Leadership," Elementapy School Journal, XXXVI (March, 1936), 485. 78 Ibid., p. 458. 169 have been alluded to. These ideas centered around cater- ing to the needs of children and youth. This had come about in the 1920's in part because of the progressive education movement with its emphasis on the individual. Also the lock-step method was looked down upon because disadvantaged students were holding the better students back. The retention system where a large percentage of pupils were held back for a year was demeaning for the students and costly for the schools. The idea of meeting individual needs also met with the approval of administrative leaders as the Depression struck. The emphasis was more than ever on the usefulness and practicality of education. Studying ancient history would not help you understand the Depression and reading Shakespeare could not help you get a job. Administrators who wrote during the period seemed to be in general agreement with their mentors in the universities with respect to the practices and innovations which they supported and attempted to implement. A list would include the following: differentiated classes (ability grouping), non—grading for slow students, educa- tion for the atypical (special education), health programs, guidance programs, improved libraries, integrated or core curriculum, activity and participation by the learner, vocational education, music, art, physical education, and adult education. Education for citizenship also was 170 emphasized. It was advocated that social studies and con- temporary problems be the core of the curriculum. Administrative structure and practices which admin- istrators supported were: total staff involvement in curriculum change, larger administrative areas, the com- munity-centered school, more state and federal aid without jeopardizing local control. Although the talk was about teaching pupils, not subject matter, the emphasis was still on what was to be studied. The curricular revolution, if there were any, was the shift of emphasis to the practical and useful. This was in a sense a conservative trend. The same admin- istrator who could tell his constituency that the schools were emphasizing the three "R's" was also talking about revolutionizing the schools by teaching only what was practical and useful. Current events dominated the social studies; current novels and short stories replaced other forms of literature in English; students wrote letters instead of compositions; character education was to be achieved by being cooperative in class rather than through literature or by example. Vocational education grew by leaps and bounds, and separate technical high schools were popular. In terms of actually interpreting what "progressive" education was and to what extent it was advocated by admin- istrators, researching the professional journals indicates 171 that administrators were more moderate and more consistent in their interpretation of what progressive education was and their advocacy of it than were the university profes- sors. In the first place, most administrators defined progressive education differently than professors. In answer to a question, "What is a progressive school?," put to a number of educators by a writer from the Journal of Education, the professors' talked about doing away with external formalities, making education self-active, etc. The one superintendent polled said that it was any school making an effort to go ahead or that progress was anything of which a given person approves.79 Some suggested prac- tices in the name of progressive education called for less recitation in front of the teacher and more self-drill activities which one would assume good teachers had always 80 done. Other moderate superintendents felt compelled to institute different structures such as the Winnetka or Bronxville plans in order to encourage their teachers to 81 change. Other superintendents simply straddled the fence saying that good schools are both conventional and 79"What Is a Progressive School?," Journal of Educa- tion, CXV (October 17, 1932), 572. 80Sidney G. Firman, "Taking the First Steps in Progressive Education," Progressive Education, XII (January, 1935), 30-34. 81Frank R. Wassung, "It Can Be Done," Education, IV (May, 1935), 538-540. 172 progressive, not necessarily Progressive with a capital "Po ll 82 Most believed that progressive education had been beneficial, but that it was a fallacy to conclude that traditional practices were ineffective. Many felt that progressive schools did not have a monOpoly on new educa- tional techniques. All believed in structure, training, instruction, and discipline even though they also accepted the idea that teachers should cater to the child's nature.83 There were also those who frankly argued in favor of the conservative school, saying that it was more like life and that there could actually be more c00peration.84 If the school is like life it should be a well-ordered day of work, play, and rest.85 Those administrators tending to emphasize progressive education seemed to put more faith in methods and techniques while the moderates were more likely to recognize the importance of an artistic teacher. In an attempt to compare ideas which administrators put to their school boards and staffs with those published in professional journals, a number of board proceedings 82Hill, "Lexington," p. 518; W. C. McGinnis, "Pro- gressive Education--Pros and Cons," School Executive, LV (November, 1935), 117. 83Roscoe Pulliam, "How Much Freedom in Education?," Elementarnychool Journal, XXXV (September, 1934), 23. 84William H. Smith, "Cooperation--A Myth or a Real- ity?," Clearing House, IX (January, 1935), 293. 85Raymond S. Michael, "What's It All About?," N.E.A. Proceedings, Vol. LXXIII (1935), 358. 173 and annual reports of various local school boards were examined. While curricular matters seldom showed up in board proceedings, annual reports tended to display not only course offerings but the ideas behind them. Board proceedings did indicate the increase in vocational edu- cation and also suggested that much of the community in— volvement in schools through adult education, recreation, and other special programs was a result of public demand along with the availability of federal aid. The annual reports indicated that the superintend- ents and their staffs said much the same things to the citizens as they said to each other. The superintendent from Grand Rapids said that curriculum work was necessary because "the shifting of emphasis had been from formal and antiquated subject matter to the child—centered 86 school." Superintendents seemed to want to explain to their constituents that schools were not like they used to be--that they were more diversified and that more was ex- 87 pected of them. Life was different than when they were in school, with the schools now having to provide through 86Grand Rapids, Sixpy-Third and Sixey-Fourth Annual Reports of the Board of Education of the City of Grand Rapids Michigan for the School Years Ending June 1935 and June 1936, 14. 87Cambridge (Massachusetts), Annual Report of the School Committee and Superintendent of SchooIs, 1939, p. 22. 174 actual participation those experiences which children could no longer encounter on their own.88 Most superintendents emphasized and explained dif- ferentiated programs, activities, student involvement, integrated and correlated courses, and in general all special attention given to the individual. They were especially proud of the programs for the physically and mentally handicapped and of vocational and adult classes. Unlike the articles in proceedings and journals, however, they showed no hostility toward the system or toward the business world. The superintendent of Hamtramck, Michigan, said that economic and social unrest were not necessarily a sign of unhealthy social organization, but were merely outward manifestations of a democracy making adjustments.89 The major criticism of schools by professional edu- cators was that education was not suited to the needs of contemporary youth. It certainly did not, they said, do much for the large numbers of low ability students. School was not enough like life and the activities in which youth liked most to engage were not found in the school. All of 88Chicago, Annual Report 1937, p. 11. 89Hamtramck, Education For Democraey; Annual Report Hamtramck Public Schools, 1936-37 (Hamtramck, Michigan: Board of Education, 1937), p. 2. 175 this of course resulted in recommendations for vocational and useful subjects as discussed above.90 Another criticism was that in the larger systems too much of the authority was retained by the central office with principals being bypassed and schools losing 91 This could well lead to the question- their identities. ing of the validity of much of the research upon which this paper is based-—published statements of superintend— ents. Much of what filtered down through a bureaucratic structure to the teachers may have been either ignored, resulting in little change, or misunderstood, resulting in little education. Education for Democracy One of the most significant trends in administration in the thirties was the educators' interpretation of democracy. One of the results of this was a gradual move away from the planned and cooperative kind of society pictured by some educators in 1932-33 back toward an emphasis on the individual. In terms of staff-teacher relations, the result was that the teacher was often left to his own devices. This was not because educational leaders were idling their time away. Many excellent 90"Faulty Aims Laid to High Schools," New York Times, June 5, 1939, p. 19. 91Grizzell, "Education in Philadelphia," p. 175. 176 curriculum guides were prepared by the larger districts and by state departments of education. Courses were com— plete with pupil activities, teacher and pupil resources, and included very scientific approaches to learning. They were probably indispensible for teachers in one and two room districts. Administrators, however, were extremely reluctant to promote the use of this material and empha- sized that these were only suggestions which could properly be ignored by the teacher who wished to teach something different or do it his own way. Two critical statements by leading American educa- tors point out what they view as misconceptions of Ameri- can democracy. One was Mortimer Adler who said that educators were afraid of the authority of a prescribed curriculum, "as if democracy did not depend on leaders and followers, rulers with authority and subjects . . ."92 Another famous educator, Ellwood P. Cubberley put it another way. He said: We have thrown both teachers and pupils largely on their own resources, with the result that either in- struction has been very poor or both teachers and pupils have made marked development in initiative and in ability to care for themselves. The most prominent characteristic of many of our schools has been the former.93 92"Educators Debate Morals vs. Science," New York Times, May 7, 1939, p. 27. 93Ellwood P. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States: A Studyand Interpretaeion of American Educational History, Revised edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1934), p. 758. 177 As has been stated before, educational radicals and conservatives alike were able to unite under the ban- ner of democracy. To the conservative, democracy meant rule of the majority, and faith in the ability of common man to decide the issues which shaped his destiny. It meant individual initiative, self control, and responsi- bility. To the radical, democracy signified change, growth, and the freedom to develop one's values and criteria for truth. It meant not imposing one's ideas upon another. A great deal of emphasis was placed on teachers being free to teach what they wanted, free of local pressure groups. All educators tended to use the words democraey and education interchangeably. For example: "Education Offers to society the only possibility of rational and 94 The Fif- orderly change in the interest of humanity." teenth Yearbook of the Department of Superintendence made democracy synonomous with liberalism. Almost all pressure groups except the American Civil Liberties Union were de- nounced. The writers were certain that the middle class was likely to fall to Fascism and the only hope for 94Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association, The Improvement of Education: Its Interpretatien fer Democracy, Fifteenth Yearbook (WaShing- ton, D.C.: The Department of Superintendence, 1937), 116. 178 95 The democracy was a strong and militant labor movement. radicals sounded much like they did in 1932-33 except that they were now stressing liberty more than they were equal- ity. However, the goals of liberals and conservatives in education were scarcely distinguishable. Individualism, local control, a profession with power and influence were the goals of both. The expressions on education and democracy of the Educational Policies Commission were more conventional. Democracy meant an interest in the general welfare, plac- ing the individual above institutions, a belief in the dignity and worth of each individual. Education in a democracy included self-realization, civic responsibility, human relationships, and economic demands as its objec- tives.96 In terms of administration, there was almost unanim- ity that educational leaders had to be more democratic. This meant that administrators needed to defer to their teaching staffs for curricular and other decisions. Some went to the extreme of saying that all administration and supervision was autocratic and would be no longer needed when teachers were better trained and prepared.97 95 Ibid., pp. 73-90. 96Educational Policies Commission, The Purposes of Education, pp. 7, 33. 97Alonzo Meyers, "Will Education Go Democratic?" Clearing House, XI (January, 1937), p. 265. 