"Progressive" poison in public education


_____ rVDl ^t\V

111

Public

Education

milo f. McDonald



Copyright, 1951

By the American Education Association

All Rights Reserved

Printed in the United States of America



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN PUBLIC EDUCATION

By

milo f. McDonald, ph.D.

The American Education Association



INTRODUCTION

“Progressive” education has been in operation in the public schools of

the City of New York for the past fifteen years. In the elementary schools
it has found placement under the name of the “activity program.” In the

junior high schools its influence has been exerted under the names of “dis-

cussion,” “youthbuilding” and “exploration.” In the senior high schools “ex-

perience curricula” and “general diplomas” reveal its presence.

The injection into our schools of the poison of “progressive” education has

created an alarming situation. It is especially alarming in this era because of

the challenges that are being presented to us as a nation. The danger of com-

munism is now realized to be real. We have awakened from an apathy of
many years duration. It is generally recognized that to meet our danger we
need well educated, well disciplined youth with respect for their elders, for

the law and with reverence for religious values and for the ideals that have

made our country truly great.

We need to face the facts. We need to substitute honesty for dishonesty
in school practices. We need to strengthen the youth of this city by the
education we offer them. The schools are false to their trust if they pauperize

our youth and weaken them in the face of the imminent danger that threatens.

That the children and youth of this city are being weakened by the “pro-

gressive” program in our schools is all too evident.

The American Education Association has tried, in many ways, since 1938

to emphasize the need of restoring worthy standards to the public school

system of this city. We hope this booklet may have some effect in causing
the people of the City of New York to appeal to their representatives in office
both in the City Council and in the Board of Education to effect a rapid

change in our educational system by following the example so recently set by

the authorities in Pasadena, California.

milo f. McDonald
March 1, 1951

Osacldifled



“Progressive” Poison In Education

The activity program was introduced, on an experimental basis, into

the public schools of the City of New York in 1935. Several different
descriptive terms have been applied to this variety of “Progressive” edu-

cation since. It has been called the New education and the Experience
Curriculum but we are of the opinion that the essence of the educational
changes implied are best signalized by the name initially used at the time

the plan was introduced into our local public school system in 1935. We
therefore shall employ it.

The activity program was introduced on an experimental basis. It

was announced at the time that it would be applied only in the first

three years of the elementary schools. Furthermore it was to be applied

only in nine schools and three schools, operating on the traditional cur-

riculum, were to be used as controls. Results obtained were to be used,

one against the other, in each group of schools. The plan adopted as

announced, was scientific. Objection could not and was not lodged

against it.

Initial Deception

Actually, however, shortly after the plan was put into operation

changes occurred. The original plan as announced of nine schools of
activity program type and three schools of traditional type was not fol-

lowed. Newspaper notices told us that the activity program was spread-

ing like wildfire throughout the school system. Before long we were
informed that fifty schools had adopted this activity program. It had

even been extended to the junior high schools. The scientific approach
was abandoned. The public was informed, through the press, largely by
means of the School Page in one New York newspaper that the plan was
being widely accepted and widely approved by superintendents, prin-

cipals and teachers. It became apparent, within a relatively brief time,
that the method used to introduce the plan into our public schools was

simply a device to gain initial entry. The professional spirit was strained.
The heat which was generated at conferences led to statements to teachers

about their acceptance or rejection of the new program that not only
militated against cool and objective experimentation but smacked of at-

1



Page Two PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

tempts to browbeat and to coerce others into approval of the activity

program and of its illegal extension into grades beyond those for which

provision had originally been made.

In the meantime, in April 1938, I had organized a group now called
the American Education Association to investigate the activity program

and the methods being used to extend it throughout the public school

system of the city. I recall very distinctly a conversation I had with the

late Dr. Harold Campbell, at that time Superintendent of Schools, relative

to the activity program. He said “The activity program is supposed to be
in a small number of schools under the plan adopted. They tell me it is
now in over fifty schools. I do not understand the situation at all”. Dr.
Campbell was not the only one who did not understand. It was apparent
that some power was being exerted to force the activity program upon

the city’s schools.

The leader of “progressive” education was Dr. John Dewey, of

Teachers College, Columbia University. Among the followers of the
movement were the Social Frontiersmen William H. Kilpatrick, John L.

Childs, George S. Counts, Harold Rugg, Boyd Bode, Grayson Kefauver

and others among whom was George W. Hartman, Editor of the Social
Frontier, the official organ of the group at this time. These soon became

the leaders of “progressive” education. These constituted the group whose

influence was felt in many places. These were the men who were arrang-

ing to use the words of Dr. Counts to “dare the teachers to build a new

social order.” They were educators and in addition social reform-

ers. They were the leaders of “progressive” education which Dr. Butler,

President of Columbia University, described as “Rabbit Education.”

These men at Teachers College and the philosophy of instrumentalism,

the exaggerated pragmatism of Dr. John Dewey, a philosophy which the

late William James termed as “too strong for him” constitute one of the

most dangerous forces in America today.

Dewey’s Instrumentalism

Dr. John Dewey, generally credited with being the father of “pro-

gressive” education is, as we have said, usually referred to in philosophy

as an instrumentalist. Though often referred to as America’s foremost

philosopher he is not a genuine philosopher at all. He is a social re-

former and an educator. His greatest claim to fame rests not upon his

philosophy but rather upon his work in the field of education.



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Three

Dr. Dewey came to Teachers College in 1904. Prior to his coming

to New York he had between 1902 and 1904 been connected with
Chicago University. His original ideas, ideas which later became the key-

notes of “progressive” education were tried out in the University of

Chicago’s High School. His ideas of freedom of expression led not only

to retrogression in scholarship but also to bad discipline. Dr. Dewey
did not remain long in Chicago. He came to New York and joined the
faculty at Teachers College, as we have said, in 1904.

Dr. Dewey’s thought as an instrumentalist is that truth is a relative

not an absolute matter. He asks with Pilate of old “What is truth?” He
answers that historically famous question with the answer as do all

instrumentalists, whose philosophy is simply that of an exaggerated

pragmatism; that there is no truth; there are many truths. Truth is
that which works well for an individual. Dewey conceives of truth
as working well for an individual when it helps him to do his part in

an effort to bring into activity a new social order. He thinks of the
teacher as his disciple Counts expressed it as one who “dares to build
a new social order.”

According to Dewey schools exist for the purpose of directing
pupils and students to life in a democracy. To Dewey democracy is not
to be identified with our American system; it is not identical with our

representative republic. Democracy to Dewey is a socialized state. Every-
thing our forefathers did in establishing in this country a land of oppor-

tunity is to be questioned. His disciple, Harold Rugg, illustrates Dewey’s

thought in his social study textbooks which are on the official supply

lists of the Board of Education of the City of New York. Dewey thinks
of education as an agency of social reform. To him interest is of para-
mount consideration in teaching. For Dewey interest is identical with
self-activity. It is only fair to Dewey to add that in a pamphlet he wrote
and which was published in 1912 called “Interest as Related to Will”

he emphasized the point that in learning activities in the classroom

interest, while of paramount importance, must at times give place to

the dull grind of effort. He stressed the point that the achievement to be
desired was not alone to keep pupils happy by reason of appeal to their
genuine interest but to see that they learned, that they knew, appreciated

and controlled the fundamental values of life in a democratic society.

With Dr. Dewey’s thought as detailed in “Interest as Related to Will”
we could be in full accord provided he were in accord with what we
in America regard as true democracy. Unfortunately Dr. Dewey thinks



Page Four ‘PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

we need a new social order. He does not agree with our American
notions of free enterprise. He wishes to socialize us. Therein lies the
rub. Moreover he believes the schools should be used as instruments

to develop socialism in this land of opportunity. With this we most
assuredly do not agree.

