growing deficit in the quantity and the quality of American education.54 Mr. Lippmann says he believes there is compelling proof that we are operating at an educational deficit. It is to be found in many of the controversies within the educational system.55 I am not myself, of course, a professional educator, but I do some reading about education, and I have been especially interested in the problem of providing education for the men and women who must perform the highest functions in our society-the elucidation and the articulation of its ideals, the advancement of knowledge, the making of high policy in government, and leadership of the people. He poses the question: How are we discussing this problem? Are we, as we ought to be doing, studying what are the subjects and what are the disciplines which are needed for the education of the gifted children for the leadership of the Nation? That is not the main thing we are discussing. We are discussing whether we can afford to educate our leaders when we have so far to go before we have done what we should do to provide equal opportunities for all people. Most of the argument indeed the whole issue of whether to address the effort in education to the average of ability or to the higher capacities-derives from the assumptionMr. Lippmann believes that we have to make that choice. But do we have to choose? 4 I should like to increase the number and scope of better public schools. I should greatly prefer that the public schools provide for more children the quality of education provided by the private schools. Of course, some public schools are much better than others, but parents do not have a choice among public-school systems. A private school is the only alternative to the public school of the community where a family happens to live. Many parents who now scrimp reluctantly to pay private-school bills would much prefer a good public school, if one were available.-Lynd, Albert, Quackery in the Public Schools, p. 6. We are now surrounded by the consequences of our own energy and belief. American society and its educational system have been built on the idea of education for all, and now at last, after so many years of struggle, we are approaching the point at which our social and educational ideal may in fact become true. We are in the midst of a revolutionary shift in American society, a shift so profound in its implications that we have not yet become aware of its meaning.-Taylor, Harold, Toward a New Cultural Era? Newsweek, vol. 46, No. 23, December 5, 1955, p. 58. 55 One basic reason for this shortage (of teachers), of course, is the low salaries paid to teachers. No one with the welfare of the Nation at heart can fail to support every move to bring the scale of remuneration into some remotely reasonable accord with the professional position that teachers are supposed to occupy in the community. This will involve increased financial support for the schools, but it will require much more money. It will require a thoroughgoing reappraisal of educational budgets as a whole. The purpose of the schools must be clarified, so that the money which has been diverted into frivolous projects can be applied once again to the adequate financing of sound, fundamental instruction. The disparity between the salaries of teachers and administrators must also be looked into, for that disparity is far greater than prevails in higher education and is far greater than is compatible with the welfare of the teaching profession. Finally, the irrational veneration for bricks and mortar-which has plagued American education at every level-must be resolutely opposed wherever it takes the form of building magnificant school buildings at the expense, in effect, of teachers' salaries.-Bestor, Arthur E., The Restoration of Learning, pp. 201-202. 36 Although it is generally held that a child's intelligence level, commonly expressed in terms of his IQ, indicates a ceiling of abilities to educability, the point is generally made that the possibilities under this ceiling are seldom fully realized. Hence for most children, who are not mentally inferior, there is little justific. tion for not maintaining an attitude of optimism relative to their educability.-Monroe, Walter S., Teacher-Learning Theory and Teacher Education, 1890-1950, p. 51. This alleged choice he concludes is forced upon us only because our whole educational effort The report to the President of the White House Conference on Education sets forth clearly that the plight of the public-school system has reached the state of a national emergency.58 Approximately 205,000 new teachers are needed this year in public, elementary, and high schools. An additional 125,000 will be needed annually, as replacements and to meet the demand resulting from our expansion in population. There is a need for more than 198,000 additional classrooms at this time. It is estimated that by 1960, there will be a need for 375,000 new classrooms. The number of teachers that are needed far exceeds the estimated number expected to enter teaching next year and the following years. The present rate of school construction is adding only about 60,000 classrooms a year, which is wholly inadequate to meet the accumulated backlog of shortages. Carefully studying the problem, it appears necessary that publicschool expenditures within the next 10 years be doubled. It is found that teachers' salaries should be approximately doubled, if the schools are to attract and hold good teachers in adequate numbers, in vie of salaries being paid by other segments of the Nation's economy. The principle of Federal contribution to school construction now has wide support.59 Opinion polls 60 and news reporting leads to a reasonable supposition that an overwhelming majority of citizens are now favoring Federal aid and they want it as soon as possible. Some have expressed concern with a view to the possible threat of future Federal 57 Lippmann, Walter, excerpt from speech before the National Citizens Commission for the Public Schools, San Francisco, Calif., March 19, 1954. Printed in hearings before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 84th Cong., 1st session, Education, pp. 186-190. 