Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Sheffield]On: 15 November 2014, At: 04:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20
Do We Get Our Money's Worth?Thomas H. BriggsPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.
To cite this article: Thomas H. Briggs (1953) Do We Get Our Money's Worth?, The EducationalForum, 18:1, 5-13, DOI: 10.1080/00131725309341187
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725309341187
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM
VOLUME xvm
NOVEMBER
NUMBER I
1953
Do We Get Our Money's Worth?THOMAS H . BRIGGS
I
CRIT ICISM of education is today, asit more or less always has been, a
popular diversion, even with the foreign guest who has enjoyed our hospitality. Although our public schoolsare regarded by the great majority ofpeople with a complacent pride , theyare continuously bombarded with criticisms by educators, by parents, and bytraditionalists who have nostalgic memories of their own schooling, much ofwhich has no perceptible effect on thelives that they lead.
The criticism by educators, soundbecause based on knowledge of conditions as they are and justified by common sense theory, is largely ineffectivebecause it is not known by the generalpublic; that by parents mostly concerns the personality of teachers andtheir ability to "control" pupils andto make them enthusiastic about whatthe elders have forgotten and wouldpay little of time or of money to relearn for their own use.
Unfortunately, most criticism of ourschools is negative. It is often concerned to displace teachers or textbooksthat contain objectionable materialsusually called "subversive." But ifsuch criticism were entirely successful,schools would not be improved unlessthe ousted teachers and texts were replaced by those that are positively better.The interest of the critics seldom persiststo activity to see that good teachers andsound texts are provided. Teachers withno positive convictionsand textbooks thatdo not prepare for the life of today willnot make goods schools.
All thinking about education shouldbegin with understanding that publicschools are supported not as a benevolence to children, but, rather, as a longterm investment for public good. Whenbased on sentiment, which certainly notall tax-payers have, education is on aweak foundation. Children grow up andparents lose much of their interest inschools; many large tax-payers sendtheir own children to private schools;
• 5 •
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
6 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [November
millions of parents are required to helpsupport public schools while contributingmoney and children to denominationalinstitutions; and "soulless" corporationscannot be expected to have a sentimentalenthusiasm for what does not profitthem.
What is the purpose of this investment, outside that for insuring peace, thelargest and the most important that thepublic makes? It is to perpetuate and topromote the civilization which we believe is the best ever developed forbringing prosperity and happiness tomankind . More specifically, it shouldmake every community a better place inwhich to live and a better place in whichto make a living. Consider every otherpossible reason why all citizens, parentsor not, benevolent or selfish, are forcedby law to pay for the support of schools,and you will find that this is the onlyone that can be substantiated. Furthermore, it is the only reason that justifiescompulsory attendance by all youth.
Understanding of the justification forfree and compulsory schooling is essential as furnishing a sound criterion forjudging the success of our educationalprogram, and also of its details. It isgratifying when pupils are happy inschools, when they are enthusiastic abouttheir teachers and studies, and when theybring home good report cards. But pupilscan be happy, enthusiastic, and successfulin performing required tasks withoutgetting an education that materiallyprofits either themselves or the societythat pays for the schooling. The questionthat should always be asked about anyeducational plan or procedure is to what
extent it is likely to contribute to thedevelopment of young people better prepared and more desirous of perpetuatingand promoting the happiness, welfare,and prosperity of themselves and of thesupporting society.
This is what the public is paying for,and this is what the public should requireof its schools. Like a motorist who realizes the cost only when he fills the tankof his car with gasoline and then neverthinks afterward to conserve it, the public is likely to forget its responsibility tosee that what it pays for its schools ismost efficiently and economically spentto get what they are supported toachieve. Values would be realized ifevery morning a pupil had to ask a taxpayer, whether a parent or not, for thecost of the day's schooling. Whether itbe a dollar or more, often more, questions would be asked as to what of permanent value was bought with themoney.
