Education in the

First Half

of the

20th Century

by

Robert C. Morris

EDLE 6322

Department of Educational Leadership

& Professional Studies

University of WestGeorgia

EDUCATION IN THE FIRST HALF

OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Table of Contents

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyrighted 1976

Robert C. Morris

EDUCATION IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE

TWENTIETH CENTURY

This chapter is designed essentially to describe the antecedents and the nature of the educational system which developed in America during the first half of the twentieth century. The complexities and intricacies of educational developments during the present century plus the lack of time for the full development of historical perspective in analyzing them add to the difficulty of surveying any relatively recent period of history. Any one of the numerous educational developments during those immediate decades leading up to the present deserves extensive discussion in itself. The forces and events within this chapter were selected as the most relevant. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in analyzing the major developments is the fact that the present century has produced an abundance of self-analysis and criticism of the traditional system of education and its purpose. This is a century pulsating with tensions and friction; its educational practices, theories, and experiments are one index of the changing pattern of American thought and institutions.

Not since the common schools movement had there been so much concern about the purposes of education and its relationship to democracy as in the beginnings of the twentieth century. The educational leadership of the late nineteenth century had dedicated itself largely to extending opportunities to those which has earlier been denied them and to discovering the means of adjusting and modifying institutions and objectives to fit the needs of an industrial society. In the first half of the twentieth century, the theme of democracy and education is repeatedly expressed. Progressive and democratic ideals were restated and reaffirmed, and the existing order was severely indicated for failure to meet the demands of a democratic people. There was a growing demand for the school to help build a better social order. An inevitable problem resulted from the growth in acceptance of nineteenth century educational ideal of equal opportunity: that of mass education versus quality. The first half of this century reverberated with criticism and rejection, with questioning and evaluating, and as the second half of this century closes one can easily see numerous programs, methodologies, and attitudes that are direct outgrowths of these generalized attacks on our educational system.

However, education in the first half of the twentieth century has, in general, accepted the principles of the nineteenth century education reformers. Despite the attacks and counter-attacks made on American education were seen as the foremost means of promoting the democratic aims of society. Social improvement and progress are two key educational objectives of this century as they were in the preceding one. Whether expressed in the abstract realm of American thought, through the reform proposals of the educational theorists, or by the methods and concepts of progressivism-faith in democracy and in education as a means of improving social institutions became a dominant theme. The main difference between the views of the twentieth century leadership and that of the past is in the recognition of the complexities and peculiar problems and conditions of an industrial urban society. The result is a variety of innovations and reforms and a sharp break with the traditional educational patterns of the nineteenth century. This chapter will attempt, therefore, to describe the combination of growing forces that accounted for the development of a new more progressive education in the United States.

The story of this “new” progressive education begins with the Greek, Roman, and Hebrew philosophies of education and flows through history to such European educators as Rousseau and Pestalozzi, whose ideas became a mainstay for progressive thought. With these and others the seeds of progressivism were planted.

As early American “educators” such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Mann studied and recognized the potential of a useful, citizenship-oriented public education, the seeds that had been planted centuries before began to grow.

Finally with the closing years of the nineteenth century the movement flowered with the help of such educators as Parker and Dewey, as well as organizations like the (PEA) Progressive Education Association. This progressive movement for education quickly developed widespread appeal in the twentieth century.

TRADITIONAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

There seems little doubt that by the time of the Civil War, the major outlines of the American school system had emerged clearly enough to warrant some generalizations. That the common school had become an essential feature of American life by that time cannot be debated. By 1886 the conception of this institution had crystallized to a point where a Massachusetts court decision was able to define a common school as one supported and controlled by the local community, open to all children, and teaching the elementary common branch subjects. Though conditions varied considerably from one part of the nation to another, the beginnings of grading systems were already in evidence in the cities, while the work of infant school societies had begun to extend the common school downward. In general, children were able to enter somewhere between the ages of four and six, and could stay from five to eight or nine years, depending on the region.

That the common school was to stand as the first section of an educational ladder stretching all the way through the university was also clear by the time of the Civil War. In many northern and western cities the high school had already begun to displace the academy as the people’s secondary schools. The fact that the high school came after the common school, and they embraced both college-preparatory and terminal students, served sharply to distinguish the American system from more traditional European dual systems. With the state universities open to qualified students of the high school, the ladder was completed.

Of the many conflicting educational aims vying for support during this period of tremendous expansion, traditional ones tended to dominate the schools. While it is true that the curriculum broadened at every level—especially in the more populated areas—and while it is true that dozens of educational experiments and innovations appeared in various individual schools or school systems, it was not until after the Civil War that these new influences really began to alter that basic purposes of American Education. What, then, were these more traditional aims which continued to provide the guidelines for the American school program?

Perhaps the dominant aim of the whole support school system from common school through university was character and moral development. Stemming from the profound influence of organized religious groups in the founding and control of American schools, this stood central in the thinking of most educators prior to 1865. For some, character and moral development could never be separated from instruction in the tenents and doctrines of a particular religious faith. For others, character training could still be central in the program of a nonsectarian common school. Often the controversy over what kind of school could best provide this training was the crux of the struggle over public education.

Rooted in the European traditions of idealism and rationalism, the ideal of mental discipline was another central aim of early nineteenth-century education, and emphasis upon it increased as the century progressed. Ascribing only secondary importance as the century progressed. Ascribing only secondary importance to the acquisition of knowledge, mental discipline stressed rather the importance of training the faculties and intellectual powers of the mind. Thus, for example, mathematics would be taught not for any practical or theoretical value it might posses, but primarily to strengthen the mind’s power to reason logically. This theory was strongly advocated by religious and humanist educators. It was cited most frequently as justification of the continuance of classical studies in the curriculum. It was, therefore, particularly popular in the liberal arts college, and was often used to support the college-preparatory functions of the academics and high schools.