58 Committee for the White House Conference on Education, A Report to the President, April 6, 1956. 59 For a different view, as expressed by Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who said, "In commenting on legislation before this committee last year, I stated my view that Federal grants could deter rather than stimulate construction because States and localities might postpone their own building programs."--testimony in hearings before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U. S. Senate, 84th Cong., 1st sess., p. 21. See also, "Secretary Hobby Restates Her Views on School Construction Aid," National Education Association, Legislation and Federal Relations Division, Newsletter, Washington, Nov. 10, 1954. 60 All major groups of the population, and the rank-and-file of both the Republican and Democratic Parties approve of Government financial help for the building of new public schools, in the latest Institute survey. Gallup, George, "Public Backs U. S. Aid to Schools," Washington Post and Times Herald, Jan 22, 1956. control of education at the local level. Leaders in the field of public education generally discount such a possibility in this country. The subcommittee concurs with widely expressed views that substantial Federal aid to the public schools represents a pressing and imperative need. The dimensions of the present problem are of such magnitude that only through Federal aid and assistance will the States and local communities be enabled to cope with it.62 Failure to provide early and sufficient Federal aid will result in inestimable damage to the educational processes essential to the maintenance of a healthy democracy. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "it expects what never was and never will be." 63 61 On the other hand ・・・ the Federal Government has made grants to the States for general and specific educational purposes, and the evidence from these experiences indicates that Federal money can flow into the States and local communities without carrying with it Federal domination of local educational policies and practices. As a student of American educational history, and as the former educational officer of the United States Government, who over a period of years was responsible for the distribution of several hundred million dollars to the States in support of education, I see no reason to believe that further Federal aid will inaugurate Federal control. Every piece of educational legislation introduced into the Congress in recent years, and in 1 year there were more than 500 such acts, has included an express prohibition against Federal interference in local educational policy and practice. Moreover, one of the most reliable protections against the encroachment of the Federal Government is the very attitude of the members of the profession itself. Educators differ widely in their views on nearly every aspect of our educational system, but on the matter of State and local control of education, they stand as one man. All the evidence seems to me to indicate that though the argument about Federal control may not be irrelevant, it is certainly immaterial and inconsequential. For informed persons to continue to raise this issue is to confuse the discussion of a very pressing social problem, mislead our people, and deprive many of our children of their educational birthright.-McGrath, Earl J., address at Dartmouth College on November 14, 1955, printed in the Congressional Record on January 12, 1956. 62 Financing is done and control exerted, be it repeated, less and less by local communities. They have not the money. They have little to tax for school purposes except real and personal property. Such taxes are not sufficient. The larger part of modern taxable wealth does not consist of real property. Much of our possessions, too, is corporately held, and the greater part of industry and business is anything but local. More and more the schools cry out for money from the Federal Treasury, for Washington alone has opportunity to raise the necessary money by levies on aggregations of capital, on enterprises widely owned and widely operating. Whether we like it or not, in the future more and more of the bill for education is going to have to be paid by Washington."-Bell, Bernard Iddings, Crowd Culture, p. 56. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, edited by S. K. Padover, p. 89. II. SOME VIEWS ON EDUCATION AND THE PROBLEM OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION AND JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (By Harold L. Clapp, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa) (A paper prepared for the Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency) PRELIMINARY NOTE Juvenile delinquency is, of course, a complex problem with many contributing causes. In this paper, only the educational causes are in question, and no attempt is made to weigh these causes in relation to any others. The premises of this paper are that the public schools in a democracy ought to help young people to recognize the relation between actions and consequences; to develop a sense of social responsibility, of human dignity, and thus of respect for others; to think clearly; to achieve substantial and valid ethical convictions and some stamina for standing by them; in short, schools