Values are of course relative. Therecan be no question but that young peoplein our schools today, even in the poorestones, get much that is worth while, muchthat contributes to what is good for themand ultimately for society. But whenshopping for any commodity we try toget the largest possible values for ourmoney and also to avoid paying for whatis shoddy or out of style and thereforerelatively useless. Our schools are stilloffering some wares which in the longrun have little utility, certainly littlefor the great majority of pupils, all ofwhom will become assets or liabilities tosociety. To justify the enormous expenseof our schools the public should be as
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
1953] THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 7
concerned as it is when it makes personalpurchases or investments to insure thatits moneys are spent wisely and economically for what it wants and for what itneeds.
Even if one has only a sentimental attitude toward education, a benevolentdesire to give every child the best chancepossible in the world, he should besimilarly concerned with relative values.The common interest of the sentimentalist, however, is satisfied when pupilsreasonably learn what they are taught,whether or not what is learned and remembered gives evidence of makingthem happier and more prosperous inlater life. It is no true benevolence tomake gifts which cheat young people ofthe best possible opportunities, the onlyones that they will ever have, to getwhat will most surely contribute to theirgrowth, in school and later, toward becoming better individuals and bettercitizens.
IIAlthough the investment concept as
a justification for the provision of freeand compulsory education must be recognized as sound, for two reasons it hasbeen ineffective in influencing our educational program. In the first place, it isnot generally understood by the public,and what is equally disastrous, it is notgenerally understood by the teachers andadministrators of our schools.The publicby and large accepts a tradition, whichis relatively young even in our democratic country, of free education of whatever kind for all children and youthwithout thinking of its justification in
terms of assured values. This permitsschools to continue traditional subjectsand traditional methods, the outworn aswell as the good, which have becomehaloed by usage, with a consequent wastethat the country can ill afford. Application of the investment concept wouldgive the public a sound basis for criticism, and it would afford educators adirective that would bring about a beneficent curriculum revolution.
The second reason why the concept isnot applied is that we, as a public, havenever, at least in recent years, set ourminds to determine with a necessary degree of definiteness what are the idealsof our civilization and therefore what isnecessary to make a community a betterplace in which to live and a better placein which to make a living. Until we dothat, educators lack the important goalsthat they should strive to achieve. Ofcourse there is general agreement onmany ideals, which are inculcated byhomes, churches, and schools. But lacking understanding of the basicreason forthe support of schools, the public doesnot insist on the achievement of eventhese as the primary purpose of education. Nor does the public evaluate theeducation that young people get in termsof the acceptance of the ideals of ourcivilization and of the competence andenthusiasm to seek to exemplify them intheir lives.
Understanding of the justifying reason for support of free schools leads tothe inevitable conclusion that the publichas not only a right but also an obligation to set the goals of education. Thereis a widespread notion, especially among
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
8 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [November
some educational theorists, that teachersshould set the goals, even that theyshould "dare to build a new social" or.economic or political or ethical order.That notion is no more sound than thatthe workmen employed by GeneralMotors should decide whether they willbuild baby carriages or automobiles. Thestockholders-that is, the owners-ofany corporation decide what they as abody wish produced, and then they leaveto management and its expert workmenselection of the best and most economicaltechniques for production. No individualstockholder would be permitted to tellworkmen at their benches how to dotheir jobs. But with freedom and responsibility to produce what is wantedby the means that it considers best management is held strictly accountable forresults. The same principles apply toeducation. The public-with professionaladvice, of course-must decide on whatit wants from education; and then, leaving responsibility to management toselect what it expertly considers the bestmeans of operation, the public shoulddemand results manifested in terms ofthe objectives that it has approved.
A new science of psychology andchanges in the heterogeneity of the enrolled pupils have necessitated new techniques, which, though improvements onthose traditionally employed, are notalways understood by critics of moderneducation. The old faith that there is ageneral and automatic transfer of whatever is learned to application in any andevery situation, however different it maybe, has been impeached and discreditedby scientific evidence. This would hardly
have been needed, however, if commonsense observation had been honestlymade and impartially interpreted.Everyone knows people who, to use onlyone illustration, think well in mathematics but who are nai've in thinkingabout investments, religion, politics, andeven in selecting a wife. The commondemand that young people be taught"how to think" is based on this discredited faith that is today held by noscientist. Modern education realizes thatit is desirable to teach young people howto think in many situations, each oneinvolving problems of importance thatare likely to recur in real life.