Dr. Dewey’s influence as a philosopher is, in our opinion, infini-

testimal. As a social reformer he is dangerous. As an educational re-

former bent upon using the schools to change our concepts of American

life he is equally dangerous but as an educational reformer interested in

effecting changes in some of our classroom procedures his influence is

especially noteworthy. His original notions of self-activity, and it is of

self-activity and not of activity we are thinking and there is a world of
difference between the connotations of the two terms, have had a notable

effect upon teaching methods. From his work developed a greater em-
phasis upon the problematic approach to learning. Through good ques-

tioning, setting up genuine problems or even factitious ones upon which

pupils, through genuine delight, would exercise their own self-activity
in solving, the teaching process was made more meaningful, more allur-

ing and more vital to pupils. It served to break down the lecture system

of direct instruction which owing to the influence of Herbart had un-

fortunately prevailed for too long a time in some areas. It emphasized

the use that should be made of the extended means of learning that are

afforded by visits to museums, libraries, zoos et cetera. With proper

control and supervision such informal education would be a most valuable

supplement to the formal aspect of education which is the aspect the

classroom logically presents. The classroom is not directly related to

informal education. The classroom and the school are artificial institu-

tions. They are not natural ones. Education received in them is formal.

We are also being educated always by our many contacts with life. Such
education is always informal.

It is this distinction which Dewey does not make. His effort is to
informalize education. His effort is to substitute “experience curricula”

for well thought out courses of study. His effort is to have the pupils

in the schools devise their own courses of study. It is because of this
emphasis that there results from Dewey’s approach to formal education

an exaltation of the pupil and a subordination of the teacher. The teacher

is to follow “the whole child,” not to lead “the whole child.” This

ridiculous extreme is an integral part of Dr. Dewey’s approach to formal

education. It can not be blamed upon his followers. It became evident



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Five

in his own attempt, as we have indicated, almost half a century ago
personally to realize his ideas in practice.

Dr. Dewey may have been discouraged by his failure in Chicago,

but he was not beaten. He kept his idea of effecting social reforms

through the schools before all who came under his influence at Teachers

College. He built up a bodv of followers. In a few places his ideas were
tried. They were not notably successful in America. They were seem-

ingly, from reports received, approved in China. It was in that country

that Dr. Dewey’s ideas received their most outstanding approbation

until 1917 in which year Russia remodeled her whole educational system

along activity program lines.

One question naturally arises. How did the Soviet Socialist Republic
come under the influence of Dr. Dewey’s ideas in education? The ques-

tion is most interesting. Its answer is most revealing.

The Soviet Adopts the Activity Program

In 1917 undoubtedly at the suggestion of one of his two chief

advisers, Trotsky, Lenin introduced the activity program into Russia

immediately following the overthrow of Kerensky’s genuinely democratic

but brief regime. Stalin who was Lenin’s second chief cabinet officer at
the time, voiced no objection. As Lenin’s principal assistants at this time

and in fact until Lenin’s death in 1924 Trotsky and Stalin worked to-

gether on friendly terms.

By governmental edicts the activity program flourished in Russia.

There were those who objected but in Soviet fashion they were dealt
with harshly. One of the teachers who saw the implications of the activity
program was Demetri Demiaskevich. He fled Russia and came to the
United States and for several years taught at the George Peabody

Institute in Boston. One morning he was found dead in his room. We
did not know in those years with how long an arm the Soviet reached
for her opponents and punished them. It was not until Trotsky’s murder

in Mexico several years later that we realized that communist Russia
could reach into other countries for those who would attempt to thwart
her purposes and punish them.

Between 1920 and 1924 several leading figures in the Soviet tried
to convince Lenin that the activity program was a destructive influence



Page Six PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

upon Russian youth. The Commissar of Education in 1920 presented

arguments to Lenin against the new educational program. The Com-
missar was a loyal supporter of Lenin and a true Communist. In those

days Lenin believed that communism could never succeed in an agri-

cultural country like Russia. He contended that leaders must be trained
in the schools to go into industrial centers such as those in Germany,

England and the United States and lead the movement to break down
the capitalistic influence upon whose debris, according to Lenin, com-

munism would rise to power. The Commissar of Education tried to show

Lenin and the inner clique of the young Soviet that the activity program

would not accomplish their purpose. Demiaskevich whom we have men-
tioned while at the George Peabody Institute wrote a book called the

“Activity Program in Russia.” In it he gives a most interesting and vivid

account of the struggle that went on in Russia from 1920 to 1927 over

the activity program.

In the period between 1920 and his death in 1924 Lenin revealed

by his methods that he was not aiming at the establishment of com-

munism in Russia. His aim was the establishment of a totalitarian govern-

ment. He saw in the activity program a means of realizing a new social
order in Russia. He saw in it a weapon which he could use to make
plausible to the large population of Russia numbering 200,000,000 people

among whom there were but 3,000,000 Communists that rigid controls
must be inaugurated if anarchy were to be prevented. He saw in the
activity program a means of breaking down among youth respect for

authority. He saw in it a means of destroying true scholarship. He saw
in the theory of “freedom of expression,” a challenging of the authority

of the teacher at school and of the parent in the home. He saw in the
appeal to youth to settle their own problems, even those of love, of

marriage and of sex relationships an opportunity of playing havoc with

the deep religious convictions of the Russian people, indeed with all the

traditions of family and social life of old Mother Russia and creating a

new social atmosphere in which tolatitarianism and despotic control

would have a better opportunity to breathe and to grow to the full

stature which he, in time, would come to enjoy. Lenin was simply

putting to the test an old thought which had been well expressed long

before his time. It is this: “Give me the child for eight years and I can
make of him what I will.” Lenin saw in the activity program and in

Dewey’s instrumentalism an opportunity not only to get control of the

children through the Russian schools but also to use them for the upbuild-



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Seven

ing of totalitarian control throughout the Soviet. In his judgment of

the consequences of the activity program Lenin proved himself to be a

shrewd and correct planner.

Death, however, came to Lenin in 1924 and the struggle for power

between Trotsky and Stalin, a short but severe struggle, was initiated.

Stalin won. Trotsky believed as Lenin did that communism could be

successful only on a world wide basis. Stalin represented himself as in

favor of the establishment of communism in the Soviet. Later events

proved that his controlling idea was to follow Lenin’s plan in ruthless

fashion and gain absolute power over Russia.

Stalin’s first reform in 1927 was to announce a five year plan. This

plan included the reorganization of all governmental departments. About

this time Dr. George S. Counts, Dewey’s disciple at Teachers College

and representative of the Social Frontier groups to the educational world

in general paid a visit to Russia. Subsequently it was announced by

Stalin that there would be no reorganization of the Department of Edu-

cation and that the activity program would remain operative in the

Russian schools. When Dr. Counts returned from Russia he brought
with him specimens of textbooks used in the activity program schools of

the Soviet and exhibited them at Teachers’ College where the admirers

of Deweyism in education viewed them with transports of joy.

Russia Ejects Activity Program

Between 1927 and 1932, however, protests against the activity pro-

gram became more pronounced in Russia. Teachers in the secondary

schools and in the colleges asked to be relieved of the burden of trying

to accomplish the impossible. They asked the authorities to view the

situation realistically. It was impossible to give any valid education to

pupils who came to them from the lower schools. College professors
said that secondary school graduates were disinclined to study or to

accept direction from them. Secondary school teachers said that pupils

coming to them from the elementary grades were unruly, disobedient,

unwilling to put forth effort of any kind unless they felt so inclined.

In fact as the end of the five year plan approached it became evident

that self-expressionism had produced undisciplined children and youth.

It had produced lawlessness and anarchy. Accounts of what was happen-

ing in Russia at this period appeared from time to time in our American



Page Eight PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

press releases. The New York Times published a vivid account of what
it called “The Migratory Children of Russia.” Wandering hordes of Soviet
youth, boys and girls, became common. These youth were juvenile
delinquents of the worst type. They were guilty of extreme excesses.
Sexual promiscuity was common among them. In fact it was the normal
pattern. Abnormality of conduct had become normality. The trans-
formation was terribly obvious.

