Teachers worked alone or in subject departments. The teacher of English limited his vision and concern to his own field; the teacher of science labored only, to teach a certain body of scientific fact and skill. Seldom did they confer, and when they, did, the results were usually unsatisfactory because neither understood the other's interests or problems. The division of labor, even in the intellectual field, had been carried so far that common language and community of purpose were in danger of being lost. Specialization in teaching in the secondary school had made it almost impossible for any teacher to become himself a person of broad culture. Teachers' lives were needlessly and unfortunately narrowed and impoverished.

The absence of unity in the work of the secondary school was almost matched by the lack of continuity. The student jumped from semester to semester, from year to year, seldom going anywhere in particular. His work of one year had little relation to that of the preceding or following year. Because neither he nor his teachers had definite, long-time purposes for his work, he had no clear road to follow or compass to guide him in finding his way through the tangled underbrush of the curriculum.

Complacency characterized high schools generally ten years ago. Elementary education had been revolutionized since the beginning of the century, but the high school was still holding to tradition. It was rather well satisfied with itself. Minor curriculum changes were frequently made, but there was little serious questioning of purposes, practices, or results. Lavish financial support and blind faith on the part of the people encouraged schoolmen to conclude that all was right with their world.

Teachers were not well equipped for their responsibilities. They lacked full knowledge of the nature of youth-of physical, intellectual, and emotional drives and growth. They understood little of the conditions essential to effective learning. Relation of the school to the society it should serve was only dimly perceived. Democracy was taken for granted, but teachers seldom had any clear conception of democracy as a way of living which should characterize the whole life of the school. Very few were capable of leading youth into in understanding of democracy and its problems, for they themselves did not understand.

Only here and there did the Commission find principals who conceived of their work in terms of democratic leadership of the community, teachers, and students. Usually the principal was a benevolent autocrat or a "good fellow," letting each teacher do as he pleased as long as neither parents nor pupils complained. Most principals were constantly busy just "running the machine"; they seldom stopped long enough to ask themselves, Why are we doing this or that? What are we driving at? Where are we going?

Principals and teachers labored earnestly, often sacrificially, but usually without any comprehensive evaluation of the results of their work. They knew what grades students made on tests of knowledge and skill, but few knew or seemed really to care whether other objectives such as understandings, appreciations, clear thinking, social sensitivity, genuine interests were being achieved.

The high school diploma meant only that the student had done whatever was necessary to accumulate, the required number of units. Graduation from high school found most boys and girls without long-range purpose, without vocational preparation, without that discipline which comes through self-direction, and without having discovered for themselves something which gives meaning to living. Youth knew its rights and privileges, but often missed the rich significance of duty done and responsibilities fully met. Unselfish devotion to great causes was not a characteristic result of secondary education.

Finally, the relation of school and college was unsatisfactory to both institutions. In spite of the fact that formal education for five out of six of our youth ends at or before graduation from high school, secondary schools were still dominated by, the idea of preparation for college. The curriculum was still chiefly "college preparatory." What the college prescribed for admission determined, to it large. extent, what title boys and girls of the United States could study in school.

In large city high schools there was a wide range of fields of study, many of them designed for those who were not going to college; but parents and students looked upon the 11 college preparatory" subjects as the most "respectable." Thousands who had little or no aptitude for the work leading to college were engaged in it simply because it was the traditional thing to do. In the small high school of five or six teachers, with a necessarily limited offering of subjects, college prescriptions shaped the curriculum. When we realize that 60 per cent of all high school students are in schools of 200 or less, the importance of the influence of the college upon secondary education becomes apparent.

Most communities still judged the success or failure of the high school upon the basis of the school's standing with the colleges. When a student failed in his work in college and returned to his home community branded as a failure, the prestige of the school suffered severely in the eyes of its patrons. The failure of one student in college did more harm to the reputation of the school than its failure to adjust a hundred students who did not go to college to the work and responsibilities of life in the community. Because of this, the school placed undue emphasis upon preparation for college, to the neglect of its responsibility to those who were entering directly into the life of the community.

It was in no spirit of sweeping condemnation that the members of the Commission viewed the work of the secondary school in the United States. Their criticism was not so much of others as of themselves. They realized that many shortcomings were due to the amazing growth of our schools, to the necessity of employing inadequately prepared teachers, and to lack of time to adjust the work of the school to new responsibilities. But understanding of the conditions which produced weaknesses in our schools did not lessen the Commission's conviction that earnest attempts to remove them should be made at once. The co-operation of more than 300 colleges and universities was sought and secured in 1932.

| Previous Page | Top of Page | Next Page | | 8 Year Home | Chapter 1 Home | Index | Email Comment |