Similarly the old faith in "discipline,"which was supposed to strengthen thecharacter and sweeten the disposition,has been discredited by both scientificstudies and unprejudiced observation.Discipline interpreted as requiring pupilsto work hard at difficultand disagreeabletasks that have no likelihood of contributing later to effective living, no professionally trained educator today believes is either useful or desirable. Theydo not deprecate hard work or the discipline that results from mastery, butthey maintain that any task should bemeaningful to the learner, and theyknow that he will attack a problemvigorously and stick to it persistently ifhe understands and appreciates what success in it will bring to him. Hard workthat is mere meaningless drudgery develops attitudes that are neither educationally valuable nor desirable. In spiteof what expert educators know, it notinfrequently happens that an adult,otherwise intelligent, insists on such
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
1953] THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 9
drudgery for young people as he wouldnever think of imposing on himself forthe strengthening of his own character.
Many critics of our schools, especiallywhen they compare results with those incountries that have a highly selectivesystem of providing secondary educationto only the most gif ted youth, do notrealize that we have undertaken to provide education for all of the children ofall of the people-the intellectually dulland the intellectually bright, those withpotentialities as artists and artisans aswell as those with potentialities asscholars, those with poor social backgrounds as well as those from homes ofrefinement and culture. What may havebeen good two or more generations agofor the selected minority cannot be thebest for all youth today. The problemof devising and offering an educationalprogram adapted to widely differingabilities, aptitudes, and needs is increasingly well solved in large schools, whichwithin the limits of restrictive budgetscan offer differentiated courses andmethods adapted to powers of learning.But small schools more or less of necessity tend to continue traditional programs which are most profitable for thefew who continue their education in colleges and which are to a large extentwaste for the majority. In attempting toget success for all pupils in traditionalcourses many schools have so dilutedthem that gifted youngsters get only pap,which can hardly nourish anyone. Thedump heap of any factory is significantevidence of inefficiency. And so is thelarge number of youth who leave schoolbecause neither they nor their parents
see sufficient values in what they arepermitted or required to study. Schoolscan not justly be criticized for failure todo what the public has not providedfinances for doing.
IIIIf by some miracle we could be made
to forget the traditions of schooling,retaining knowledge of modern life, howshould we intelligently proceed to develop a program for the education ofchildren and youth today? First of allwe should decide what we want education to achieve, the development of newgenerations competent and consciouslyresponsible for perpetuating and improving the civilization that we believe inin our democracy. To set up the goalsthat would direct the development of theprogram we should have to be muchmore definite and much more nearlyunanimous than we are at present. Amoment's thought will reveal that muchof the criticism of schools today is reallya criticism of ourselves for not havingset up objectives that are generallyunderstood and generally accepted.
Then, specifically,we should ask whatour young people are most likely to doin life. Without assuming to be inspiredprophets, we can make a fairly accuratelist of activities which we are confidentwill be performed in adulthood. As obvious examples, all people enjoy socialrelations and carryon conversations, andwhen they mature most marry and rearchildren, they read books, newspapers,and magazines, they receive programsbroadcast over the air, they listen tosermons and speeches, and they vote at
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
10 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [November
elections. Such illustrations of activitieslikely to be performed by everybody canwith confidence be vastly extended.
Such an inventory would includemany activities with which schools arenow definitely concerned and also manythat are novel in any curriculum. Theywould of course vary greatly in importance. So a secondstep in making a soundnew curriculum would be to rate theitems as negligible, as satisfactorily prepared for by nature or incidentally bysuch agencies as homes, churches, andsocial groups, as important, and as essential. Those that are rated importantor essential for achieving desired objectives should certainly find a high placein the new program of education. AsAbraham Flexner said some years ago,"Nothing new or old should be unproved,"-that is, tested without prejudice by the criteria of importance.