For the condition the activity program, aided by governmental edicts

aimed at the production of a rebellious condition of thought and action

among Russian youth, was held to be primarily responsible. Stalin had
achieved by means of Deweyism in Russia a situation which Lenin had

envisaged as possible of accomplishment by the schools when he adopted
the activity program for Russia in 1917. Now the use of police methods
to curb the depravity among Russian youth would be approved by all

residents in the Soviet whether they were Communists or not. Now was
the time to institute such curbs and to ditch the activity program. Now
was the time to emphasize the need for study in the schools; now was
the time to reject the theory of self-expressionism without restraint and to

substitute for it an emphasis upon discipline in the schools of the Soviet.

So when the Ministry of Education presented a plea for the re-

organization of the educational system of the Soviet in 1932 Stalin yielded

and ordered the ejection of the activity program from the schools. In

the following year the “new” education as it was called was introduced.

Old textbooks, specimens of which Dr. George Counts had brought to

America and had lauded to the skies when the activity program was in

full force in the Soviet Union, were discarded and authors became busily

engaged in writing others. New textbooks were needed for this “new”
education. What was the “new” education to emphasize? It was to

emphasize communism, of course. It was to emphasize what was to be

recognized as the materialistic religion, if we can profane the word to
that extent, of the Soviet. The Communist theocracy was to have four

prophets, which children and youth in the schools, were to recognize

as sources of all authority. The four prophets or divinities, to debase

a word, were to be Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. In the schools

morality according to communistic standards, strong scholarship and

good discipline were to be made part of the daily routine.

This plan for the government of the schools has been in operation

from 1933 to the present day. Rigid controls are in effect. A child



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Nine

deficient in his daily school work or one who, for instance, has not done

assigned home-work will, on the word of the teacher, be denied the

privilege of “going to the movies” until the teacher lifts the ban. In all

the textbooks absolute and undeviating loyalty to Stalin is emphasized.

A picture of Stalin hangs in every classroom. It should be noted that
in history we as a nation are vilified. Our past history is distorted; for

instance Lincoln, the children are taught, was shot by an assassin hired

by capitalists.

In 1935 Dr. George S. Counts in an article in the New Republic
informed his readers that the activity program had originally been intro-

duced into the Russian schools in 1917 for political reasons. Dr. Counts

should know. He was one of the chief “progressives” of the day. Between
1917 and 1932 he made three long visits to the Soviet. On one of his
visits he made a trip of six thousand miles by automobile throughout
Russia. Moreover with Nucia P. Lodge, a research assistant at Teachers’

College, Columbia University, he translated New Russia’s Primer by
M. Ilin. Mrs. Lodge, who was bom in St. Petersburg, since coming to
the United States has made several trips to the Soviet Union. Both Mrs.
Lodge and Dr. Counts know why the activity program was introduced
into all Russian elementary schools in 1917. Dr. Counts frankly told us

in 1935 it was for political purposes. It was the means by which the

teachers of the Soviet by compulsion were going, using Dr. Counts own
words, to “dare to build a new social order.”

The City of l\eiv York Introduces Activity

Program Into Its Public Schools

In that same year, 1935, by means of the Elementary School Division

of Public Schools of the City of New York at that time under Dr. Bayne’s
direction, the activity program was introduced into our local schools.

Dr. Counts was still the promoter of this brand of Deweyism. He was
the same Dr. Counts whose article had appeared but recently in the

New Republic informing us that the activity program had been introduced
into the Russian schools for political reasons. To know where the support

for the activity program came from in the Board of Education Mr.

Marshall still a member of the Board could tell us if he would. As time
went on it became clear to all reasonable people that the teachers in the

public schools of the City of New York were being compelled by tyran-



Page Ten PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

nical and autocratic methods to use their energy “to build a new social
order” by means of the activity program. The end envisaged is the same

today, though the methods used are far more subtle than those employed

by Dr. Bayne and Dr. Loftus, his assistant in the field. Today Miss

Regina C. Burke is the Associate Superintendent in charge of Elementary

Schools. Miss Burke is on record as favoring the activity program. We
have failed to discover in anything she has ever set forth, that she is at

all familiar with the instrumentalism of Dr. Dewey or that she conceives
of the ulterior purposes that our “new” education is endeavoring to

achieve.

Both Dr. Dewey and Dr. Counts have long since taken to safe
shelter. A few years ago Dr. Dewey wrote a little book in which he
rebuked the extremists who said they were his followers and told them
that they were missing the main points of his philosophy. Dr. Counts

in 1947 collaborating again with Mrs. Nucia P. Lodge translated and

edited a part of the official text on Pedagogy written by B. P. Yesipov

and N. K. Goncharov and arranged for its publication by the John Day

Company of New York under the title of “I Want to be Like Stalin.”
In his introduction to the translation Dr. Counts tells us that in the Soviet

children are forced to realize the importance of their daily work. He
emphasizes the fact that in Russia of today education is taken as a serious

matter. He seemingly approves while his followers in our public schools
in the City of New York still believe in keeping children happy, and who
does not, even though in addition they play themselves into ignorance

and in time become the victims of a “happy illiteracy.”

Opposition to the “New Curriculum99 Now Marked

The threat to our civilization presented by the “new” education in

the schools of the City of New York has been recognized by the members
of the American Education Association for the past twelve years. The

fear was expressed long ago by Mr. Winston Churchill in an address to

the people of Britain on education and its relationship to post war con-

ditions. The main body of Mr. Churchill’s address pointed to his opinion

that the country that would survive the war most admirably and weather

the gales ahead would be the one that had the best educational system.

Is it strange that so many people are asking whether the “new” education

meets our needs? President Truman in an address to the Advertising

Council on September 18, 1947 showed that he realizes the dangers



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Eleven

presented by the “new” education. He said “There is no doubt we can

slip backward with alarming speed if the deterioration which has taken

place in that system (our educational system) these past few years con-

tinues unchecked.”

Since 1947 in some sections of our country the progress of the “new”

education has been checked. In Pasadena, California, the people of the

city presented strong opposition to the continuation of a system of educa-

tion that was steadily undermining the scholarship and character of

children in the public schools. In consequence “progressive” education has

been ejected from the schools and the Superintendent of Schools of the

city, Dr. Willard E. Goslin, has been voted his salary in advance and

his services discontinued. The people of Pasadena were so happy to be

rid of “progressive” education and of Dr. Goslin that they were willing to

make a sacrifice to accomplish their purposes. In the City of New York
the system still continues. In fact it has been extended and exists now
both in the junior and the senior high school divisions of the city’s schools.

Those who have been following the troubled state of the public
schools in the City of New York since 1935 have been and are dissatisfied
with efforts presumably made to reach the genuine source of our dif-

ficulties. In view of the many protests made by parents of children in
the schools between 1935, in which year the Board of Education had

voted to introduce the “progressive” system of education into our local

schools and 1938 the late Dr. Harold G. Campbell, who was Superin-
tendent of schools at the time was directed to ask the State Department

of Education to survey and report upon the worth of The Activity Pro-

gram. To this study Dr.
J.

Cayce Morrison was assigned.

The Morrison Report, as it has been called, was in due time made.

Dr. Morrison’s report was made to the Board of Education. It was not
made to the public. In fact it was not until 1941, though repeated re-
quests were made that it be publicized, that the Board of Education
issued what we were told were the findings of the State Department.
At the time the methods outlined as having been used by Dr. Morrison

were labeled as unsatisfactory by many familiar with the processes of
educational surveys.

Even, however, with the carefulness used to guard the original

report of Dr. Morrison and to keep the public eye from meeting it directly

and within reasonable time, the findings of the representatives of the

State Department of Education as read in the releases of the Board of



Page Twelve ‘PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

Education revealed, despite all the time and opportunity for conferences

and for editorial revision, the faint praise that condemns. The report

that was after long delay issued for public consumption among other

things said:

“It appears that the six-year experiment has demonstrated the worth

of the Activity Program.”

It only appeared so. Dr. Morrison was not sure of the worth of

the experiment.