should stand as a positive force against the occurrence of delinquency. The body of the paper contends that modern American educational theory and practice fail us to varying but serious degrees-at all of these points. The conclusion is that in coping effectively with the problem of delinquency, provision must be made for effecting essential changes in our educational pattern. Although it is common and proper to approach the problem of juvenile delinquency by calling on the technical knowledge of the sociologist and the psychologist, this paper represents the views of one who is no such technician. He is simply a teacher and parent who has observed the educational scene for some 30 years. Along the way, he has reached certain disquieting convictions concerning the relation between education and civic behavior in modern America. Schools reflect the society that supports them. When they represent what is best in that society, humanity moves forward; when they reflect the average or less, they perpetuate mediocrity, or worse. This is to say that the schools help to shape a culture as well as mirror it. To be sure, in a democracy they must not indulge in “* * * any 'social indoctrination' through teaching," but for better or for worse they affect the character as well as the thinking of citizens. In fact, the schools of each moment are forming the society of two generations. The parents of today's young people often accused of conducting themselves and their homes in so undisciplined a fashion 64 Garrett, John, in The Public Schools in Crisis, p. 136. A book of critical essay on modern education edited by Mortimer Smith, and representing perhaps the most convenient reference of its kind. Other works that will be found useful are (among many) those of Arthur Bestor, other books by Mortimer Smith, the Colliers Magazine articles of 1954 by Howard Whitman, and an article by David Riesman, "Thoughts on Teachers and Schools," The Anchor Review, Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1955, p. 57. as to foster juvenile delinquency 65-were "conditioned" by the schools of yesterday. In the same way, the social responsibility and moral fiber of tomorrow's children will be strengthened or weakened not only by their experience in the classrooms of tomorrow, but by the experience of their parents in the classrooms of today. And what has been happening in these classrooms is far from reassuring.66 It is generally agreed that the strongest single influence exerted on modern American education has been the "pragmatic" philosophy of John Dewey-and it has been cogently argued that the essential tenets of pragmatism have contributed heavily and directly to the deterioration of morality. This position is worth careful consideration, but for the moment we need not even enter that philosophical debate. Before his death, Dr. Dewey himself had become distressed by what had happened, in his name, to public education.67 Right or wrong, he was a serious philosopher, but the application of his ideas to the schoolroom has been in the main frivolous and irresponsible. Progressively simplified and caricatured by disciples more zealous than judicious, the Dewey position has been used to justify the most absurd and corrosive of classroom practices. * For example, in a philosophical context, Dr. Dewey pointed out that it is ultimately "* *the child, * ** and not the subject matter, which determines both the quality and the quantity of learning.' Fuzzy-minded followers were soon warping this truism to make it mean that the child must be allowed to decide directly and consciously what is to be done in school, and for what purpose. Thus was born a new and topsy-turvy educational era in which, ultimately, we find the classes where pupils vote on the words they will learn to spell and the grades they wish to receive. The most fantastic extremes may be less commonplace than a few years ago, but the basic assumption of the child as king-wielding authority without responsibility or competence is still widely accepted in the public schools. It has been our national misfortune that this pseudophilosophical justification for the watering down of education was conveniently at hand just at the moment that a greatly increased school population (after World War I, and during the depression) forced a modification of our traditional public-school program. There was never any systematic, thoughtful search for a new pattern that might maintain standards and challenge the gifted pupils while providing for the needs and capacities of the less gifted or differently gifted. Instead, desperate or unthinking educators seized on the misconstruction of John Dewey's thesis. The child was to determine the program, and if great numbers of mediocre pupils now expected to stay in school for long periods of time, then educators would take their cue from the interests and abilities of the average or below-average. In a nutshell, the guiding principles of modern American education seem to be: (a) The child knows best; (b) the difficult must be made easy. Thus was fostered the now widely accepted caricature of democratic education: the assumption that, regardless of talent or application, each pupil has a right to the same education and the same diploma es E. g., Thompson, Dorothy, The Public Schools in Crisis, p. 82. A caveat is in order. This paper must not be taken as a wholesale indictment of schools and teachers. Many of these, it would go without saying, are doing a superlative job; the brighter side of the picture is real, but not relevant here, since the task at hand is to find, if they exist, those aspects of our educational pattern that are encouraging or condoning delinquency, #7 In news article carried by the United Press on Oct. 20, 1951. |