And, third after indicating what arerelatively the most important life activities that should be prepared for, weshould select teachers who can and willteach young people how to performthem better than they would withoutinstruction. If teachers are not competentto do this, they have no justifiable placein our schools. If the public does notinsist on such teachers and make theiremployment possible, it has only itselfto blame for unsatisfactory results.Partnership in persistence in unprofitableprocedures in the long run profits noone. As a matter of fact, it endangersthe nation.
Of course another responsibility thatconstructive intelligence would insist onfor the modern school is the revealing
to young people of higher activitieswhich, even though not carried on bythe majority of adults, extend theboundaries of life. Teaching youngpeople to do better the desirable thingsthat they will do anyway is the firstessential, but it is not enough to insureprofitable adventure and progress.
To an extent schools have always revealed higher activities, intellectual,aesthetic, and other kinds, but they haveseldom assumed responsibility for making them desired by their students. Thismodern education must do. No longershould it be satisfactory for teachers tosay to pupils, "Here is something thatyou ought to appreciate and do. If youdon't like it and try to do it, you willbe given a failing mark." Instead, ifthe school is unsuccessful in making therevealed higher activity desired andsought for then and later by the students, the school itself fails.
Such a procedure as has been outlinedwould result in a new educational program that promises far greater returnon the investment by both young peopleand the public than that which is nowgenerally followed. That it is novelshould not keep one from consideringfairly its soundness. In view of the wastein the traditional curriculum, a wastethat has been repeatedly reported in professional publications, such a procedureor another better one simply stated without the obfuscating language of "pedaguese," certainly calls for application.We cannot afford to continue spendingseveral billion dollars a year withoutgetting results that are possible by theexercise of common sense. Any such
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
1953] THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM II
procedure would of course retain whatis good in the current curriculum as wellas introduce novelties, and it would alsogive emphasis to all items in proportionto their likelihood of contributing to theobjectives for the attainment of whichschools are supported. This would be anew deal well worth supporting, whatever its cost.
IVNo individual and no small group of
private citizens is likely to follow thesuggested procedure further than to appreciate its significance and to realizewhat it would lead to in the way of making education justify the investment thatthe public makes. The thinking of even afew items that are supported by thestated principles, especially when compared with many facts that pupils arenow required to learn and then promptlyforget because they are not found to beuseful, will indicate the soundness of theproposed method of ascertaining whatit is profitable for children and youth tolearn. However, if the suggested procedure seems to any citizen sound andreasonable, he can insist, as he has aright to do, that the employed schoolpersonnel attempt, so far as it is able,to develop by it an educational programthat will justify itself by materiallyachieving the objective of developingyoung people better able and more desirous of preserving and promoting thecivilization that promises happiness andprosperity to all of the people of thenation. Of course if an individual cangain the co-operation of other citizens,especially those who are organized, the
more likely he will be successful in starting an educational reform that promisesbeneficent results.
By using the suggested principles andprocedures any teacher can materiallyincrease his effectiveness. A group ofteachers working together can of coursedo more, especially if they are giventime, encouragement, and assistance. Buthampered by tradition, accustomed todo what they know how to do, andlimited in time, teachers are likely toaccomplish much less than is needed unless required by the public to adapt theeducational program to directly satisfying the needs of modern life. Ultimateresponsibility for bringing about improvement rests on the public. Any individual citizen can exert beneficentinfluence if he will merely insist thatthe local schools state clearly their objectives, which should be satisfactory tothe public, and then report results interms of the approved goals. By insistence on this a citizen can, with the enlisted interest of intelligent lay groups,cause the beginning of a movement thatwill have far-reaching results.