Again we read that the survey did not reveal “significant loss in
mastery of fundamental knowledges and skills”.

What can we infer but that a loss in mastery of the fundamentals
of all learning was clearly indicated. Mr. Morrison’s judgment of its

significance is not sufficient. The measurements that were reported in-

dicated a clear loss in control of the tools of learning.

Again Mr. Morrison emphasizes the thought that there should not

be haste in pressing final judgment upon the activity program’s worth

or lack of worth. Despite this warning after a lapse of nine months

the activity program was officially adopted. It is now operative in 546
elementary schools. This is not the whole picture. The self-expression

of “progressive” education has found its way into both the junior and

senior high school divisions of our system of schools. The resultant effects

upon scholarship, attendance and discipline are apparent. The inherent

defects of Deweyism in education is showing itself in our country as it

did in Russia between 1917-1932. “Progressive” education carries a

poison that destroys.

The words of Vice-Commissar Epstein of the Soviet Commissariat

of Education in 1932 to explain the deficiencies inherent in the activity

program and the reason for its expulsion from the elementary schools

of Russia, are especially pertinent. They describe exactly the prevalent

situation in our schools and give force to the effort to drive “progressive”

education from the schools of this city as it has been driven from the

schools of several cities and towns in our country. The most recent

example of which reversal of attitude is Pasadena, California. Vice-

Commissar Epstein said “The activity program gave the children a

superficial knowledge of a great many things, but no proper ground-
work for the foundation of education. Much of the children’s time was
wasted in fruitless excursions. They could tell about the railroads of



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Thirteen

their district, or the local industry but they could not write well nor

grammatically. Their arithmetic was in an equally bad state.”

Demetri Demiaskevich, to whom we have previously referred, quotes
the Russian Commissariat as saying that the Activity Program left the

children of Russia “ignorant, undisciplined and irreverent”.

Is this not what it has done to the children in our local schools?

Is this not the reason why so many parents who really appreciate the

effects it has produced upon their own children and against which
effects they have constantly to wage war so that these children may be
safeguarded from permanent injury are opposed to its continuance?

The evil effects of the so-called new education are shown in an

especially clear manner in our junior high schools. Here we have among
the children the beginnings of delinquency for delinquency is marked

in these schools. The truth of the matter is well portrayed by Beatrice

King in her book “Changing Man”.

The Junior High Schools and Youthbuilders, Inc.

In the junior high schools the “freedom of expression” theory

with its resultant ignorance, lack of discipline and irreverence has

been running in high gear. These schools are the most poorly ad-

ministered division of our entire educational system. The junior high
schools of the City of New York are and have been throughout recent
years a disgrace to our community.

It was in the junior high schools that the notorious Youthbuilders,

Inc. flourished. Under the guise of discussion of controversial issues, the
young adolescents in our junior high schools were exposed to the influence
of highly trained Communists. Mrs. Sabra Halbrook, founder and Execu-

tive Director of Youthbuilders, Inc. in her book “Children Object” an-
nounces the policy of the organization. She writes that in her opinion

we should not talk to the children about the superior merit of our
democracy. We should rather lead them to experiment with it.

Recently, Dr. Nathan M. Pusey, president of Lawrence College, said
at a meeting in Milwaukee “Present trends in education are making
people happy illiterates.” His thought is highly and exactly descriptive
of what is taking place and has been taking place for several years
past in the junior high schools of the City of New York. Too many of



Page Fourteen ‘PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

the children who come, as graduates of these schools, into the senior
high schools have bad scholarship records and are confirmed truants.

Far too many of these boys and girls are disinclined to study, will not
put forth any effort to master a problem that requires effort. They will

interest themselves in nothing that does not entertain them. They recog-

nize no rules except those that they themselves make.

The situation in our junior high schools is serious. As a high school

principal in the City of New York for the past thirty years I know of
these matters from my own personal experiences. I have examined the
records of pupils coming from the junior high schools showing failing

marks in all major subjects. The scholarship in these schools, I repeat,

is notoriously bad. The situation calls for correction within the junior

high school system. The pupils are not natively of low mentality. The

school system and the “progressive” education of the schools attended

by them have made them what they are: happy illiterates, future

candidates, as juvenile delinquents, for correctional institutions.

The attendance of many pupils in junior high schools is bad. Those

who study this phase of our educational procedures, and the widespread
truancy existent in junior high schools today should be made a matter

of especial study for truancy leads directly to delinquency and crime,

tell us that we always should be careful to distinguish between the
attendance of a school and its attendance records. Actual attendance

and the attendance record of any given school may differ widely. In too
many schools there are artful dodgers who keep records. Children
whose absence is unexplained are placed on suspense registers and

so are not counted against the school’s record of attendance. Recently,

principals were ordered not to place pupils on the suspense register

except in accordance with the rules governing the situation. The fact

that it had become necessary to issue such an order proves the prevalent

low morale among some school administrators in our public school

system.

The Senior High Schools

The situation in our senior and vocational high schools presents

an equally disappointing picture. The senior high schools have de-

scended to an abject level of capitulation. One has only to watch

the conduct of pupils traveling to and from the vocational high



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Fifteen

schools to see adolescent behavior at a level which outrages decency

and makes it dangerous for people, particularly elderly people, to use

the bus and subway transportation systems at the time of day when

these schools are dismissed. The number of delinquents, confirmed

truants and moral perverts coming to the secondary schools has in-

creased alarmingly during the past decade. It is frankly admitted that

pupils are sent to the senior high schools whose records show that they

have failed in all major subjects. It could not be denied as a study

of admission records would reveal the truth. What is not revealed by

records is that far too many pupils coming from the junior high schools

show not only unpreparedness for senior high school work but in addi-

tion manifest a thorough disinclination for study and an inclination

to do only that which they wish to do.

In the senior high schools abject surrender to the prevailing low

state of the elementary and junior high school divisions has occurred.

Of the condition I know all the details. I have been in intimate touch

with them for many years. I have witnessed the public apathy of many

supervisors and teachers in the face of a degeneration which they

privately admitted. I have seen remedial courses in elementary English

and elementary arithmetic introduced into our senior high schools. These

courses aim to give a command over the fundamentals of English
and of arithmetic to pupils who hold diplomas signed by the principals
of the lower schools to the effect that they already have such command.

The diplomas testify to an untruth. The teachers in the elementary

schools and the teachers in the high schools know the truth but few,
relatively few, in a system of schools whose corps numbers approximately

3-5,000 professional people have the courage to testify to it. Pupils com-

ing to the secondary schools, some directly from elementary schools

and others from junior high schools, are not only as a group markedly

deficient in elementary English and arithmetic but they are also woefully

ignorant of geography and of the basic facts in the history of their own
country.

There are, in our senior high school division, principals and teachers

who tell us one of two stories. One is that it was ever thus. High schools
have always criticized the lower schools. The other story is that we
must accept conditions as they are. We must adapt our high school
curriculum to meet the needs of pupils who have little or no command
over the elementary subjects of study. According to their theory no



Page Sixteen PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

abuse would ever be corrected. We are always to accept things as they
are, never to fight for better conditions.

A study of our present day garden variety senior high schools in the
City of New York presents a truly sad story. It is true that the high
school division has favored three high schools: Stuyvesant High School,

High School of Science, and the Brooklyn Technical High School. To

each of these schools has been granted the privilege of setting up

.special entrance examinations. Pupils who fail these examinations have

to be accepted by other high schools. The effect of this rule is to work

hardships upon the high schools which must bear the additional burden

imposed. It in no sense corrects the bad situation.

It is true, of course, that the high schools have always criticized

the product of the elementary schools as the colleges have, in their

turn, criticized the preparation of students coming to them from the

high schools. To imply, however, that the general product of our

elementary schools, of our junior high schools or of our senior high

schools is as good today as it ever was is to maintain error in the face

of facts.