179 Educational theorists stressed that the leader- ship of administrators should not be vested in their authority. The "progressive" administrator pointed with pride to his system of committees which was set up to develop new curricular ideas and courses of study. Of course, the teacher was also told that the same kind of democracy should be taking place in the classroom with students sharing in the planning and decision making. What educational leadership was saying in the late thirties in many ways bore little resemblance to their utterings at the beginning of the financial crisis in 1932-33. Whereas in the early thirties the leaders were hoping for more cooperation and a better planned, more equalitarian society, in the late thirties they emphasized democracy which meant local autonomy catering to individual desires and freedoms, and a lack of faith in the corporateness of society. Middle-class control of education continued. And even though administrators seemed to control teacher organizations, they were re- luctant to exercise real educational leadership with teachers. As the growing prosperity silenced most who had questioned the establishment, the spector of Fascism made Americans wary of anything centralized and institutional- ized. However, even the most progressive middle-class educational leaders could not erase their heritage of 180 individual initiative, competitiveness, and the idea that individual self-realization was tied to economic and material success. On the eve of the beginning of WOrld War II the New York Times reported on a Congress on Education For Democracy at Columbia to which had been invited delegates from business, government, religion, and representatives from Europe's remaining democracies. There was the usual emphasis on individual differences, the freedom of teach- ing, and democratic structures. There was a concern by some about getting in a war to preserve the democracy of someone else. There were reservations about forcing adult problems on the attention of children too soon. The con- servation of local responsibility and initiative was urged. Education seemed to be regarded as something to help pre- serve what they had. The whole flavor of education for creating a more dynamic and changing society was gone.98 By the end of the thirties, democracy was becoming something that was taught in units and bolstered by assem- bly programs emphasizing patriotism. Directives to this effect were sent down from central offices.99 98"Seminars Draft Citizenship Course," New York Times, August 17, 1939, p. 9; "Reports of Directors of Sixteen Seminars On Problems of Democracy," New York Times, August 18, 1939, p. 9. 99"Head of City's Schools Aims to Advance 'Basic Training'," New York Times, January 1, 1939, Part II, p. 10. 181 A year-end summary on education on December 31, 1939 in the New York Times found an upswing of public in— terest in education, but at the same time noted a declin- ing tendency for educators to speak out on issues. "Fatigue and weariness seem to have overcome bold leaders who courageously spoke out when the Depression was black- est."100 Summary The background of most educational administrators of the thirties was rural and politically, socially, and economically conservative. Most educators in the thirties still worked in rural areas and in small towns. They took cooperativeness for granted and tended to regard education as a means of individual progress. The local administrators were frequently criticized by university educators because they were unduly influenced by local pressure and because of their tendency to be con- cerned with business efficiency rather than with education. Many of the local pressures, however, were for the same things progressive educators were hoping for. They in- cluded such trends as vocational education, adult education, 100 . . . . "Viewpoints on Education," New York Times, December 31, 1939, Part II, p. 5. 182 the use of schools by the community, and an emphasis on courses which were practical. Administrators were able to agree with the concept of catering to the needs of students. This enabled them to track the students of "lower mental ability" and retain much of the curriculum for the middle class. The hopes that education could be used for upward mobility, includ- ing going to college, were still held by many local administrators as well as by students and parents. While some practicing administrators tended to lash out at business during the worst of the Depression, most thought that schools should reflect society rather than change it. Administrators espoused the same innovations as did the professors, but in some ways the emphasis on the practical and useful can be construed to be in the same tradition as the emphasis on the three "R"'s. Local school reports dealt with many of the same ideas and prac- tices as those in professional journals. Board proceed- ings and statistical reports, however, showed a continued concern with finances. Administrators defined progressive education more broadly than did professors. Almost any change was pro- gressive to the administrators. They frequently mentioned a greater amount of pupil activity and participation. But in describing progressive education they were more 183 likely to point to quantitative growth such as special education or adult education. The stress of democracy, the stigma of authoritar- ianism, the fear of totalitarianism, and the concern over federal and state control led administrators to allow teachers to be thrown on their own resources which, in a sense, was a return to laissez faire. In the late thirties, democracy was used by doc- trinaire liberals to equate education with liberalism, while conservatives could use it to stress the older ideas of individualism. The end result was the same--individual rights, local control, middle-class dominance, a lack of cohesive planning, and an emphasis on structure rather than purpose. (- CHAPTER VII CURRICULAR CHANGE FOR SOCIAL STABILITY Introduction It was apparent that national, state, and univer- sity leadership was concerned about society enough to advocate change in method and content of education. Even though society did not regard education as the panecea in the 1930's that it did in 1970, there was just enough ad- vocacy of more central planning and financing to necessi- tate an increase in the staffs of the federal and state bureaus in order to make curriculum change. Change was advised, if not actually practiced, at the local level. A reviewer of the research of the period said that "the crisis may have generated a willingness to accept some changes."1 There is no question that local administrators knew of the curriculum changes recommended through their state departments of education, their university contacts, and their professional associations. School administrators lHelen Hefferman, "The School Curriculum in Ameri- can Education," chapter iii of Education in the States, p. 291. 184 185 of largely conservative backgrounds were not adverse to changes which made schools seem more practical and useful, although they did not accept the idea that schools should lead the way in changing society. Administrators continued to stress the preparation of the individual for a competi— tive society. They tended to look at curricular change less in terms of social goals and more in terms of what would meet the immediate needs of individual students. It is further evident from surveys and studies that local administrators had a difficult time implement- ing such changes they did want and believed in. The un- certainties brought on by the crisis made communities leary of change. In order to gain the approval of the community and the confidence of the staffs, experts were often brought in to survey the school system. Teachers were heavily involved in re-writing courses of study. Although there is some evidence of change taking place, much of the criticism extending into the 1940's sounded like the criticism heard in the 1930's. Teachers were still too "traditional." High schools were still aiming too much toward the college bound. Subject matter rather than students was being emphasized. Too much mass conformity of students was demanded. . Even though Mort may have been correct when he said that it took fifty years for the inception of an idea to its general adoption, there were other reasons for a 186 reluctance to change. One was the conservatism of many communities. Another was the emphasis on local control whereby state departments were reluctant to impose even general structure. Another factor was the interpreting of democracy to mean that each teacher could deviate to the extent of sabatoging prescribed objectives or methods. The very diversity of American society was another impedi- ment. Educators had difficulty agreeing on goals for a society so individualistic and pluralistic and so cultur- ally, politically, and geographically divergent. Further- more, in an educational system dominated by the middle class, middle-class students were likely to succeed in almost any school whether progressive or traditional, public or private. It is difficult to argue with success. The purpose of this chapter will be to determine the extent of changes which were actually made in the curriculum and to assess their importance. To ferret out change as evidenced by the curriculum is difficult. Many members of the profession wrote for each other. Super- intendents were concerned with public relations. The authors of most surveys were biased in favor of innovation and change. However, there are trends observable from such data as enrollments in high school courses and the consistency of statements by local administrators. 187 Local Reports and Surveye Some indication of curricular trends can be found in the reports of superintendents in which they highlighted what was new, innovative, or expanding. These tended to be vocational programs designed for students with little academic ability or interest. They also emphasized other aspects of the school programs which catered to the needs of students, such as homogeneous grouping and special education. At the high school level, requirements were lessened and a greater choice of courses was available. Many superintendents emphasized an "activity" pro- gram in which students would learn from experience rather 2 There was a trend than solely from books and drill. toward the study of problems in social studies resulting in such courses at the secondary level as Problems in Democracy. Subject matter was soft pedaled. Integrated or correlated courses were attempted. For example, in Hamtramck, Michigan, the study of Poland was used as a central core of study in the junior high school with English, math, social studies, drama, and music courses all supposedly making contributions.3 2Harold Campbell, "The School Year Opens," New York Times, September 13, 1936, p. 14; Chicago, AnnEEI’Re- port 1937, pp. 11-16; Detroit, Superintendent's Annual Re- pert, Detroit Public Schools, 1938-39 (Detroit, Mich.: Board of Education, 1939), pp. l9-21; Lansing, Mich.: Board of Education Minutes, November, 1936, April 14, 1941, p. 10. 3Hamtramck, Annual Report 1936-37, p. 24. 188 A variety of sources of information were recommend- ed. Newspapers as textbooks were mentioned. Multiple adoptions of textbooks were made to meet varying abilities in the same courses.4 Social studies courses centering around current themes, using a variety of activities and resources replaced courses in geography and history. A typical statement concerning curriculum, found in the superintendent's report of a smaller school district follows: Within the school curriculum provision should be made for the individual differences in abilities and inter- ests of the pupils. . . More attention should be directed toward encouraging the pupil to do his best and to consider more thoroughly his potential abili- ties. Less attention should be given to watching the performances and successes of others. The American way-of-life is based on the development of each indi- vidual to his highest level of happiness and achieve- ment. There is no evidence, however, to show that any major cur- ricular changes were being made in this district. Another source of information about curriculum in the thirties is "research" that had as its purpose the 4Lansing, Michigan, Your Schools (Lansing: Board of Education, 1939); Detroit, Annual Report 1938-39, p. 38. 5Ann Arbor, Mich., Helping Children Experience the Realities of the Social Order: Social Studies in the Pub— Iic Schools of Ann Arbor, Michigan; Junior High Schoois (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Board of Education, 1933); Detroit, Annual Report 1938-39, p. 20. 6East Lansing, Mich.: Growth: Superintendent's Report 1945-46 (East Lansing, Mich.: East Lansing public Schools, 1946), p. 14. 189 demonstrating of the superiority of the activity-centered curriculum over one emphasizing more "traditional" methods. Although there was a great deal of subjectivity in what constituted traditional and what constituted progressive teaching, the results showed that children in the activity- centered classrooms learned at least as much factual material as those in which drill was stressed. Researchers also assumed that gains had been made in the harder-to- measure characteristics such as initiative and creativ- ity.7 An insight into the curriculum of the thirties can be gained also through studies or surveys done by school districts themselves or by consultants called in by them. These studies invariably showed that the schools were deficient in most of the curricular changes then ad- vocated in the literature or which were current in the more progressive schools. The St. Louis, Missouri, schools were told in 1941 to institute more activities and pupil participation, use more dynamic methods than that of ques- tion and answer, and to integrate subject matter, empha- sizing social studies. Differentiated courses, the 7Edison Ellsworth Oberholtzer, An Integrated Cur- piculum in Practice, Teachers College ContributiOn to Education No. 6944(New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937), p. 127; Division of Field Studies, Institute of Educational Re- search, Teachers College, The Repprt of a Survey of the gublic Schools of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- Sity, 1940): P. 75. 