The National Citizens Committee forPublic Schools and several other similarorganizations have performed a fineservice in arousing a widespread concernfor schools. But for the most part theyhave emphasized the need for betterbuildings and for higher salaries forteachers. These are imperative. But thefundamental and critical problem in education at all levels, especially that foryouth, is the curriculum. What it isshould determine what sorts of buildingsand teachers are needed. However good
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
12 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [November
the buildings and however skilled theteachers, education will fail unless itcontributes, and contributes maximally,to what makes a community a betterplace in which to live and a better placein which to make a living. This in turnwill contribute to the perpetuation andto the improvement of the civilization onwhich we as a nation depend for our happiness and prosperity.
Although individuals and smallgroups of citizens can do something toinfluence local teachers to make improvements in the curriculum, what is reallyneeded and what, I think, is ultimatelyinevitable, is a nation-wide program:
I. to make the public disturbinglyaware of the shortcomings as well asproud of the many meritorious practicesof our schools;
2. to make the general public acceptits responsibility to determine the objectives that its schools should seek;
3. to bring about a general agreementon the main objectives of education, onwhat the public wishes its schools toachieve;
4. to get agreement on a few basicprinciples-sound, simply stated, andboth directive and compelling to action-that will indicate how the new curriculum should be developed;
5. to stimulate the employed professional personnel to concerned activityfor an improved curriculum; and
6. to require reports, which should beaudited as carefully and as objectivelyas those of any industry, of achievementsin terms of agreed-on objectives.
When any serious attempt is made
to develop a new curriculum it soon becomes evident that what an individualteacher or any local community can dois far from adequate. Local attempts arealso uneconomical in that each one to alarge extent repeats what others haveattempted. The problem is nation-wideand should be attacked on a nation-widebasis. The challenge demands the bestbrains freed to give · full time to constructive work and with access to themost authoritative information of manykinds. All of this indicates the need of apermanent curriculum research laboratory as well staffed as the laboratoriesof our great industries.
Such a laboratory, after ascertainingwhat major objectives the public approves for its schools, would locate orprepare basic materials most likely tocontribute to their attainment. It wouldhave no authority to compel the use ofwhat it provides; but its materials, economically and skillfully developed byone competent agency, would be available for use by schools everywhere. Ifaccepted, they could be adapted by localteachers to the conditions and needs oftheir community. In such work the currently popular "workshops" could become truly effective.
This is admittedly an ambitious program, one that will require an immenseamount of time and energy, and ultimately large expenditures of money.But what is the alternative? The wasteof time, energy, and money in presentpractices is enormous, even when werecognize the great improvement in education over what it was only a few yearsago. It is futile to provide better build-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
1953] THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 13
ings and more skilled teachers merelyto turn out more of an unsatisfactoryproduct. This schools will continue todo unless a new curriculum, especiallyfor youth in high schools, is developed.And it is not likely to be developed anytime soon unless the public changes itsnegative criticisms of relatively petty
details to constructive persistence on getting sound means used for developmentof what is needed. To be content withnegative criticism or even to continuecomplacency with an ineffective andwasteful tradition is to abnegate responsibility and not only to condone wastebut also to invite national disaster.
Mrs. F. D. R oosevelt has recently called attention to some erroneousnotions regarding the United Nations and UNESCO. The quotationbelow from "The School Administrator" is pertinent:
The speaker had some words of advice about the United Nations.We are mistaken, she said, if we look upon the United Nations as asure guarantee of world peace. It is merely a device to permit peaceto grow. There are organizations in this country which are promotingthe idea of a world government. The work of these organizations issometimes confused, she said, with the work of the United StatesNa tional Commission for UNESCO. UNESCO's aim is merely thecultivation of understanding among nations through educational,scientific, and cultural activities. UNESCO and the UNESCO Commission advocate neither world citizenship nor world government.R ussiahas excluded herself from UNESCO and its program.
There are some who would like to strengthen the United Nationsthrough turning it into a World Government thinking that they nowcould enforce the peace, Mrs. Roosevelt continued. The world is notready for such a step, she said: "I do not expect the world to be readyin my lifetime for this development and I doubt if it will be ready inyours."
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sh
effi
eld]
at 0
4:04
15
Nov
embe
r 20
14