Pupil Guidance

It is also true that secondary schools should always strive to adapt

themselves to the varying aptitudes and abilities of pupils coming to

them from the lower schools. The whole purpose of the comprehensive

or cosmopolitan high school as distinguished from the specialized high

school is to do just that. As long ago as 1912, about which time those

in favor of the cosmopolitan high school started this work, the em-

phasis, by intelligent students of American secondary schools, has been

placed upon pupil guidance in choice of course, upon the individuation

of instruction and upon enrichment of the curriculum to meet student

needs. No one ever suggested until the disastrous effects of “progressive”
education became apparent that the senior high schools should under-

take the work that the elementary schools and the junior high schools

were established to do. It was always assumed that the pupil who came
to the senior high school would have a command of the elementary tool
subjects of learning. The public school leaders of the past were not

benighted souls. Long ago, the late Dr. Ettinger, at one time Superin-

tendent of Schools in the City of New York, recognized the fact that



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Seventeen

many pupils were unfitted for the academic or commercial courses of

the senior high schools. Moreover they were older than the normal

pupils of the elementary schools. Their physiological development

made them, at times, sources of danger to the younger children with

whom they were in daily association. It was this thought which gave
original impetus to the development of the vocational schools in this

city. Pupils were accepted in these schools from the last two years

of the elementary schools. They were not high schools. They were

designed to provide adaptation to the needs of the boys and girls who
were obliged to remain in school because of the compulsory education

law but who were too old to be allowed to continue in the grades of
the elementary schools. The courses offered by these vocational schools

in the early days of their growth in the City of New York were good.
The boys and girls who were graduated from the vocational schools as
originally constituted were able to find placements in the industrial life

of the city and in business as typists and clerical workers.

Those who have followed the development of our school system
know how the condition existent in Dr. Ettinger’s day has been changed
and the means employed to accomplish the changes. Vocational schools

have become vocational high schools. Promoters among aspiring voca-
tional and continuation school principals and teachers saw in their field

an opportunity for advancement. The vocational schools were re-
christened as vocational high schools. They became extremely selective.

By arrangements officially made they were given an opportunity to make
their selections among the prospective graduates of the elementary
schools. They established tests for entrance, took the cream of the crop

among those who desired to go to the vocational schools. The tests used
emphasized the controls of fundamental subjects. Boys and girls who
had little or no control over these subjects were rejected and the senior

high schools were obliged to accept them. It is evident that the voca-

tional high schools had cast aside the idea of adaptation of courses to the

needs of non-academic type pupils and thrown the burden of providing

for these pupils who were, what we now employ the euphemism “slow
learners” to describe, upon the senior high schools. Provision for the
educational needs of pupils was wrecked upon the ambitions of voca-
tional school principals and teachers to advance to the prestige and

salary of the senior high school rank. The story of the wreckage of
Dr. Ettinger’s plans of adaptation of courses to the needs of pupils by
reason of the excessive ambition, satisfied by political manipulation, of



Page Eighteen PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

vocational school principals and teachers in the City of New York over
twenty years ago is a tragic story. The story includes the erection in

our city of an altar of selfishness and greed at the expense of children’s

educational needs. At this altar many of the principals and teachers in
this city have worshipped and are worshipping now. The present day

condition of our secondary school division in the City of New York is
sad. The degradation of our old time senior high schools is attributable

to the onslaught made upon them over two decades ago and continuing
since then until the present day. It was the initial step of “progressive”

education to which leaders in the senior high school division succumbed

either because they believed in it or lacked the courage and the ability

to fight against it.

The General Diploma and Examinations

Since the initial step was taken a wide trail has been established.

The senior high school has provided for several years past a general

diploma. This diploma is available to pupils who have failed to meet
the full requirements of the academic or the commercial course. Unlike

the general diploma of many years ago there is no general course of

which the diploma is a logical sign of culmination. It is true that pupils

are in some high schools grouped into XG classes. For such pupils the
usual courses are offered in a “watered-down” condition. In still other

high schools there are CRMD classes. These are made up of pupils
who have never been graduated from the junior high schools they

formerly attended but nevertheless are in senior high schools. CRMD
classes, it should be noted, are made up of children who have been
classified, after testing, as children of retarded mental development.

It is apparent to any intelligent person studying the secondary

school situation in this city that a degeneration in the status of our

high schools has occurred. Such a conclusion is inevitable after a study

of the changes that have been instituted of late years in the matter of

term examinations. Five years ago an attempt to make official the

abandonment of mid-term examinations was made. As a high school

principal I regarded it my duty to object and to call attention to an
existent regulation obliging each principal to set formal mid-term ex-

aminations in each term. The attempt to ban officially mid-term ex-

aminations was abandoned but in some schools they were abandoned.



What

We Believe

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

OF

AMERICAN EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION

and

THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN

PARENTS

ISSUED BY

AMERICAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

545 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK 17, N. Y.



AMERICAN SCHOOLS MUST REMAIN
AMERICAN

Over ten years ago at the time the American Education

Association issued its first invitation to membership the

following Declaration of Fundamental Principles was pub-

lished by the Educational Signpost. Now at the request of
many this Declaration is republished. Though much has been

accomplished over the years by the A.E.A., a careful

reading of the Declaration of Fundamental Principles will

prove to any loyal American citizen the soundness of our

original position and the need for the continuance of our

insistence that our American schools remain American.

A DECLARATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES BY THE AMERICAN
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

It is most important that those who are charged with

the responsibility of educating American children and

youth have a clearly defined set of principles by which to

regulate their conduct. Unless we have such a set of

principles we are caught by every breeze that flutters and

soon we are completely off our course. It is because so

many of us have apparently so completely forgotten the

purposes of American education that the "Progressives"

have been able to go their way not only unhindered but

actually helped to accomplish their ends by some educa-

tors who are charged by law with the responsibility of

advancing the interests of our American civilization. Unless

fundamentals had been forgotten the "new" education

would not be regarded as new. In reality it is not 'new.

There is nothing in the "new" education which has not

been attempted and disproved in years that have long

since ceased to be.

Even though the "new" education were new by what

strange freak of reasoning do we grant to the word "new"

all the meaning that should be inherent in the word

"good." Newness does not necessarily mean goodness. It

is the same with the word "progressive." The assumption

made by the "progressive education" theorists is that they

have embodied in their plans and practices all the ad-

vancement that has characterized educational procedures

since the days of Herbart. As a matter of fact, this

assumption is utterly false. The "progressive education"

theorists are simply followers of the Dewey Interest Theory

in education. Much of the best thought in modern educa-

tion they not only neglect but apparently do not even

know, if we are to depend upon their utterances and

activities for a revelation of their thought. The whole



program of Progressive Education centers about three

essentials. These are:

1. Educational procedures should be entirely based upon

and exclusively follow the originality of the learners.

2. There are to be no standardized procedures, no estab-

lished or sequential curricula, no norms of conduct, no

moral codes to affect the educational procedures or to

restrain the freedom of action to be accorded the

learners.

3. The betterment of the individual and the betterment of

society are to be attained through group activities

allowing for full freedom of expression of self without

reference to moral standards.

We of the American Education Association are unwilling
to accept the essential? of the "Progressives" as sound

educational philosophy. In fact, we believe the principles

of the "Progressives" are exceedingly dangerous not only

to the welfare of individual children but also to the welfare

of our American life and our existent institutions.

In order that our position may be made crystal clear

and sharply differentiated from the thought contained in

the so-called "new education," let us enumerate our own

guiding principles. We believe:

1. Public education i? an institution of our representative

democracy by reason of which the people, as good

American citizens, hope to accomplish the following:

(a) the perpetuation of the principles of American
government;

(b) the perpetuation of our American institutions;

(c) the individual betterment of children and youth
in our schools and colleges so that they as a
result of their education may improve our form
of government WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
INSTITUTED BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS
NATION.