190 discouragement of uniformity, and the abolishment of the three to one ratio favoring academic subjects were ad- vocated.8 A study of the New Orleans schools in 1940 resulted in similar advice. The schools were thought to place too much emphasis on drill, subject matter, and factual learn- ing. It was suggested that high school courses be dif- ferentiated for the poorer students. At the same time, it was found that there were not enough vocational courses in the regular high schools and not enough academic courses in the commercial high schools.9 A citizen's study headed by educators in a smaller suburban and college community contained the following criticisms and comments: The teachers have been allowed, in fact encouraged, to make their own plans; there is . . . no general co-ordinated plan of instruction; there have been few faculty discussions. . . ; progress reports are large- ly a history of text book pages covered and the number of specific skills taught; there is little evidence of pupil-teacher or teacher-administration planning; there is no evidence of co-ordinated planning from grade to grade . . .; there is no evidence to show broad provisions made for individual differences in children; there is no evidence of research among 8St. Louis, Mo., Approved Recommendation of the St. Louis School Survey (St. Louis, Mo.: St. Louis Public Schools, 1941), pp. 15-23, 107-118. 9New Orleans, La., Tomorrow's Citizens: A Study and Pregram for the Improvement of the New Orleans Pubiic Schools (New Orleans, La.: Citizens PIanning Committee for Public Education, 1940), pp. 40-59. 191 teachers or administrators . . .; guidance appears in theory but there is little evidence of school tangible practice; community resources have not been used . . .10 Surveys and histories in smaller communities in- dicate that the most basic curricular trends did not reach them until the late thirties or early forties. The schools at Minoa, New York, were reminded that the study of human relations, community life, general math, and the arts were more important than scattered subjects.11 In most rural and remote areas Latin, Math, English, and history continued to be stressed while there was very little home I O O I 12 economics, agriculture, or industrial arts. National and State Surveys and Advice There were also a great many and varied national, state or regional surveys taken during the period concern- ing trends in courses and methods. 10East Lansing, Mich., Report to the Board of Edu- cation of the Citizens' Survey of East Lansing Schools (East Lansing, Mich.: 1945), p. 9. 11Harry P. Smith, A Limited School Survey of the Minoa, New York Area (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse Uni- versity, 1941), p. 36. 12Philip Edward Keith, The History of Secondary Education in Penobscot County in Maine (Orono, Maine: The UniVersity Press, 1948), p. 225; Francis T. Spaulding, High School and Life, The Regents Inquiry (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1938), p. 124; W. H. Faumitz, Education in the Southern Mountains, U.S. Office of Educa- tion, Bulletin,(1937, No. 26 (Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1937), p. 49. 192 One of the most comprehensive studies was A Survey of Courses of Study and Other Curriculum Materials Pub- lished Since 1934 published by the Office of Education in Bulletin 1937, No. 31. These included curriculum materials gathered from states, cities, and counties. States and counties generally had studies broken into broad age group segments from K-12. City districts made many more high school curriculum studies than they did elementary. There were very few K-12 courses of study. More curriculum materials were written for social studies than for any other subject. A few "integrated" courses began to appear such as character education, safety, and temperance.13 The following were some of the major trends and ideas of the survey.14 Teachers played a major role in writing the materials, much being done in committees. Most of the courses were designed as tentative courses or suggested outlines with teachers being invited to add or make changes. Little research was done to determine what courses and content were needed. That research which was being done was being done by state departments of education. Most of the objectives stated were general. About 31 per cent of the curriculum studies stated goals in terms of pupil behavior. Although some courses were l3U.S. Office of Education, A Survey of Courses of Study and Other Curriculum Materials Pubiished Since 1934, Bulletin, 1937, No. 31, p. 8. 14 Ibid. , pp. 14_63. 193 organized around problems or functions, 88 per cent were organized as isolated subjects. Although textbooks led in source material, visual aids and other supplementary materials were widely listed. Activities and methods were listed in such great varieties that they were suggestions only, with the teacher free to choose. Very few courses stated standards or norms to be achieved. Most expressed "expected outcomes" or "probable attainments." Very few contained sample tests or sugges- tions for types of tests to be given. The tendency within courses was toward the useful or functional. For example, in English, such units as telephone conversations, letter writing, and note taking were introduced. Math tended to be based on real life situations. .The trend in science was on observation of nature and surrounding life. Social studies tended to emphasize current problems. A similar survey conducted biennially pointed out 15 There was an certain tendencies in courses of study. increase in integrated courses. The author was very much concerned whether or not the courses were "functional" and whether suggested activities were lifelike. Physical education and the practical arts ranked high on his scale 15See Henry Harap, "A Survey of Courses of Study Published in the Last Two Years," Journal of Educational Research, XXVIII (May, 1935), 641-656. 194 while English and social studies were average; and math and foreign languages ranked low. One tendency was a con- tinuing increase of teachers and committees writing courses of study and a decrease in the involvement of the superintendent. For the first time, the involvement of professors of education was significant. Another trend was the decrease in the inclusion of tests with courses of study. A decreasing amount of ex- perimentation and research were reported, along with the courses of study. The author concluded that he was en- couraged by the proliferation of curriculum materials al- though he had earlier pointed out the lack of uniformity. He also commented favorably on the growing number of state-wide programs of curriculum revision. A gigantic survey of secondary education was under- taken by the United States Office of Education in 1930-32. The trends in the program of study indicated by this sur- vey were in the directions desired by advocates of our- riculum reform. There was a diversification of offerings, making it more possible to recognize individual differences; the offerings were "cast in terms of immediate values instead of the remoter and deferred values of college pre- paration and the presumedly pervasive mental discipline." The drift was away from specific subjects toward the in- tegrated courses. Foreign language, math and science 195 declined, while non-academic subjects, including art, music and physical education increased.16 Trends in secondary education through 1936 were reviewed in the Biennial Survey of 1937. The emphasis once again was on the changing school population and the fact that six out of seven students would not go to col- lege. The "trends" toward various ways of dealing with the "growing problems" of widely differentiated capacities. Although segregated schools for slow learners or gifted students were advocated and the idea accepted, the leaning was toward the comprehensive high school. Even technical and commercial high schools were apt to become comprehen- sive. Homogeneous grouping and special classes for "ex- ceptional" children were considered innovative. Also emphasized were fused and core courses, the division of courses into units, extracurricular activities, and vocational guidance. The author's conclusion was more of a hope than a reality: The curriculum of the secondary school is evolving in direction of less emphasis upon the formal classroom work or units of credit and more attention to success- ful adjustment and learning to live. . . The problem is one of developing techniques and procedures for introducing these important adjustments into the edu- cational program of the schools without succumbing to a system of soft pedagogy which makes no demands on anybody anywhere. 7 16Carl A. Jessen, Trends in Secondapy Education, U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1934-36, Vol. I, Bulletin 1937, No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940), pp. 2-6. 17 Ibid., p. 39. 196 A survey was conducted by the State Department of Education of Michigan on changing secondary education throughout the nation. The authors felt the significant direction was toward a core or experience curriculum. Most of these turned out to be fused courses such as English and social studies; and others were based on spe- cific concepts or social problems. These included such courses as Community Improvement, Health, Leisure, Sex Education, Peace, and Problems and Values.18 A survey conducted by the Department of Education in California was based on a questionnaire which itself editorialized that changes should be occurring. A check- list giving a wide lattitude for indicating that changes in some degree would be or had been made was used. The authors were happy that there were more core courses, less emphasis on grammar and on the classics, and the relating of science to health. This Survey leads one to doubt the value of such surveys or at least their interpretation. For example, on the question as to whether laboratory work in science was decreasing--the desired answer, the authors declared that it was decreasing while the tables showed the opposite. The same was true of the question 18Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Chang- ingSecondary Education in the United States: Report on a Survey of Modifications of Sedondary Education, Secondary School Curriculum Study, Bulletin, No. 2 (Lansing, Mich.: 1939), pp. 31- 50. 197 as to whether algebra and geometry had become "social- ized."19 The same study suggested thatteachers were resist- ant to changes suggested by state departments and univer- sities. It also implied that administrators were often indecisive and that they abdicated leadership by weakly following either the teachers or the so-called experts. The article reflected the attitudes of teachers as being either atrophied, irritated by the inconsistence of ad- ministrators, or simply bewildered by what the curriculum debate was all about. A large number evidently felt that "those responsible for the policy of the school are incon- sistent and changeable, that give ear to the 'latest,' whatsoever it may be, and that they do not take teachers into their confidence. . ."20 An important study of high school education was made by John Latimer in 1955. His statistics confirmed a significant drop between 1910 and 1949 of the cumulative subjects--mathematics, foreign languages, and science. Although English grew in total enrollments, the percent- age of students taking English drOpped off. Social studies, 19Aubrey Douglass, "The Next Steps in Improving the Secondary Education Program," California Journal of Secondary Education, XI (May, 1936), pp. 205-214. 2°Ibid., p. 212. 198 the practical arts along with art, music and physical edu- cation made significant gains.21 The basic reasons given by Latimer for the changes were the same as those given by educators in the thirties. The objectives of education had become social as well as intellectual and greater numbers and varieties of students attended high school. However, Latimer made some other interesting observations. He found that the assumptions that high schools at the turn of the century existed pri- marily to prepare students for college was invalid. In fact, between 1900 and 1920 a student's chance of finish- ing high school and then entering college increased. This also proved unfounded the assumption that an increase in numbers meant a decrease in ability.22 Furthermore, be- tween 1922 and 1952 the number of graduates increased more rapidly than the total enrollment. There was also a larger number prepared for college.23 Latimer believed that, unfortunately, the new concepts in curriculum in the thirties were based on the belief that an increase in numbers meant a decrease in intelligence and that this was the primary reason for general science in place of chemistry and physics, and 21John Francis Latimer, What's Heppened to Our High Schools? (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 958’! Pp. 68-73. 22 Ibid., p. 74. 231bid., p. 76. 199 general mathematics in place of algebra. New curricular concepts also held that foreign languages were a waste of time as was grammar and most types of literature.24 Latimer called this "split level" education. While he conceded that some flexibility in adapting courses to student interest was good, he stated that students had possessed neither the maturity nor could have received sufficient guidance to deal with an almost unlimited number of elections. His chief concern was that split- level education often resulted, not from lack of ability, but from an under-estimation of student's capacity by himself, his parents, or his advisor.25 Edgar B. Wesley in his history of the N.E.A. ex- pressed similar sentiments. "Whether the decline in student quality was actual or imaginary, the steadfast belief in it had considerable effect upon the curriculum and educational standards. It led to needless sacrifices in requirements, and to the too ready attitude to blame students rather than the educational process."26 Educational experts felt that things were happen- ing, but they were not quite sure what. Bess Goodykoontz of the Office of Education was convinced that schools were 24Ibid., p. 76. 