A third ideal which held powerful sway, specially at the elementary level was universal literacy, and through this, the dissemination of information. Traditionally Protestant groups had placed emphasis upon this aim, growing out of their conception that each man achieved salvation by reading and interpreting the Bible for himself. In the nineteenth century the achievement of this goal was increasingly fortified by arguments that a republic could survive only with universal literacy among the electorate. Thus, in those areas which accepted the common school idea the assumption that universal literacy would automatically bolster a people’s freedom was commonly acknowledged.

The third aim was quite closely allied with a fourth which has been gaining headway since the European nations had first begun to conceive of education for national purposes in the seventeenth century: namely, education for citizenship. This deal was certainly powerful in the common schools, where one guiding purpose was to train loyal citizens able to assume their responsibilities. Moreover, it was increasingly evidenced in the establishment of public secondary schools and colleges whose stated purpose was to provide competent leaders for the community. Clearly, education for citizenship furnished consideration support for the inclusion of social studies at all levels of education. Moreover, the programs of Americanization which grew out of it played an important part in welding one nation out of a variety of national and cultural groups.

A fifth aim which began to make headway in the fact of traditional opposition was that of vocational or practical competence. This ideal was particularly manifested in the academics, where the claim was most often made that studies would be useful in the “ordinary business of life.” In the pre-Civil War period, although there were sporadic attempts at vocational training for manual or industrial positions, most people though of studies that pertained to the business and commercial world when they thought of these “practical” subjects. This is quite understandable in view of the face that academics catered principally to the middle classes and the fact that commerce and trade were far more developed than industry before the Civil War.

A final traditional aim tied in clearly with practical competence, namely, the goal of individual success. Nurtured by frontier and capitalist individualism, this end guided many into the school who might not otherwise have attended. For this group—and it was a large one—schooling would help one along the ladder to success. More often than not, just how the school would help was not entirely clear, but the fact remains that it would help was accepted uncritically. In many cases it was simply a matter of attaining something which over the centuries had traditionally been reserved for small groups among the upper classes. In the spirit of the middle class they wanted for their youngsters what the youngsters of the upper classes had received for decades—say classical education. They were not quite sure of what advantages accure from such an education, but they steadfastly believed it would help their children along the road to success.

HISTORICAL VIEW OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION

The European Background

Americans seem to think that God created the world in 1620—that is, that nothing much of importance happened before the New England colonies were settled. This orientation—probably a result of our almost exclusive educational concentration on American history – tends to exclude an awareness of the very important contributions of Europe and Asia toward the shaping of American culture. The truth of the matter is, of course that: (1) European colonists brought to the New World a rich cultural heritage, and (2) this cultural heritage was immediately modified by the conditions of the new land.

European educational systems were derived ultimately from the Greeks and Romans, the former dating to as early as 400 B.C. The Athenian Greeks thought of education as a process that developed both intellect and character. Education, the property of the ruling class, was to produce the kind of person who would naturally fit into that ruling class. For those who were not of the aristocracy training in the manual arts would suffice. Roman education had a similar goal.

The Hebrew concept, however, was considerably different. The Hebrews believed that, for the good life to be lived and salvation attained, one had to be acquainted with religious truths. These truths must be divinely inspired, understood, and memorized. Unless one possessed a deep understanding of the truths contained in the scripture, neither the good life nor salvation was possible. Thus by linking formal education to religion, the Hebrews began a tradition continued by the Christians, including the Puritans in America 1600 years later.

Good and Teller believes that the ancients made several contributions to education: (1) A clear distinction between education and training was made by the Greeks and Romans. Education was the cultivation of both character and intellect, with a good man and a wise leader as the desired end result. Training, a kind of low-level habit formation whose end was vocational, was reserved for those members of the lower class who were to serve the elite. (2) The classical curriculum was seen as a proper blend of subjects usually centering around a literary, philosophical, and mathematical core. (3) By wedding the educative process to their religion, the Hebrews made education sacred and indispensable.[1]

All of these contributions filtered into the Christian European world after the fall of Rome in 476. In view of the religiously uniform character of Europe, it is not surprising that for many years education was the exclusive possession of the church. Education was by and for the Church. The young boy who showed intelligence and ability was educated by monks who taught him Latin, Church doctrine and theology, sacred music, and Biblical combined with other ancient history. Secondary schools slowly came into existence to provide advanced training for future religious or state leaders. Out of the medieval secondary schools there arose higher education, which at first was an amazingly simple affair: a master, usually a renowned scholar, and disciples who gathered around him. Eventually this master-disciple relationship became institutionalized, and in the thirteenth century there arouse the European university. This was a state-approved institution in which there existed a kind of contractual arrangement between masters and students: the former agreed to teach and the latter agreed to learn.

Gradually, as Good and Teller point out, European towns began to create both elementary and secondary schools, financed and controlled by the civil authorities. These schools, often referred to as “burgh” schools, were in part a response to the growing complexity of life and to the need for educating a class of merchants and tradesmen who were beginning to become more numerous and powerful.[2]

Good and Teller continue:

The eighteenth century was a period of diverse trends in education. Humanism, although it had become traditional, was still dominant, but a young and vigorous Realism was opposing it. The church schools for the common people were beginning to feel the hostility of democrats and nationalists demanding universal education for citizenship. Political and scientific advances led from uncritical optimism of the writers of Utopias to a definite but still uncritical theory of progress. Although the philosophers favored education, they did not fully realize the central place the school should have occupied in this program. Civilization was expected to produce a perfected society easily and quickly. [3]