2. Education is a process in which teachers are employed

by constituted authority to assist pupils and youths in

our schools to gain a knowledge of, a sympathy with

and a control over what we in America consider to be

the essential values of life. Among the values which
we expect teachers, as employees of the State, to

inculcate in learners are:

(aj good character

(b) good citizenship

(e) love of country

(d) respect for authority

(e) good health

(f) scholastic accomplishment

(g) vocational adjustment

(h) social but not class consciousness.



ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN
PARENTS

DEFINITION OF POLICY

I. Whereas, during the past one hundred and fifty

years, fostered by the Constitution of the United States

of America, there has developed in our country a system

of living known as the "American System" under which

the individual has enjoyed the right to life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, creed, color

or previous condition of servitude upon the divinely in-
spired assumption that in the eyes of God and under the
government of these United States all men are created
equal; and

II. Whereas, under that Constitution, as amended,
deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed,

we have become citizens, as distinct from subjects of the
United States under a representative democracy, and have

enjoyed under that government a freedom for the indi-

vidual theretofore unknown in this world and have attained

through the untrammeled efforts of the individual in the

development of unexcelled natural resources a condition

of national and individual wealth and happiness unique in

the history of mankind; and

III. Whereas, there is now a spirit of unrest throughout
the world as a result of which certain subversive and

malign influences seek through devious and hidden meth-

ods to undermine and sabotage our American system

without sanction of God or man and country

Now, therefore, we resolve;

A. "The Organization of American Parents was con-
ceived for, exists and is dedicated to the purpose of
fostering and perpetuating American aims and ideals,
preserving the liberty of the individual and the equality

of man under the Constitution of the United States and
the grace of God for ourselves and generations yet to
come."

B. We further resolve that the Organization of Amer-
ican Parents hereby adopts and declares the following:

1. We support wholeheartedly the Constitution of
the United States and its process of amend-
ment.

2. We believe there should be instilled in the
hearts of our children a love for the United
States and a reverent respect for the flag.

3. As parents we have a right to expect teachers
to be willing to take an oath to be loyal to
the Constitution of the United States of
America.

4. We believe that parents, teachers and govern-
ment officials should strive to co-operate for
the best interests of the children.

5. We believe that educational experiments intro-
duced into the schools should adhere to
American principles and traditions.

185





KEEP

OUR

AMERICAN

SCHOOLS

AMERICAN



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Nineteen

Now their abandonment is practically universal throughout our senior
high schools.

Under the formal mid-term examination arrangement chairmen

of departments set the papers and reports of results attained were made

to the principal. By such arrangement it was possible for a principal

to judge objectively of the scholarship of his school and of each depart-

ment in it. Under the prevailing method of eliminating mid-terms and

arranging for each teacher to set his own examination for each class

and for the pupils to write the examination within some class period a

principal is denied opportunity to estimate the scholarship of his school

and of its several departments. It should be recorded that the abandon-

ment of the formal examination system has taken place illegally since

the regulation demanding formal mid-term examination, a regulation

upon the enforcement of which the late Superintendent of Schools, Dr.

Harold G. Campbell, who knew the high schools intimately, insisted, has
never been abrogated. The abandonment of formal mid-term examina-
tions indubitably leads to the degneration of scholarship within a school.

When the pupil is not required to take a formal mid-term examination,
when in addition he never writes a Regents examination we can judge
the earnestness of the effort he will make. Even if he writes a Regents

examination he is informed by his teacher prior to writing it that regard-

less of his success or failure in the examination he will, in any event,

receive a diploma. Of course, the pupil knows in the event of failure

the diploma he will receive will be of cheaper grade than the academic

or commercial diploma to which he aspires. It is, however, a diploma.

Since the school approves why should he object? It has however come
within my experience to have pupils object. They knew the misrepresen-
tation provided for by the general diploma would in time be revealed.

They were wiser than the school authorities. They were determined to
achieve what they had set out to accomplish. They were willing to
defer their formal graduation until the following term rather than accept

a diploma of pinchbeck variety. School authorities were not interested

in scholarship, the pupils of whom I write were. The school authorities
were determined there would be no failures and that no one should be
made temporarily unhappy. The pupils I have in mind were determined
to achieve; they were not willing to call failure “success”. They had a
higher ethical sense than the school authorities. What an anomalous
situation.



Page Twenty ‘PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

The extent to which schools have gone to be able to show successful

records by means of the issuance of general diplomas is astounding.

Always skeptical of the value of present day general diplomas I made

an effort to determine the circumstances governing their issuance. I have

had presented to me cases of pupils in the highly important subject of
United States History whose classwork and Regents examination record

were both of failing grade, and yet were graduated. How? By providing
for a last minute change in the record of daily work from an abysmal

failure to a passing rating. When a principal orders such a change, with-
out valid reason, what can we expect from those who have seemingly

profited by such fraud?

We can reasonably expect in addition the disappointment of business
houses in the metropolitan area when they employ boys and girls holding

diplomas from our public high schools. Disappointment with the products

of public education in the City of New York has been recently expressed
by the Transcription Writers Association. This association is composed

of a group of representatives of over two hundred commercial houses.

Recently they issued a report relative to the worth to business of present

day graduates of the public high school system of this city. The report

emphasizes the fact that far too many boys and girls who come to them

after graduation from our public high schools have proved themselves

to have a poor grasp of the fundamentals of learning and are disinterested

in doing any job that they do not like to do. If the business of our city

is to be carried on, the report of the Transcription Writers Association

contends, a way must be found to restore the standards of achievement,

interest in work, perseverance and good manners that were once realized

in our schools.

The way is plain. It consists briefly in stopping misrepresentation by

our school authorities. We have laws aimed to prevent dishonesty and
misrepresentation in the distribution of foods and drugs. It is vitally more

important that we have honesty and the true presentation of facts govern-
ing the issuance of diplomas in our schools. Pupils who have little knowl-
edge or control of the fundamentals of learning are being sent into high

schools carrying diplomas which testify that their bearers have proved

themselves to be competent in these fields. The situation is bad. It can

be remedied only by substituting honesty for dishonesty. It is not reme-

died by passing them along and ultimately granting them general high

school diplomas.



C 1heEDUCATIONAL
for BETTER
I SCHOOLS SIGNPOST

American Schools Must Remain American

The Crusade of 1952 Continues
In May the term of Mr. James Marshall comes to

an end and we hope it will be the end of his service
as a member of the Board of Education in the City
of New York.
Under the heading "Rich Playboys Help Finance

United States Red Drive,” Mr. William Fulton of
the Chicago Tribune Press Service several months

ago showed how old fortunes are going into the
cause of the Communists. His revelations have not

been contradicted. Of the Robert Marshall Civil
Liberties Trust and Foundation, Mr. Fulton wrote:

Millions are also being funneled into

communist and left wing drives via the big

foundations. One of the most notorious is
the Robert Marshall civil liberties trust and

foundation. Robert Marshall, son of Louis,

a law partner of Samuel Untermeyer, left

$1,534,090 in 1939 for the cause of trade

unionism, civil liberties, and preservation

of wild life.

About a year ago the Marshall money
went into the defense of William W. Rem-
ington, commerce department economist

subsequently convicted of perjury in con-

nection with spy ring activities. (This con-

viction was set aside by the higher court

because of errors in the charge to the jury

made by the presiding trial judge. Mr.
Remington will, in all probability it now
appears, be tried again.—Ed.) Other Mar-
shall money has been contributed toward
the Rev. L. M. Birkhead’s "Friends of De-
mocracy,” a well known outfit that smears
patriotic Americans and organizations.

Trustees of the Marshall civil liberties

trust include: Roger Baldwin, who has
been identified with organizations deemed

subversive by the government; Edwin S.
Smith, former member of the national la-
bor relations board and later executive di-

rector of the National Council for Ameri-

can Soviet Friendship; John F. Finerty, law-

yer for numerous pinko causes; Gardner

Jackson, Roosevelt intimate and once chair-

man of the Council for Pan-American
Democratic union which is on the justice

department list as subversive; and James
Marshall, brother of the late Robert and

member of the New York City board of
education.