251hid., pp. 77-78. 26Wesley, N.E.A., The FirSt Hundred Years, p. 77. 200 no longer devoting themselves largely to acquiring tools of knowledge, but were planning their programs close to the needs of their clientele. She did not know quite how, but assured her readers that "behind the fog things are going on . . ."27 She also felt it necessary to plead that the various state and local personnel planning similar programs all over the nation should get together.28 A review of the research on the period 1920-1940 lists three distinct trends which vied with each other for attention: a continuing emphasis on subject matter, the scientific movement, and the activity curriculum. The survey noted criticisms which called English "formal ex- ercises," mathematics a "stumbling block," foreign lan- guage a waste of time, and history as failing to emphasize democratic ideals. The same survey of research listed one study in elementary education in 1936 which showed that nearly half of the time of the pupils was spent on reading, writ- ing, spelling, language, and arithmetic. Only 16.6 per cent was spent on science and social studies and 34.7 per cent involved music, art, physical education.29 This may 27Bess Goodykoontz, Elementary Education 1930-1936, U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey 1934-36, VoIT I, pp. 3-4. 28 Ibid., p. 7. 29Hefferman, "The School Curriculum," p. 237. 201 be indicative,jxlspite of other indications, that the value of literacy remained high and that the emphasis by educa- tors on citizenship and socializing were laregly ignored. In spite of the fact that curriculum revisions and courses of study proliferated from ten in 1923 into the thousands in the thirties, the summarizer of research said, "Brave efforts at curriculum improvement to meet the needs of all children and yough suffered in the De- pression."30 Curriculum studies and pronouncements by states followed the directions indicated in surveys and studies. The department in New York indicated that it was interested in curricular experiments based on individual needs and interests of the students and that subjects were important 31 only for more definite objectives. And yet, most of the syllabi issued by the department for both elementary and 32 secondary schools were based on subject matter. On the other hand, a ten-year evaluation of education in New York state found that a chief gain had been in a shift of emphasis from subject to child.33 Both the Reports from 3oIbid., p. 241. 31New York, University of the State of New York, Thirty78econd Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year Ending June 30, 1935, Vol. I (Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1937), p. 35. 32 Ibid., pp. 21, 36. 3322;93: Thirty-Third Annual Report of the Educa- tion Department for the School Year Ending June 3U, 1936, Vol. I, 1938, p. 25, 202 the department of education and the Regents Inquiry had stressed meeting the needs of youth. The state of Michigan Department of Public Instruc- tion undertook many curriculum projects in the thirties. A list of educational goals was worked out with the help of lay groups. They were very general, but stressed democracy, cooperation, and meeting a changing society.34 The stated department in Michigan also established an extensive program of curriculum revision. Interestingly, in a progress report in 1937, the statement was made that many schools were anxious to improve their practices but needed assistance in generating a fundamental philosophy.35 The goals of 1934 were not long remembered. A reviewer of research on the period said that reports of various national committees such as the Educa- tional Policies Commission did not indicate that public education was becoming anti-intellectual or anti-subject matter.36 However, the most consistent criticisms were of the influence of the universities and of the stress on subject-matter. A principal ofaaChicago high school 34"Goals of Public Education in Michigan," Michi- gan Education Association Journal, XII (September, 19 35, p. 2. 35Michigan Department of Public Instruction, The Nichigan Program of Curriculum Revision: Second Report of Progress, Bulletin 305A, (Lansing: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1937), p. 8. 36 Hefferman, "The School Curriculum, p. 244. 203 criticized high schools for emulating universities by having departments, specialized subject fields, credits, standard blocks of time, and even textbooks written by university professors.37 Not all of the blame was put on subject matter. Teaching methods were also blamed for lack of interest and the lack of social competence on the part of students. In a summary of a study of schools in New York State one writer blamed some of the educational problems on the "academic mold" into which most of the programs were cast, but also stated that "Unfortunately, the methods of teaching most often used are not those which can be ex— pected to produce scholarship in any real sense."38 In the late thirties, the same curricular changes were advocated and the same criticisms made as were made in the earlier part of the decade. The improvement in the economy brought less of a concern for a cooperative society and a continued concern for the individual. An article published by the Michigan Department of Public Instruction asked: "can secondary schools . . . give these youths actual experience in working out techniques of c00perative endeavor that are still satisfying to the 37Paul R. Pierce, Developing a High School Cur- riculum (New York: American Book Company, 1942), pp. 12, 13. 38Spaulding, High School and Life, pp. 128-29. 204 individual?" The prescriptions did not indicate that they could.39 The effect of the rise of totalitarianism abroad upon education in a democracy was evident. There was an emphasis on putting the individual above institutions. The Education Department in New York state stated in 1939 that education is the servant of society in which we live 40 and that it must develop the individual to serve society. An article in the New York Times called a similar statement 41 by the Chamber of Commerce Fascistic. Surveys of Students Although few good surveys of students of the per- iod seem to exist, the few which do, indicate that the high school student of the period was conservative and individualistic. One survey of 10 per cent of all seniors in Nebraska in 1939 found such conservative leanings as: 39Edgar G. Johnston and Dwight H. Rich, "Planning Educational Programs in Terms of Actual Needs of Young People," Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Should Youth Challenge the Secondary School? (Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1941), pp. 8-11. 40New York, University of the State of New York, Thirty-Fourth Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year Ending June 30, 1937, Vol. I, Albany: University of the State of New York, 1939), p. 68. 41"Report on Schools Scored as 'Fascist': Educa- tional Groups Criticize State Chamber Committees," New York Times, October 3, 1939, p. 23. 205 Educational practice should change slowly; school work should be fitted to the class average rather than to the needs and abilities of individual students; . . . the college preparatory course is best and the most difficult subjects are usually most valuable. More attention should be given to formal drill . . .; Learning how to compete successfully is more important than learning how to live cooperatively. There were also some almost contradictory liberal trends. However, as the author stated, the results of the survey must have reflected the practices and attitudes of the school.42 A survey of graduates of Indianapolis high schools taken in 1941 revealed that there was a positive correla- tion between grades in high school and the amount of money earned as well as with success in college. Male graduates listed English, social science, math, industrial arts, and science in that order as subjects which gave them the most satisfaction in life. They also listed English and math as the courses which most helped them get jobs. Female replies were similar except that commercial subjects ranked high for aiding in employment.43 One of the Educational Policies Commission's pub- lications referred to a survey of students conducted in 1939. In a summary of answers to an open-ended question 42Paul Harnly, "Attitudes of High-School Seniors Toward Education," School Review, XLVII (September, 1939), 507-509. ff 43W. A. Evans, "Indianapolis Surveys Its High School Graduates," American School Board Journal, CII (March, 1941), 56. 206 regarding democracy, two-thirds were found to have defined democracy solely in terms of rights and liberties without mentioning responsibilities.44 A survey conducted by the American Youth Commis- sion in 1938 is reported on in a book, Youth Tell Their Stg_y, The results showed that high schools did not equalize opportunities for those in the lower economic status.45 The study showed, however, that those students in school felt that their education would be of economic value. Income did correlate positively with length of time spent in school.46 The author found it difficult to accept some of the results. How could 70 per cent feel that vocational guidance was adequate, and how could 15 out of 25 aspire for business or the professionals? Although 71 per cent felt that schools had contributed to helping them enjoy life more, the author felt that the results indicated a need for educational programs more related to everyday life.47 44Educational Policies Commission, Learning the Ways of Democracy: A Case Book of Civic Education (Wash- ington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United States and the American Association of School Administrators, 1940): P. 47. 45Howard K. Bell, Youth Tell Their Story (Washing- ton, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1938), p. 60. 46 Ibid., pp. 81-82. 47Ibid., pp. 67-88. 207 Sociological Study An interesting observation of education in the thirties by non-educators is contained in Middletown in Transition by sociologists Robert and Helen Lynd. Al- though they viewed education in Muncie, Indiana through liberal eyes, their observations were very candid. The Lynds saw Middletown in the 1930's as being ready for a "conservatively progressive" change. They gave as a reason, in addition to the Depression, the dif- fusion to Middletown of more of the professionalized practices of the twenties. The aims for the Middletown schools as stated in 1933 by the planning and research department of the schools were the same as statements being written by educators throughout the country, includ- ing "reorganization and rearranging of curriculum offer- 48 They saw a "slow ings in terms of student needs." diminution" in the traditional emphasis upon factual courses and more emphasis on exploratory work centering around main problems. However, they also stated: "If adult Middletown sees its own hOpe for the immediate future lying in hard work and making money, it has been want to see in education 48Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrill Lynd, Middle- town in Transition: A Studyiin Cultural Conflicts (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1937), p. 22l. 208 the Open Sesame that will unlock the world for its child- 49 ren." The authors felt that parents still wanted some- thing tangible from education such as better jobs.50 The Lynds saw the educating for individual differ- ences as not being in tune with the renewed stress on elements making for solidarity and harmony. The Depres- sion "had forced the community reluctantly to widen its recognition of common necessities rather than individual differences. . . . Sooner or later the schools' concept of 'educating for individual differences' will again be redefined."51 The authors saw the administrators dutifully carrying out the wishes of the citizens, with the teachers not really being free to teach anything they wanted. What was really required of the schools was to pass on tradi- tion and inculcate the status quo. They wanted their children trained as intelligent citizens, but not to raise questions. The prolonged schooling heightened the strains involved in the status of the adolescent. The Lynds concluded by saying something about educational leadership: . . . educators are themselves caught in the whirlpool of their own conflicting aims. Many of the external efficiencies . . . have been achieved at the expense of other alleged values of education. . . The desire 49Ibid., p. 204. 5°Ibid., p. 222. 511bid., pp. 225-226. 209 to achieve a standardized procedure widely acclaimed as desirable is frequently at sharp variance with the newly aroused sense of what education can mean in terms of individual deve10pment in actual present-day society. Summary A look at what was actually going on in some of the school districts throughout the country showed that an attempt was being made to put the ideas from univer- sities, state departments, professional journals and educational meetings into practice. The most widely ac- cepted idea was that individual differences should be stressed and that the needs of individuals should be catered to. Although this idea was not in harmony with the sense of cooperation and community brought on by the economic crisis, it was a heritage of the 1920's and it helped solve the problem of what to do with the influx of lower ability students into the high schools. There is evidence that an activity centered cur- riculum--meaning that students no longer sat in rigid attention at their desks--was in wide use. Although scattered subject matter in elementary schools was reduced and courses integrated, the essentials were still stressed. In high schools a stress on education for upward mobility 521bid., p. 240. 210 and for college continued, but subjects which were prac— tical and useful were in vogue. The practical arts, music, art, physical education and the social studies grew, while math, foreign languages, and science declined. Furthermore, all subjects had to be related to real life. Special education and guidance were emphasized. The Depression, with the encumbent state and federal assist- ance brought about more recreation, and adult and vocational education. Curriculum guides and courses of study became more numerous in the thirties and it is difficult to determine how much of a change they effected. Although many courses changed in name only, the trend, particularly in social studies, was toward fused and integrated courses dealing with current problems. To ascertain how much real change occurred is difficult. Certainly, changes did not occur all over. Evidence from some school system reports and proceedings show little change. Rural and the more remote areas changed slowly. School superintendents seemed to be very careful in explaining changes to their public. Writers indicated that society during this time of crisis and change wanted the security of a stable education system. On the other hand, at a time when society was becomming bureaucratized 211 and the future uncertain, Americans still looked to education as one of the last bastions of competition which would lead to greater opportunities. Some writers felt that change was thwarted by the conservatism of teachers and administrators, and there was evidence to support this. But in another sense, few other groups had retained as much liberty as teachers. They, in all probability, had more freedom from profes- sional and governmental restrictions than business or any other profession. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION Summary The breech between educators and other intellec- tuals widened during the thirties. Educational theory branched off from the mainstream of American political and intellectual thought. Historians had difficulty relating education to the other social forces and neglected that branch of social history as the decade wore on. Educa- tors professed social concern but were cautious about remolding the schools. The schools continued to mirror the dominant culture which was middle-class and liberal in the classic sense of the word. Historians pointed out the conflict between a child-centered, individualistic curriculum and the real world which was technical, oli- garchic, and complex. Educators, however, were still fighting the turn-of-the-century battle against big busi- ness and big industry. Schools remained a refuge for individualism, competition, and upward mobility at a time when more controls and planning were appearing on the horizon. 212 213 Numerical growth, diffusion of energies, and conflicting philosophies characterized the state of colleges of education during the thirties. It was a time of turning inward. Education schools shut themselves off from the rest of the university and tried to turn educa- tion into a profession. They failed because there were too many questions they never answered and because leader- ship, accreted to the universities and became separated from political power. Education was hampered from becoming a true pro- fession by a lack of discipline of its members, lack of an organized body of specialized knowledge, and lack of goals. The rate of growth alone would have made it almost impossible to properly initiate new members. After pull- ing together in 1932-33 to save the schools, the rest of the decade saw a fragmentation of the profession with classroom teachers, administrators, academicians, and education professors pulling in different directions. There were disagreements about teacher training and the importance of subject matter. An-attempt was made by a few professors to build a new social order, but it was difficult to define and perished on the rocks of American liberalism. Change and growth won out over science and reason. Although there was an effort to make a separate profession out of admin- istration, democratic practices in the schools 214 counteracted it. Criticism rather than bold new ideas dominated the professional literature. Defensiveness rather than self-confidence was the result. The Depression underscored the inequality of edu- cational opportunity within the states and nationwide due to economic changes brought about by the industrial revo- lution. The state and federal governments responded with relief, but without a program for continued equalization. There was no redistribution of power and little reorgani- zation of the educational structure. Local control and middle-class interests were maintained. Demand for edu- cational reform did not become a mass movement. Practicing school administrators came from a rural, conservative background of the pre—World War I era. While not adverse to new teaching techniques, changes, and innovations, their social and economic outlooks were of a pre-technical, individualistic era. They did not basically question the American social system and certainly did not see education as a means of changing the social order. Administrators were criticized for allowing their schools to be judged by the avoidance of controversy rather than the quality of education. They were also criticized for following the path of least resistance and giving in to the established order on the one hand and to the teachers on the other.‘ In deference to democracy, laissez faire prevailed. Authoritarianism had no place in the 215 schoolhouse, and one person's ideas were as good as an- other's. The old Progressive fear of control by the few became more fixed than ever. With local control, all of its resultant diversity remained an aspect of American education. Administrators momentarily were unified during the early part of the Depression by their anger at busi- ness and by the financial straits in which the schools had been placed. However, schools, with some federal aid and help from state taxes, probably recovered more rapidly than business and turned their attention to meeting the needs of individuals in the context of older traditions and values. There is a question as to whether the catering to the needs of students perpetuated a segregation of the lower socio-economic groups since educators appeared to have underestimated their intellectual capacities. In the late thirties, under the banner of democ- racy, the goals of educational radicals and conservatives became scarcely distinguishable. Both individual liberty and individual Opportunity seemed threatened by totali- tarianism. The time was not ripe to put any institution or creed, except democracy, above the individual. In the field of curriculum development, the most widely accepted ideas were that individual differences should be stressed and that the needs of individuals should 216 be catered to. Although this was not in harmony with the sense of cooperation and community brought on by the economic crisis, it was the heritage of the twenties and was useful in setting up a tracking system for working- class children. Activity-centered, practical courses were stressed. Subject matter was fused, integrated or centered around a core idea. Math, foreign languages, and sciences declined. Guidance,special and adult education were in- troduced or expanded. Democratic curriculum-building and lesson planning were in vogue. State departments and universities pro- vided consultants and curriculum guides, but each teacher was allowed and encouraged to do his own course, leading to a lack of consistency. Testing and norms were not emphasized. Education for change meant adjusting to society and practicing democracy, not an attempt to transcend one's own culture or to understand the theory of political and social change. Conclusions 1. There was a dichotemy between theory and prac- Eigg. Theory borrowed from business administration was undermined due to an aversion to efficiency in the schools. However, there had not been developed at this time suf- ficient educational administrative theory or theory of leadership to fill the void. There was little to 217 countervail the practical or the pragmatic. Therefore, practice was substituted for theory. Democratic decision- making by either vote of the faculty or by political pressure was not rational. 2. Democracygand ideal citizenship were never defined. While democracy as a method was accepted by edu- cators, their libertarian values kept them from accepting or defining democracy as an end. They ignored the market place of ideas to refine and test their thoughts and were consequently ignored by intellectuals outside of the pro- fession. With the rejection of any sort of social design or purpose, educators could not intervene in society to change its direction. It was not clearly stated whether America was a melting pot or a pluralistic society. The individual was made supreme over institutions rather than being integrated into society. The results were often iconoclastic. But this did not deter nationalism. With world history, other cultures, foreign languages, and the classics ousted from the curriculum a truly catholic view- point was not develOped. The idea was planted that Ameri- cans had little to learn outside of their own experiences. The schools were expected to avoid controversy, but taught it by stressing rights and differences, rather than respon- sibilities and common needs. Without an established Church or a homogeneous population, the schools would have been the logical institution to support or change the social 218 order. But the liberal tradition of American educators made them more prone to defend the individual against it. 3. The change which took place in the schools was a shift from economic individualism to social and political individualism. To meet the new problems, education merely adapted the old answer. Educators failed to realize that American individualism was ingrained in the American character much deeper than the profit system. Religious and political forces had been as important as economic. America was founded by rebels and dissenters and it was the Dissenting branches of Protestantism which enjoyed the greatest growth in this country. But liberalism was dead and had no relevancy to an interdependent, shrinking world. John Dewey's model for education was based on pre— serving in the schools the disappearing forms of social- ization which he knew in his boyhood. By the 1930's when his ideas had overcome the emphasis on efficiency and on scientific measurement, they were already outdated. In- dividual activity for the good of the whole already had been replaced by the philosophy of the NRA which empha- sized the corporate structure. The schools not only did not purge society of its old values, they indoctrinated a new generation with them. These values were an impediment to living in a changing, converging environment. They also kept the profession from uniting and becoming a social and political force. 219 Skepticism, with each man his own judge, bred solipsism and alienation in a day which called for cooperation and trust. The real meaning of individual differences was never faced, and differences remained a sub-conscious threat. Equality and fraternity fell by the wayside. 4. Educators failed to seize on the crisis as an gpportunity to use education as a means of promoting in- tellectual values and the common good. The Depression experience showed that if change were to come it would probably come from the government or some other outside agency. The last change which occurred in the schools occurred at the turn of the century at the time of the political Progressive thrust. This Progressive reform movement entered the schools and became embedded in them. Only another thrust equally as potent could have a similar effect. The federal government was able to effect change through federal grants, but this change was not permanent because its programs remained outside the state school systems. State officials and some university professors of administration were in a position to rise above petty localism and see the real needs of the people and the nation. But the nation was not willing to give up its belief in the superiority of the individual, small business, and local control regardless of the evidence. Educational leadership did not come forth because educational philosophy was in direct contrast to the national interest. 220 Recommended Research There is a need to integrate research on education into more social and intellectual histories and also into political and general histories. The role of education in the development of American society is as important as any other factor. It is usually considered only in bio- graphies. The writing of the history of local school dis- tricts should be resumed. The few local histories written in this century deal almost exclusively with buildings and quantitative growth. A definitive history of the United States Office of Education is needed in order to focus attention on the embryonic efforts at national leadership and standariza- tion. Most curriculum making is done before scientific evaluation takes place. There is a need for historical research in curriculum making in order to determine the reasons for the changing of method, structure, and content as well as to help evaluate their effectiveness. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles in Professional Journals and Yearbooks Alstetter, M. S. "Evaluating the Education of Administra- tive Heads of Secondary Schools." School Review, XLVI (Febraury, 1938), 108-117. Bagley, William C. "Modern Educational Theories and Practical Considerations." School and Society, XXXVII (April 1, 1933), 409-414T7 Bair, Frederick, "School Administration and Freedom." Educational Freedom and Democracy. Second Year- Book of the John Dewey Society. Edited by Boyde H. Bode and Harold R. Alberty. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938. Bannerman, G. W. "Principal Facts." Nations Schools, XVI (September, 1935), 30. "Basic Principles of Instructional Leadership." The Ele- mentary School Journal, XXXVI (March, 19365, Baskin, Alex. "An Abstract of Education and the Great Depression: An Inquiry into the Social Ideas and Activities of Radical American Educators during the Economic Crisis of the 1930's." Dissertation Abstracts: Abstracts of Dissertations Available on Microfilm or as Xerggraphic Reproductions, Vol. XXVIII, Part I, No. 2 (August, 1967), 474A. Bell, Haurah and Proctor, William. "High School Popula- tion Then and Now-—A Sixteen Year Span." School Review, XLVI (November, 1936), 689-93. Blair, John R. "The Conflict of Voltaire and Pollyanna in Education." Educational Administration and Supervision, XX (February, 1934), 147-51. 222 223 Bland, Rose. "Some Aspects of the Program of the Element- ary School as Is Planned to Meet the Challenge in this Period of Social Change." National Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXIII. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1935. Bode, Boyd. "Education as Growth: Some Confusions." Progressive Education, XIV (February, 1937), 151- 157. Bode, Boyd H. "The Meaning of Freedom." Educational Free- dom and Democracy, Second Yearbook of the John Dewey Society. Edited by Boyd H. Bode and Harold R. Alberty, New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938. Bowers, C. A. "The Idealogie of Progressive Education," History of Education Quarterly, VII (Winter, 1967), Breed, Frederick S. "The Liberal Group in Education." Educational Administration and Supervision, XXII . "On Changes in Methods of Teaching." School and Society, XLI (April 27, 1935), 558-63. Brickman, William. "Conant, Korner, and History of Educa- tion." School and Society, XCII (March 21, 1969), . "Revisionism and the Study of the History of Education." History of Education Quarterly, IV (December, 1964), 209-23. Briggs, Thomas H. "Some Characteristics of Secondary School Principals." School Review, XLII (March, 1934), 205-209. Bruce, William. "Some Sources of Conflict in Public Education." Educational Administration and Supervision, XXI (April, 1935), 281-288. Burke, Arvid J. "Professional Courses for Secondary School Principals." Educational Administration and Supervision, XX (October, 19347) 506-12. Campbell, Harold. "The Contributions of the Public Schools." National Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXII. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1934. 224 Chambliss, J. J. "The View of Progress in Laurence Cre- min's The Transfirmation of the Schools." Histor of Educationguarterly, III (March, 1963), 43-5I. Champion, Carroll. "The Scholarship of Graduate Students of Education." School and Society, LI (February Child, John L. "Whither Progressive Education?" Progres- sive Education, XIII (December, 1936), 583-89. Clem, Orlie and Murray, James F. "The Status of the Pennsylvania High School Principal." Educational Administratign and Supervision, XIX (September, 1933), 442-450. Cook, Walter W. "Tests, Achievements." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, lst ed. Demaashkevick, M. J. "Philosophy and the Philosophy of Education." Educational Administration and Super- vision, XVIII (February, 1932), 115-24. Demaashkevich, M. J. "Traditionalists Before a 'Progressive' Tribunal." Educational Administration and Super- vision, XIX (December, l933), 641-651. Douglass, Aubrey. "The Next Steps in Improving the Secondary Education Program." California Journal of Secondary Education, XI (May, 1936), 205-214. Drake, William E. "PhilosoPhy of Education and the Ameri- can Culture." Educational Theory, XVIII (Fall, 1968), 365-75. "Education Charged, Miseducation Recommends Supper High School," Journal of Education, LXIX (January 20, 1935), 54. Emery, James Newell. "Let's Analyse School Costs." Journal of Education, LXVI (June 19, 1933), 317- 319. Evans, W. A. "Indianapolis Surveys Its High School Gradu- ates." American School Board Journal, CII (March, 1941), 564. Firman, Sidney G. "Taking the First Steps in Progressive Education." Progressive Education, XII (January, 1935), 30-34. 225 Fixley, Everett H. "Governing Factors in the Construction of a Training Program for Superintendents of Schools." Educational Administration and Super— vision, XXIV (November, 1938Y, 632-635. Freeman, Frank N. "PrOposed Educational Reform--Some of the Major Issues." Nations Schools, XII (July, 1933), 30-33. Gaumitz, W. H. "Small High Schools in the National Survey of Secondary Education." Clearing House, VIII (April, 1934), 464-468. Geyer, Denton L. "What is Progressive Education?" Educa- tional Method, XVII (October, 1937), 8-11. "Goals of Public Education in Michigan." Michigan Educa- tion Association Journal, XII (September, 1934i? 2. Gray, Richard G. "Public Relations in State Departments of Education." Chap. xvi of Education in the State: Nationwide Development since 1900. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Givens, William. "Education for the New America." National Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXII. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1934. Grace, Alanzo. "Some Expensive Fallacies in American Edu- cation." Educational Administration and Super- vision, XIX (March, 1933), 191-203. Griffiths, Daniel E. "The Nature and Meaning of Theory." Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, Sixty-third’YearboOk of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Grizzell, E. D. "A Survey of Secondary Education in Philadelphia." The Harvard Educational Review, VIII (March, 1938), 168-178. Haisley, Otto W. "The Principal as Social Interpreter." Clearing House, IX (October, 1939), 100-103. Harap, Henry. "A Survey of Courses of Study Published in the First Two Years." Journal of Educational Research, XXVIII (May, 1935), 641—656. 226 Harnly, Paul. "Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward Education." School Review, XLVII (September, 1939), 501-509. Harris, James H. "Can We Have Our Cake and Eat It?" Journal of Education, CXVIII (February 18, 1935), 104-105. Hefferman, Helen. "The School Curriculum in American Education." Chapter v of Education in the States: Nationwide Development Since 1900. Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Herbold, Paul. "Small-Town Superintendent." Journal of Education, CXX (April 5, 1937), 178-180. Hildreth, Gertrude. "Graduates of Lincoln Schools." Teachers College News, XLIV (February, 1943), 361- 68. Hill, Henry A. "Representative School System--Lexington." Journal of Education, LXIX (December 7, 1936), 516-518: Holden, John B. "Adult Education in the Public Schools." Chap. vii of Education in the States: Nationwide Developments Since 1900. Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Isenberg, Robert M. "State Organization for Service and Leadership to Local Schools." Chap. iii of Education in the States: Nationwide Development Since 1900. Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Johns, R. L. "State Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education." Chap. iv of Education in the States: Nationwide Develgpments Since 1900. Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Kadisch, J. Stevens. "A Comprehensive Program of Public Education." National Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXII, Washington D.C.: Nation- al Education Association, 1934. 227 Kandel, I. L. "Education and Social Disorder.“ Teachers College Record, XXXIV (February, 1933), 359-367. Kilpatrick, William H. "The Social Philosophy of Progres- sive Education." Progressive Education, XII (May, 1935), 289-93. Knight, Edgar W. "Getting Ahead by Degrees." School and Society, LIII (April 26, 1941), 521—28. Koch, Harlan. "The High-School Principal Looks at Himself as Educational Leader." School Review, XLV (June, . "The Superintendent Judges the Principals' Con- tribution to Secondary Education." School Review Koos, Leonard V. "A National Survey of Secondary Educa- tion--A Preliminary Study." North Central Associ- ation Quarterly, VII (September, 1932i, 206-15. Latham, O. K. "The Teachers College Versus the Liberal Arts College in the Education of Teachers." Na- tional Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXIV. Washington, D.C.: NatiOnal Education Association, 1936. Lewis, H. Graham. "Bailyn and Cremin on Cubberley and the History of Education," Educational TheQEX} XVII Logan, John, et al. "Representative School Systems-- NewarE." Journal of Education, CXIX (April 6, 1936), 198-202.“. ‘ “a. McGinnis, W. C.' "Progressi Education—-Pros and Cons." The School Executive, LV (November, 1935), 90-92+. Melby, Ernest A. "Building a Philosophy of Leadership." School Executive, LVI (September, 1936), l7-l9+. Meyers, Alonzo, "Will Education Go Democratic?" Clearing House, XI (January, 1937), 263-67. Michael, Raymond S. "What's It All About?" National Education Association, Proceedings, Vol. LXXIII. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1935. 228 Miller, James Collins. "Educational Administrators Must Be More Highly Trained." Nations Schools, XII (November, 1933), 37-40. ' Moore, Clarence Carl. "The Educational Administrator and His Opportunities." Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIII (November, 1937), 622-32. Morrison, H. C. "Sincerity in the Present Situation." Educational Administration and Supervision, XX (April, 19347, 272-281. Newlon, Jesse. "The Importance of a Point of View in Educational Administration." National Education Association, Proceedingp, Vol. LXXV. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1937. Noel, Margaret. "What Kind of Education?" Educational Administration and Supervision, XVIII (March, 1932), 216-22. Orater, Pedro. "Conflicting ViewPoints in Contemporary American Education." Educational Administration and Supervision, XXII (May, 1936i, 361-374. Prutt, Orville E. "Viewing Our work In Perspective." National Education Association, Proceedings. Vol. LXXV. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1937. Pulliam, Roscoe. "How Much Freedom in Education?" Ele- mentary School Journal, XXXV (September, 19345, l6-23. Raup, R. Bruce. "What Teacher-Training Faculties Believe." Educational Administration and Supervision, XX TMay’ 1934), 341-590 Reed, Carroll B. "Representative School System--Minnea- polis." Journal of Education, CXVIII (October, 1935), 437-41. Rudolph, Frederick. "Review of the Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education by Laurence A. Cremin." The Mississippi Valley His- torical Review, XLVIII (December, 1961), 549-51. Ryan, H. H. "The High School Principal Looks to His Faculty." Clearipg House, VIII (January, 1934), 351-354. 229 Saunders, Carter (pseud.). "Self-Portrait." The Nations Schools, XVIII (August, 1936), 25-27. Scott, Cecil Winfield and Reid, Harold D. "The Public High School Principal in Nebraska." School Review, XLVII (February, 1939), 121-127. Shannon, J. R. "Academic Training of Secondary School Principals in the United States." National Educa- tion Association, Department of Secondary School Principals, Bulletin, No. 53 (December, 1939), 7-12. Simon, Ronald L. "Desirable Qualifications for Education- al Leadership In a Small Community." American School Board Journal, LXCV (November, I9375, 22+. Smith, Timothy L. "Review of Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces that Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools by Raymond E. Cullahan." Histor of Education Quarterly, IV (March, 19645, 76-77. Smith, William H. "C00peration--A Myth or a Reality?" Clearing House, IX (January, 1935), 293-295. Steffens, M. R. "The Relationship of State Departments of Education to the Administration and Supervision of Local Secondary Schools." Department of Secondary- School Principals of the National Education Associ- ation. Abstracts of Unpublished Masters' Theses in the Field of Secondary-School Administration. Bulletin, No. 47 (May, 1933), 84-85. Steson, Paul C. "Representative School Systems--Indiana- polis." Journal of Education, CXIX (November 2, 1936), 466-469. Stinnett, T. M. "Teacher Education, Certification, and Accredidation." Chap. ix of Education in the States: Nationwide Development Since 1900. Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Strayer, George D. "Changing Concepts of Educational Administration." Teachers College Record, XL (March, 1939), 469-482. Stumpf, W. A. "Graduate Work in State Teachers Colleges." School and Society, XLVI (December 25, 1937), 230 Swanson, Gordon I. "The World of Work." Chap. vi of Education in the Statesip Nationwide Developments Since 1900. (Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. "Third Annual Conference of City Superintendents at Tra- verce City." Michigan Education Association Journal, X (Octdber, 1938), 96-99. Tyler, Ralph W. "Evaluation: A Challenge and an Oppor- tunity to Progressive Education." Educational Record, XVI (January, 1935), 127-31. Wassing, Frank R. "It Can Be Done." Education, IV (May, 1935), 538-41. Weiss, Robert M. "Review of the Transformation of the Schools: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957 by Lawrence Cremin." History of Educa- tiongguarterly, II (June, 1962), 130-132. Wert, James E. "The Function of Graduate Education in a Teachers College." Educational Research Bulletin, XVII (February 10, 1938), 29-35. Wetzel, William A. "Forty Years a Schoolmaster." National Education Association, Department of Secondary School Principals, Bulletin, No. 57 (May, 1935), 9-42 0 "What is a Progressive School?" Journal of Education, LXV (October 17, 1932), 572. "Where Superintendents and Principals Fail." Elementar School Journal, XXXIV (January, 1934), 3 -3 3. Winget, Lerue W.; Fuller, Edgar; Bell, Terrel H. "State Departments of Education Within State Governments." Chap. ii of Education in The States: Natignwide DevelopmenttSince 1900. Edited by Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Willett, G. W. "As the Principal Sees It." The North Central Association Quarterly, V (December, I930), 231 Withers, William. "Is Progressive Education on the Wane?" School and Society, XLVI (September 25, 1937), Zeitlin, Harry. "An Abstract of Federal Relations in American Education 1933-1943: A Study of New Deal Efforts and Innovations." Dissertation Abstracts: Abstracts of Dissertations and Monographs in Micro- form, XIX, Part I, No.