Does the past record of Mr. Marshall as a member
of the Board of Education justify his continuance in

office? We think it does not. We think, too, that
all but members of the "left coalition,” and those
who hope to profit politically by accepting the sup-
port of the American Labor Party and other "leftist”

groups of communistic or socialistic variety as well

as those others who are "organization” before they
are American think so too. We hope, therefore, that
Mr. Marshall’s services to the Board of Education

will cease in May 1952. We hope Mayor Impellit-
teri will, in the name of good American politics, re-
fuse to listen to the clamor of the "leftists” and de-
ny approbation to Mr. Marshall and the causes he
has sponsored.

We ask those who believe Mr. Marshall should
not be returned to the Board of Education to write

to the Mayor to tell him so. Letters should pour in
on the Mayor from now until Mr. Marshall’s term
of office legally expires. The "leftists” know the
value of personal letters. They never fail to write
them to aid a cause in which they are interested. Let
us, as many as know the record of Mr. Marshall as
Trustee of the Robert Marshall Civil Liberties Trust

and Foundation and as a member of the Board of
Education, write to the Mayor asking that Mr. Mar-
shall’s services on the Board of Education be ter-
minated. Let us acquaint all residents of the City

of New York, with whom we come in contact, with
Mr. Marshall’s record. Let us urge them to write to
the Mayor. Let us make the cause for his non-re-
appointment to membership on the Board of Edu-
cation the Crusade for 1952. We shall do more, if
we are successful, to better the public schools of this
city and to minimize the influence of the "left coali-

tion” in our midst by ending Mr. Marshall’s services

in the field of activity officially provided for mem-
bers of the Board of Education than has been done

in the past fifteen years.

The City of New York was known for years as a
"melting pot.” It has become known during the
past fifteen years as a "beach-head” of "left coali-

tion” campaigns. In this change the Robert Marshall

Civil Liberties Trust and Foundation has played a

major part. Mr. James Marshall, as member of the
Board of Education in this city, has enjoyed unusual

opportunity to encourage the spread of "leftist”

causes throughout the schools and by means of the

school teachers to leftist labor union locals of both

( Continued on next page
)



Page 2 JOIN THE A.E.E.

THE EDUCATIONAL SIGNPOST
Published by

American Education Association

545 Fifth Avenue

New York 17, N. Y.
President Cathryn K. Dorney
Corresponding Secretary Florence Casey

Chairman, Board of Directors .... Gertrude A. Oehl

Secretary-Treasurer Josephine P. Smith

Executive Director and Editor . . . Milo F. McDonald

Vol. XIV, No. 6 <*^*.186 May, 1952

CRUSADE
Socialistic and Communistic variety. Let us ask the
Mayor to end that opportunity by ending Mr. Mar-
shall’s services on the Board of Education. The
issue is highly important. Let us seize the oppor-

tunity to better the public school morale in this city.

Let us start the flow of letters to Mayor Impellitteri.
Let us make the non-reappointment of Mr. Marshall
a Crusade not for the other fellow but for all of us.

MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN CONTINUES
Our membership campaign for 1952 is now in full

swing. We have decided to continue it until the end
of the current term. As of the present the vast ma-
jority of former members, many of them members
of the A.E.A. since its first establishment in 1938,

have re-enrolled. We are happy to note the fact that
the total number of Associate and Sustaining mem-
bers exceeds at this early date in our campaign the

number on our rolls in any preceding year.
We are gratified by the fact that many men and

women, who live at points far distant from the City
of New York, have aligned themselves with us in
our crusade for better schools throughout the United

States. They realize that our campaign against the
conditions prevalent in the New York area are in-
dicative of what also prevails or may prevail every-
where, unless the "leftist” movement is stopped as it
was at Pasadena, in their own school districts.
We are also pleased by the vast number of men

and women, some of them teachers but others who
are not, who have rejoined the A.E.A. for 1952 after
having, through negligence, let their memberships

lapse. It is strange to say, perhaps, but we hope
there were few teachers who feared to be identified
with us in other years because of remarks made to
them concerning the A.E.A. by their school supe-
riors. We have heard of one school supervisor who
told a teacher, one of our fearless members, "you
are foolish to be in the A.E.A.”

If any one, any "liberal” makes such a remark to
any A.E.A. member or within his hearing, or tampers
with any of our mail, please let us know. We prom-
ise to take care of the situation. No one has any
thing to fear by identifying himself with the A.E.A.

The "liberal” Socialists and the Communists in any
school system in this country have much to fear in
1952.

Source Materials in
Curriculum Development

A year ago there was issued by the authority of
the Board of Education of the City of New York a
lengthy report called Source Materials in Curricu-

lum Development. The philosophic basis of the re-
port was the atheistic "instrumentalism” of Dr. John
Dewey and his followers in the field of "Progres-
sive” education. As a result of protests made, the
report was withdrawn from circulation in so far as
that was possible of achievement.

Now, we have been informed, with some minor
changes, the report is to be re-issued shortly and re-
circulated. The report as it appeared originally was
atheistic, completely and designedly so. The report,
in essence, violated the American way of life. That
way is founded upon belief in God as the Declara-
tion of Independence declares and as our coins test-
ify. It was an un-American report and those respon-
sible for it should have been at the time of its issu-

ance punished in no un-mistakable manner so that
the teachers in the schools and the general public

would be informed that the Board of Education still
adheres to the principles upon which this country
was established.

We have been told that the report was issued with-
out knowledge by the Board of Education of what

it contained. Accepting that statement in generous

manner as applicable to all the members of the
Board which we did, though we had reason to doubt,
we asked, at the time, whether the Superintendent
of Schools did not know the contents of the report
before it was issued and circulated. Though the
Superintendent had written the foreword to this

shocking report we are supposed to accept the state-
ment made officially at the time of its withdrawal
that it had been sent to the printer without au-

thorization. The Superintendent had signed his
name to the foreword of the report without knowing
its nature? If that is his practice in matters of im-

portance, and the report "Source Materials in Cur-

riculum Development” was and still is important,

gravely important, then he is not the kind of person

to have occupying the position of Superintendent of

Schools. A reprimand by the Board of Education
for his action in writing the foreword for such a

report as the one in question would most certainly

have been in place at the time the nature of the re-

port was brought to public knowledge and should

be administered at the time the revised report is, if

it ever is, issued.

Under the present Curriculum Council and the

present Curriculum Committee no revision of the

original report should be made. The report should

be abandoned and present members of the Curricu-

lum Council and the Curriculum Committee should,

for the good of the service of the public schools and

of the children and youth in them, be given other

assignments where they will have no opportunity to

spread the tenets of atheism at public expense.



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Tiventy-one

100% Promotions

Those who approve our present practices are interested in a problem

in the solution of which I have as strong an interest as they. It is the

problem of the presence of overaged children in the elementary grades.

It is true that when children in the pubescent stage of life are in close

classroom and school contact with children of younger age a danger

presents itself. Young adolescents have interests and desires foreign to

their younger schoolmates. It was with the thought of removing this

danger that the vocational school movement was started by Dr. Ettinger

as we have heretofore related. It was this thought that animated the
establishment of junior high schools. Neither of these types of schools

has solved this problem. Both have failed; one by reason of excessive

ambition on the part of the vocational school principals and teachers,

the other by incompetence of administration.

So the problem still remains and the most recent attempt to solve it

is that of promotion on the basis of physiological development rather

than on that of intellectual attainment. Such thinking is basic to the

prevalent 100% promotion plan and the provision of sending to senior

high all pupils who have reached their sixteenth year. As we have indi-
cated we are in thorough agreement with the thought that adolescents
should be grouped with adolescents. There is a moral peril to children

if such a grouping is not accomplished.