(2. (August, 1958), 268-69. Books and Yearbooks Adams, James Truslow. The Epic of America. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company{(l93l. American Association of University Professors, Committee Y. Depression Recovery and Higher Edgcation. New York: McGraw-Hill Bodk Company, Inc., l937. American Historical Association Commission on the Social Studies. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commission. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934. Bailyn, Bernard. Education in the Forming of American Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study. New York: Vintage Books, 1960. Bair, Frederich. The Social Understandings of the Super- intendent of Schools. New York: Bureau of Pub- lications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934. Beale, Howard K. Are American Teachers Free?i_4An Analy- sis of Restraints Upon the Freddom of Teaching in American Schools. Report of the Commission on Social Studies of the American Historical Associa- tion; Part XII. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936. . A History of Freedom in Teaching in American Scthls. Report of the Commission on the Social Studies of the American Historical Association, Part XVI. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941. Beard, Charles A. and Beard, Mary R. America in Midpassage. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939. 232 . The American Spirit: A Study in the Idea of Civilization in the United States. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1942. Bell, Howard K. Youth Tell Their Story. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1938. Bode, Boyd and Alberty, Harold R. Educational Freedom 3nd Democracy. Second Yearbddk of the JOhn Dewey Society. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938. Bode, Boyd H. Progressive Education at the Crossroads. New York: Newson, 1938. Bolton, Frederick Elmer; Cole, Thomas Raymond; Jessup, John Hunnicut. The Beginning Superintendent. New York: The MacMillan Company, I937. Bowers, C. A. The Progressive Educator and the Depression: The Radioal Years. New York: Random House, 1969? Breed, Frederick 8. Education and the New Realism. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939. Brogan, D. W. The American Character. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1944. Brumeld, Theodore. Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Callahan, Raymond. The Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces that Have Shaped the Administra- tion of the_Pub1ic Schools.' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chamberlain, John. Farewell to Reform: The Rise, Life 3nd Decay of the Progressive Mind in America. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965. Cocking, Walter D. and Gilmore, Charles H. Organization and Administration of Public Education. Staff Study No. 2, Prepared for the Advisory Committee on Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938. Commager, Henry Steele. The American Mind: An Interpre- tation of American Thought and Character since the 1880's. New Haven: Yale UniVersity Press, 1950. 233 Counts, George S. Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? New York: John Day Company, 1932. . Education and American‘Civilization. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. . The Prospects of American Democracy. New York: John Day Company, 1938. . The Social Composition of Boardgiof Education: A Study in the Social Control of Public Education. Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 33. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1927. Coxe, W. W. The Study of the Secondary School Principal In Ngw York State. Albany: The University of the State of New York Press, 1929. Cremin, Lawrence. The Transformation of the School: Pro- gressivism in American Education, l876-l957. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Cubberley, Elwood P. Public Education in the gpited States: A Study and Interpretation of American EddCational History. lst ed., rev. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1934. Curti, Merle. The Social Ideas of American Educators: With New Chapter on the Last Twenty-five Years. Commission on the Social Studies of the American Historical Association. Patterson, N. J.: Pageant Books, Inc., 1959. Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association. Educational Leadership; Progress and Possibilities. Eleventh Yearbook. Washing- ton, D.C.: The Department of Superintendence, 1933. Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association. The Improvement of Education: Its Interpretation for Democracy. Fifteenth Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: The Department of Superintend- ence, l937. Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association. Social Change and Educatign. Thirteenth Yearbook. Washington, D.C. The De- partment of Superintendence, 1935. 234 Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1938. Division of Field Studies, Institute of Educational Re- search, Teachers College. The Report of a Survey of the Public Schools of Pittsburg_, Pennsylvania. New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940. Educational Policies Commission. The Education of Free Men in a Democragy. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association and American Association of School Administrators, 1941. . Learning the Wayiof Democragy: A Case Book of Civic Education. Washington, D.C.: Nationdl Education Association of the United States and the American Association of School Administrators, 1940. . The Purposes of Education in American Democracy. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and the American Association of School Administra- tors, 1938. . Research Memorandum on Education in the Depres- sion. New York: Social Science Research Council Bulletin, No. 28, 1937. . The Structure and Administration of Education In American Democragy. Washington, D. C.: Nation- al Education Association and American Association of School Administrators, 1938. . The Unigue Function of Education in American Democracy. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and the Department of Superintend- ence, 1937. Enc jclopedia of Educational Research. 1st ed. Forcey, Charles. The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, weyl, Lippman and the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961. Fuller, Edgar and Pearson, Jim B., eds. Education in the States: Nationwide Development since 1900. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. 235 Gabriel, Ralph H. The Course of American Democratic Thou ht. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1940. Graham, Otis L., Jr. An Encore for Reform: The Old Pro- gressives and the New Deal. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Graham, Patricia Albjerg. Progressive Education: From Arcady to Academe: A History of the Progressive EducationjAssociation, 1219-1955. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Colum- bia University, 1967. Handlin, Oscar. The American: A New History of the People of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963. Harper, Manly H. Social Beligf and Atiitude of American Educators. Teachers College, Columbia University Contributions to Education, No. 294. New York: Bureau of Publications Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927. Hofstdter, Richard. The Age of Reform. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. . Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964. Judd, Charles H. Preparation of School Personnel: The Regents Inqdiry. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938. Keith, Philip Edward. The History of Secondary Education in Penobscot County in Maine. Oreno, Maine: The University Press, 1948. Kilpatrick, William Heard, ed. The Educational Frontier. New York: Century, 1933. Kursh, Harry. The United States Office of Education: A Century of Service. Philadelphia, Pa.: Chilton Books, A DiVision of Chilton Company, 1965. Lasch, Christopher. The Agency of the American Left. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, I969. Latimer, John Francis. What's Happened to Our High Schools? Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1958. 236 Lerner, Max. America as a Civilization: Life and Thought in the United States Today. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Lynd, Robert S. and Lynd, Helen Merrill. Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1937. MacCracken, John Henry, ed. American Universities and Colle es. 2nd ed.: Baltimore, Md.: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1930. Marsh, Clarence Stephen, ed. American Universities and Colle es. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Counc11 on Education, 1940. Mayer, Frederick. American Ideas and Education. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Book Co., 1964. Meyer, Donald, B. The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941. Berkley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1960. Miller, Robert Moats. American Protestantism and Social Issues, 1919-1939. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univer§ity of North Carolina Press, 1958. Moehlman, Arthur B. School Administration: Its Develnp- ment, Principles, and Future in the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940. Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Intellectual Life of Colonial New England. Ithica, N.Y.: Great Seal Books, A fiivision of Cornell University Press, 1956. Mort, Paul R. and Cornell, Francis L. American Sghools in Transition: How Our Schools Adapt Their Practices to Changing Needs: A Study ofPennsylvania. New Yofk: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941. National Education Association. Proceedings. Vols. LXX- LXXVII. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1932-39. National Society for the Study of Education. Graduate Study in Education. The Fiftieth Yearbook, Part I. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 237 Newlon, Jesse H. Educational Agministration es Social Policy. Report of the Commission on Social Studies, Part VIII. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934. Nye, Russel B. Midwestern Progressive Politics: A His- teiical Study of its Origins and Development, 1870- 1958. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State Univer- sity Press, 1959. Oberholtzer, Edison Ellsworth. An Integrated Curriculum in Practice. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 694. New York: Bureau of Publica- tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937. O'Leary, Timothy. An Inquiry into the General Purpose, Functions and Organizations of Selected University §ehools of Education with Special Reference to gertain Aspects of Their University Growth and Development. WaShington, D.C.: Catholic Univer- §ity of America Press, 1941. Orton, William Aylott. America in Search of Culture. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1933. Parrington, Vernon Louis. Main Currents in American Thou ht. Vol. III: The Beginning of Critical Realism in America, 1860-1920. New York: Har- court, Brace and’Company, 1930. Perkinson, Henry J. The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education, 1865-1965. New York: Random House, 1968. Pierce, Paul R. Developing a High School Curriculum. New York: American Bodk Company, 1942. Rudy, Willis. Schools in an Age of Mass Culture: An Ex- ploration of Selected Themes in the History of Twentieth-Century American Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1965. Schmidt, A. W. Development of a State Minimum Educational Program. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932. Smith, Harry P. A Limited School Survey of the Minoa, N. Y. Area. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University,(l94l. Spaulding, Francis T. High School and Life: The Regents In uir . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I938. 238 Spears, Harold. The Emerging High School Cuiriculum and Its Direction. New York: American Book Company, I940. Swift, Fletcher Harper. Federal and State Policies in Public School Finance in the United States. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1931. Warner, W. Lloyd. Democracy in Jonesville: A Study of Quality and Inequality, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Welter, Rush. Popular Education and Democratic Thought in America. New York: Columbia University Press, I967. Wesley, Edgar B. NEA: The First Hundred Years: The Building of the Teaching Profession. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1957. Williamson, Obed Jolman. Provisions for General Theory Courses in the ProfessionaltEducation of Teachers. Contributions to Education, No. 684} New Yofk: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. Wish, Harvey. Society and Thought in Modern America: A Social and Intellectual Historyofthe American People From 1865. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952. Government and University Publications Ann Arbor, Mich. Helping Children Experience the Realities of the Social Order: Social(Studies in the Pfiblic Schools of Ann Arbor, Michigan: Junior High Schools. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Board of Education, 1933. Beach, Fred F. and Gibbs, Andrew H. The Personnel of State Departments of Education. U.S. Office of Education. Misc. No. 16. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1952. Cambridge, Mass. City of Cambridge, Massachusetts Annual Report of the School Committee and Superintendent ef Schools, 1939. Cambridge, Mass.: Board of Education, I939. 239 Chicago, Ill. Board of Education, City of Chicago. Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools for the Yeer ending June 12, 1936. Chicago, Ill.: Board of Education, 1936. Chicago, Ill. Board of Education,City of Chicago, Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools for the Yearending June 11, 1937. Chicago, 111.: Board of Education, 1937. Cork, Katherine M. "Review of Conditions and Development in Education in Rural and Other Sparsely Settled Areas." U.S. Office of Education. Biennial Sur- vey of Education in the United States 1934-36. Vol. I. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1940. . Supervision of Instruction as a Function of State Departments of Education. U.S. Office of Educa- tion, Bulletin, 1940, No. 6. Monograph No. 7. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940. Covert, Timon. Federal Grants for Education 1933-1934. U.S. OffiCe of Education. Leaflet, No. 45. Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935. . State Provisions for Equalizaing_the Cost of Public Education. U.S. Office of Education. Bulletin, 1936, No. 4. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1936. Detroit, Mich. The Superintendents' Annual Report: Detroit Public Schools, 1938-39. Detroit: Board of Educa- tion, 1939. East Lansing, Mich. Growth: Superintendent's Annuaere- port, 1945-1946. East Lansing, Mich.: East Lan- sing, Public Schools, 1946. East Lansing, Mich. Report to the Board of Educationei the Citizens' Survey of East Lansing Schools. East Lansing, Michigan: 1945. Gaummitz, W. H. Education in the Southern Mountain. U.S. Office of Education Bulletin, 1937, No. 26. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937. 240 Goodykoontz, Bess. "Elementary Education, 1930-1936." U.S. Office of Education. Biennial Survey of Education, 1934-1936. Vol. I. Bulletin, 1937, No. 2. Washihgton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940. Grand Rapids. Mich. Sixty-First and Sixty- -Second Annual Reports of the Board of Education of the C1ty of Grand Rapids, Michigan for the School Years end1ng June, 1935 and June, 1936. Grand Rapids. Mith.: Board of Education, 1936. Grand Rapids, Mich. Sixty- -Third and Sixty-Fourth Annual Reports of the Board of Education of the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan for the School Years Ending June 1935 and June, 1936. Grand Rapids: Board of Education, 1936. Hamtramck, Mich. Education for Democracy; Annual Report, Hamtramck Public Schools, 1936-1937. Hamtramck, Mich. Board of Education, 1937. Jessen, Carl A. "Trends in Secondary Education." U.S. Office of Education. Biennial Survey of Education, 1934-1936. Vol. I, Bulletin, 1937, No._2. Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940. Johnston, Edgar G. and Rich, Dwight H. "Planning Educa- tional Programs in Terms of Actual Needs of Young People." Michigan Department of Public Instruction. Should Youth Challenge the Secondary School? Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion, 1941. Keesecker, Ward W. "A Review of Educational Legislation 1933 and 1934." Chap. viii of Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1932-1934. U.S. Office of Education. Bulletin, 1935, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935. . "A Review of Educational Legislation, 1935 and 1936." Chap. viii of Vol. I of Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1934-I936. U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin, 1937, No. 2. 2 Vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939. . A Review of Educational Legislation 1937 and 1938. U. S. Office of Education. Bulletin, 1939, No. 16. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1939. 241 Lansing, Mich. Your Schools. Lansing, Mich.: Board of Education,Cl939. Leary, Bernice E. Curriculum Leboratories and Divisions: Their Organization and Functions in State Depart- ments of Education, City School Systems and In- stitutions of Higher Education. Office of Educa- tion. Bulletin, 1938, No. 7. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938. Lund, John. Education of School Administrators. U.S. Office of Education. Bulletin, 1941, No. 6. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1942. Michigan Department of Public Instruction. Biennual Reports 1931-1941. Lansing: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1932-1942. Michigan Department of Public Instruction. Changing Secondary Education in the United States: Report on a Survey of Modifications of Secondary Educa- tion. Secondary School Curriculum Study, Bulle- t1n, No. 2. Lansing, Mich. 1939. Michigan Department of Public Instruction. The Michigan Curriculum Program: Third Report of Progress. Bulletin, No. 311. Lansing, Mich.: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1939. . The Michigan Program of Curriculum Program: Second Report of Progress. Bulletin 305A. Lan- sing: Superintendent of Public Instruction, l937. . News of the Week. Vols. I-VIII. New Orleans, La. Tomorrow's Citizens: A Study_and Pro- gram for the Improvement of the New Orleans Public School. New Orleans: Citizen‘ s Planning Committee for Public Education, 1940. New York. The Regents' Inquiry. Educetion for American Life: A New Program for theState of New York. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938. New York University, School of Education. Announcement for the Session 1934-35. New York: Washington Square, 1934. 242 New York. University of the State of New York. Twenty- Eighth Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year ending June 30, I931. Vol. I. Albany, N. Y.: University of the State of New York, 1932. . Thirty- -Second Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year Ending June 30, I935. Vol. I. Albany, N. Y., The University of the State of New York, 1937. . Thirty-Third Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year ending June 30, 1936. Vol. I. Albany, N. Y. The University of he State of New York, 1938. . Thirty-Fourth Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year endihg June 30, I937. Vol. I. Albany, N. Y.: The University of the State of New York, 1939. Proffitt, Marie M. "Adult Education." U.S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education in the United States 1934-1936. Vol} I. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940. Rice, Theodore, and Faunce, Roland. The Michigan Second- ary Study. A Report of the Michigan Study of the Secondary School Curriculum l937-1945. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, 1945. Rugg. Earle U., et a1. Teacher Education Curricula in Seven Parts. Vol. III of National _Survey of the Edncation of Teachers. Office of Education. Bulletin, 1933, No. 10. 6 Vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935. St. Louis, Mo. Approved Recommendations of the_St. Louis School Survey. St. Louis: St. Louis Public Schools, 1941. Teachers College Bulletin. Announcement of Teachers College 1935-1936. New York. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. U.S., The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,’l938. 243 U.S. Department of Interior. Annual Report of the Secre- Eery of the Interior for the FiscaltYear ended June 30, l933-39. 7 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1933-39. U.S. Office of Education. Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Education for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1940. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1941. . Annual Report of the Commissioner of Edneetion to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscdl Year ended June 30, l930-32. 3 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1930-32. . Biennial Survey of Education i930-1932. Bulle- tin, 1933, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1935. . Biennial Survey of Education 1932-1933. Bulle- tin, 1935, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937. . Biennial Survey of Education 1934-1936. Bulle- tin, 1937, No. 2. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939, Vol. I. . Biennial Survey of Education 1936-1938. Bulle- tin, 1940, No. 2. 2 vols. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942. . Choosing Our Way. Bulletin, 1937, Misc. No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937. . National Surveynof the Education of Teachers. Bulletin, No. 10, 1933. 6 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932-33. . National Survey of Secondary Education. Bulle- tin, 17, 1932, Monographs 1-28. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1933-34. . A Survey of Courses of Study and Other Curriculum Materials Publishethince 1934. Bulletin, 1937, No. 31. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937. . To Promote the Cause of Education: A Pictoral Presentation. Bulletin, 1938) Misc. No. 2. Was - ihgton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938. 244 U.S., Statutes at Large. Vol. XIV (1867). University of Michigan School of Education. General Announcement 1938-29. (Part X of the General Register). Ann Arbor, Mich.: Published by the University, 1928. . General Announcement 1937-38 and 1938-39. (Part X of the General Registét5. Ann Arbor, MiCh.: Published by the University, 1937. Will, Robert F.; Murphy, Louise R.; Gibbs, James E., Jr. State School Administration 1900-1955; Reports of Major Surveys and Studies. U.S. Office obeduca- tion. Circular, No. 580. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1957. Newspapers Campbell, Harold G. "The School Year Opens." New York Times, September 13, 1936, p. 14. New York Times, January 1, 1933 - December 31, 1939. Unpublished Material Jackson, Mich. Board of Education Proceedings, January 1, 1932-June 10, 1942. (Mimeographed.) Jennings, E. J. "The Status of the Superintendent in the Public Schools of Michigan." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Michigan, 1934. Lansing, Mich. Board of Education Minutes. November 23, 1936-April 14, 1941. (Mimeographed.) Magnuson, Roger P. "The Concerns of Organized Business With Michigan Education, 1910-1940." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963. Meredith, Cameron W. "An Account of Change at the Univer- sity of Michigan during the Period 1921-49." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1950. Michigan Association of School Administrators, Proceedings, 1933-1940. Lansing, 1933-1940. (Mimeographed.) 245 General References Periodicals Bagley, William C. "An Essentialists Platform for the Advancement of American Education." Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIV (April, I938), 241-256. Blume, Clarence E. "How the Secondary School Principal Can Be Progressive." School Executive, LIII (October, 1933), 42—43. Brubacker, John S. "Review of Conclusions and Recommenda- tions of the Commission [American Historical As- sociation Commission on the Social Studies]." American Historical Review, XL (January, 1935), 301-305. Crawford, Will R. "Representative School Systems--San Diego." Journal of Education, CXIX (June 6, 1956), 14-18. Dewey, John. "Democracy and Educational Administration." Department of Superintendence. Official Report. Washington, D.C.: American Assodiation of School Administrators, 1937. Forsythe, L. L. "New Wine in New Bottles." Clearing House, XI (December, 1936), 225-227. Forman, W. D. "The Principal As Interpreter." Journal of Haggerty, M. E. "The Low Visibility of Educational Issues." School and Society, XLI (March 2, 1935), 273-283. Hutchins, Robert M. "The American Educational System." School Review, XLIII (February, 1933), 95-100. McClure, Worth. "The Schools and the Democratic Way of Living." Educational Method, XIV (October, 1934), 10-180 Osburn, W. J. "What Next In School Administration?" Educational Administration and Supervision, XI (Eebruary, 1935), 107-114. 246 Soderbergh, Peter A. "Charles A. Beard and the Public Schools, 1909-1939." History of Education Quart- erly, V (December, 19655) 241-252. Sutton, William. "Problems of a Superintendent." Depart- ment of Superintendence. Official Report. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Association of School Ad- ministrators, 1937. Van Slyck, Willard N. "The Development of the High School Curriculum in Three Large American Cities." Bul- letin of the Department of Secondary School Principals of the National Education Association, No. 5 (December, 1934), 13-34. Waterhouse, Ralph G. "Analyzing the Progressive Movement." Ohio Schools, XIV (October, 1936), 278. Books Aiken, Wilfred M. The Story of the Eight Year Study. New York: Harper, 1942. Arnett, Claude E. Social Belief and Attitude oivAmerican School Beard Members. Emporia, Kan.: Emporia Gazette Press, 1932. Cohan, Sol. Progressive and Urban School Reform: The Public School Association oftNew York City,l895- 1954. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Detroit Public Schools. Frank Edy: A Realist in Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1943. Karier, Clarence J. Man, Society and Education. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman,and Company, 1967. Kilpatrick, William Heard. Education and the Social Crisis: A Preposed Program. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1932. Koopman, G. Robert; and Meil, Abie; and Misner, Paul J. Democracy in School Administration. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Incorporated, 1943. Newlon, Jesse H. Edueation for Democracy in Our Time. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939. 247 Persons, Stow. American Minds: A History of Ideas. New York: Henry Hill and Company, 1958. Pierce, Bessie Louise. Citizens Organizations and the Civic Training of Youth} Report of the Commission on the Social Studies of the American Historical Association, Part III. New York: Charles Scrib- ner's Sons, 1933. Rugg, Harold. The Great Technology: Social Chaos and the Public Mind. New York: John Day Company, 1933. Spears, Harold. Experience in Curriculum Building. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1937. Whittemore, Robert Clifton. Makers of the American Mind. New York: William Morrow & Company, I964. Young, Kimball. An Introduction to Sociology. New York: American Book Company, 1934. "‘1i11111111111“