Our disagreement is not with the thought of sending all pubescents

to junior high schools and of all adolescents of sixteen years or over to

the senior high schools. Our thought is that the junior high schools have

not made any attempt to solve the problem in an intelligent manner and
the senior high schools are not only not solving it but are deliberately

and designedly misrepresenting it. In the junior high schools truancy

and delinquency have increased to an alarming extent among the pubes-
cents (early adolescents) present in these schools. In the senior high

schools the presence of children of retarded mental development and

of adolescents of sixteen years or older who have not completed satis-
factorily the work of the elementary grades has created a problem which

the secondary school division of our local system is befogging not clari-

fying. In other words we have no disagreement with the thought of all
pubescents being in junior high schools nor with the thought of placing

all adolescents in senior high schools regardless of their intellectual defi-

ciencies. We agree heartily with the intent of such plan. It is highly



Page Twenty-six ‘PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

That the possibility of danger still exists is proved by the fact

that only recently it was recommended that the committee on extra-

classroom groups of the High School Principals Association give further

study to the activities of the Citywide General Organization Council. The
existence of this group is indefensible and the possibility that it may in
some crisis take action contrary to the good of the high schools is real.

My purpose in presenting in such detail the manner in which the
Citywide General Organization Council came into existence is that from

an understanding of the procedure followed in this case a better grasp

can be had of the clever manipulation of interests, distortion of facts

and misrepresentation of motives that have characterized much of the

so-called “democratic progressivism” that has figured prominently in

public education within recent years. It is the line of thought that has

fastened the activity program upon our local system of schools. It is the

line of thought that tried to place Youthbuilders, Inc. on a permanent

basis within the junior high schools. It is the line of Dewey’s ethical

code, following as it does his instrumentalistic philosophy. It is a line

which reveals what fundamentally is wrong with much of our educational

leadership of today. Some of our current mistakes in education are

attributable to ignorance; some others are attributable to incompetent

administration but far too great a number have been planned. The City-

wide General Organization Council is an example of the latter group.

As a matter of fact the ignorant and the incompetent among the leaders

in our local educational system may be but the dupes of the clever
manipulators who have been the consistent and highly articulate van-
guard of all “progressive” education including not only recent changes in

our extra curricular and co-curricular activities but also the whole fabric

of our “new” curricula.

The co-curricular tendency is worth attention. Frankly it is an effort

to squeeze within the normal school day such activities as clubs, sports

both intra-mural and interscholastic, plays, concerts, trips and publica-

tions. Experience has proved that the school day is barely long enough to

accomplish all that should be accomplished in the way of formal educa-
tion. Now, however, within the same length of time, we are told, can
be done all for which there was formerly not sufficient time and all that

was done formerly after the normal school day had ended. From now on
there will be no voluntary effort after school for the good of pupils with

special interests. All will be cared for within the school day. High school

publications will become co-curricular not extra-curricular and there will



“PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION Page Ttventy-seven

be, we are told, no sacrifice of the formal aspects of a secondary school
education. It is interesting to note that the publications of the several

high schools have been grouped under a citywide control. It is of further

interest to learn that members of the citywide publication group com-

plain that their writings are being subjected to censorship. They wish

to be relieved of all censorship in their local schools. They are to be

privileged to say what they please in the school paper and to write their

contributions to it during the school day when they are supposedly
being educated by mature teachers of a school supposedly administered

by a professional educator. Is this not carrying “progressive” self-ex-

pressionism to a ridiculous degree of absurdity and danger?

Future Possibilities

All “progressive” education is dangerous. It threatens our American

way of life to which our American youth should be passionately devoted.

It is a way of life we wish them to be zealous to preserve, a way of life

that spells opportunity to preserve the gifts to humanity of Christianity

upon which all true democracy is built. These foundation stones of our

American government “progressive” education would destroy. Its intent

is to destroy what we have built in the western hemisphere. It is not

simply a different approach to education. It is a program, a program

of destruction.

We have only to look at what was accomplished by the use in
Russia of the activity program as a political tool to see the viciousness

of “progressive” education. We have seen how by means of it the youth
of the Soviet was prepared for the totalitarian regime Stalin fastened

upon an essentially religious people.

We know that many people are fully aware of the many dangers
that are presented to our country today in the fields of diplomacy and

of actual warfare. They do not always however show that they are

convinced that a potent danger presents itself in our schools. Many
communities have, of late, become convinced and have taken measures

to protect themselves and their children from the “progressives” in our

schools who “dare to build a new social order” in this land of opportunity.
Those who have followed the “progressives” are apparently afraid of
having the term “progressive” affixed to them. They like to call the

changes they recommend in our schools the “new” education.



Page Twenty-eight PROGRESSIVE” POISON IN EDUCATION

The use of the term “new” education in this country is interesting.

The Soviet uses the term to describe her present day procedures. To her
“progressive” indicates the “old” education which she discarded in 1932.

Russia’s “old” is our “new” and her “new” is our “old.” What she adopted
in 1917 to help her establish totalitarianism in the Soviet and discarded

in 1932 when she had achieved her purposes we adopted in the City
of New York in 1935 and still follow in 1951. Will the school teachers
of the City of New York “dare” to build a new social order here? Is the
City of New York to be a trial center? Are the children and the youth of
this city to become the tools of the Soviet in its effort to control the

world? Does totalitarianism threaten us and are our public schools a

possible source of danger? Do we believe we are invincible and immune
from sabotage? The planners are with us. They have with them “pro-

gressive” poison. Our local schools are being destroyed by it. Let us

hope all our citizens will awake and arouse themselves before it is too late.

The nature of the poison the “planners of the future through the

schools” are using is revealed by two recent publications of the Board

of Education. One is called “Source Materials in Curriculum Develop-

ment”; the other “Strengthening Democracy”. Both are official publica-

tions and under the law the Superintendent is responsible for them. The

first was originally prepared in 1949, when Dr. Stephen F. Bayne was

Associate Superintendent of Schools in charge of the curriculum and

Mr. Paul Kennedy was Assistant Superintendent dealing with the same

field. The foreword was written by the Superintendent of Schools him-

self. The second is a more recent publication. Both are under attack

at the present time.

The Board of Education of the City of New York has before it now
a resolution asking the State Department of Education to survey the

record of the city schools and their “progressive” practices of the past

fifteen years. If the proposal is handled as the Morrison survey was in

1941 we might as well not waste time on it. The Morrison survey was,
as we have indicated, a most unscientific affair. The Morrison Report
was pigeonholed for so long a period in the files of the Board of Educa-

tion that, when issued, no one who knew what had gone on in the interim

had any confidence in it.

The City Council has had a resolution before it since April 25, 1950

asking for an investigation of our city’s schools. Intelligent people have

waited a long time for truth and candor in dealing with the degenerative

process at work in our local public schools. Perhaps real action will

come soon. We hope so.





TO EACH MEMBER OF

THE AMERICAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

AND

THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN PARENTS

A COPY OF THIS BOOKLET HAS BEEN SENT

Members of either of these groups who desire additional copies for their
friends may procure them by ordering them from

THE AMERICAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

545 FIFTH AVENUE

NEW YORK 17, N. Y.

The cost is 35<t a copy or 3 booklets for $1.00

Others desiring copies of the booklet on “Progressive” Education in the

Schools of the City of New York may order them directly by writing to the
offices of the American Education Association. The cost is 504 a copy.

THE AMERICAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

545 FIFTH AVENUE

NEW YORK 17, N. Y.



What is taking place educationally in the City of New York is also

taking place in other cities and towns of the United States.

S$n, Jrn mtaUon

The American Education Association invites all who

are interested in giving widespread distribution to a

knowledge of the deterioration of our nation's schools

to join with us in promoting the campaign we inaug-

urated thirteen years ago.

Those who read this booklet and those who read

regularly the Educational Signpost, our official organ,

will understand that it is only by preventing further

retrogression in educational standards that we shall

preserve the basic concepts of our American eco-

nomic and social life.

Let us send you a membership card. Join our cam-

paign for better schools.

Annual dues .... Two dollars a year

AMERICAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

545 Fifth Avenue

New York 17, N. Y.

OUR AMERICAN SCHOOLS MUST REMAIN AMERICAN