The only standard we have for
judging all of our social, economic, and political
institutions and arrangements as just or unjust, as
good or bad, as better or worse, derives from our
conception of the good life for man on earth, and
from our conviction that, given certain external
conditions, it is possible for men to make good
lives for themselves by their own efforts.
Mortimer J. Adler
Our society is confronted with an educational
problem that exceeds, in magnitude and difficulty,
the educational problems which past societies have
faced and solved.
Not only have we not solved the educational
problem that confronts us. We have not yet turned
our efforts toward trying to solve it. Most
Americans do not know the shape this problem takes;
and it would almost seem as if most American
educators have deliberately tried to avoid
recognizing it. Yet the problem is one of the most
serious that our society faces; and with the
changes that lie ahead, it will become even more
so. If it remains unsolved, it will become the most
serious threat to the future of our society -- its
safety, its sanity, its prosperity.
With few exceptions, American educators tend to
be satisfied with the accomplishments of American
education in the last fifty years. This is the
clearest and surest indication that they do not
understand the problem our country is called upon
to solve; for if they did, they could not possibly
deceive themselves about what has so far been
achieved.
They would know that everything we have done in
building the largest school system the world has
ever seen amounts to no more than a bare first step
toward the solution of the problem of giving
liberal education, the best conceivable, to all the
children whom that school system is intended to
accommodate. They would frankly admit that no one
at present knows how to solve this problem. They
would recognize that the problem is so difficult
that it may take us the next hundred years to
solve. Above all, they would see that, until the
problem is understood in all its difficulties and
accepted as the most serious problem we face, the
intelligence, energy, and wealth required to solve
it will not be applied to the task.
I hope that what I have just said makes clear
that this lecture has no solution to offer. Its
only contribution is a statement of the problem
itself, and a recognition of its difficulties. If
most Americans -- and most American educators --
could be persuaded to accept the problem I am going
to try to state, and were also fully persuaded of
the need to solve it, we might then have some hope
of solving it in the next hundred years.
*******************
In all of the societies of the past, the end of
education, in school and after, was the mental,
moral, and spiritual growth of the person, with
wisdom as the ultimate goal to be approached as a
man reached the end of his life and approximated
the ideal of an educated man. Since this end could
not be achieved in school, it was understood that
adult learning, throughout life, was a moral
obligation, and one that any virtuous man of
leisure regarded as his personal duty to discharge.
But it was not merely a duty to his society and to
himself. Learning throughout life was also an
essential ingredient in a man's pursuit of
happiness, and the satisfaction of his deepest
human desire -- his desire to know.
As the immediate result of the quantitative
changes produced by the democratic and industrial
revolutions, American education, both in theory and
practice, has declined in the following.
(1) The curriculum of the elementary and
secondary schools, and even the so-called "liberal
arts" colleges, has been diluted or watered down.
The solid subjects have ceased to be required of
all students, and many of them have disappeared
from the course of study in our secondary schools,
which deal with children at an age when they should
receive rigorous training in the liberal arts and
be given the solid substance of liberal
schooling.
(2) Vocational courses of every conceivable kind
-- some of them almost inconceivable -- have more
and more replaced the solid substance of the
liberal disciplines. Not only are such courses
without any educational content, but what is worse,
they are all directed to the wrong end --
preparation for earning a living, instead of
preparation for living well.
(3) Instead of giving all the students in our
schools and colleges the same general and common
preparation for the life of learning and leisure
which all of them now have the opportunity to enjoy
in their adult years, our schools have introduced
more and more specialized and differentiated
courses of study, supposedly adopted to the
individual differences of students and with a view
to preparing them, not for the same mode of life
which is open to all free men, but for the
different occupations into which they may go.
Instead of postponing such specialized study,
where it is necessary, until after basic liberal
schooling is completed, preprofessional and other
forms of technical specialization have been
introduced into the high school and the college.
None of it should occur prior to the B.A.
degree.
(4) Worst of all, the children are very early
divided into sheep and goats. The goats are those
whom the educators think are not up to the
difficulties of truly liberal schooling, and they
are shunted off into purely vocational, trivial, or
other illiberal programs. The sheep, and they are
comparatively few in number, are given the diluted
and wholly inadequate schooling that now passes for
training in the liberal arts and sciences.
(5) In our public schools and in many of our
colleges, both the best and the worst, and those
that pretend to be liberal as well as those that
make no such pretense, the basic educational
standards have been relaxed to the point where the
average child is able to get by with very little
work and the bright child goes completely
unchallenged. This, by the way, is one of the many
causes of juvenile delinquency on the part of the
more intelligent and energetic youngsters, whose
wits and energies our schools fail to command and
harness.
(6) As the family and the community as a whole
have become derelict in the performance of their
educational responsibilities in the rearing of
children -- their physical care, their moral
training, and their intellectual development -- the
schools have become burdened with extraneous tasks
that schools were never intended to perform, and
which they should not be expected to perform. In
our delinquent community, the schools have become
more and more burdened with concerns about the
child's physical and mental health, his
recreational opportunities, his occupational
future, his moral formation. All these things
distract the school's attention and divert its
energies from the main business to which it should
be devoted.
(7) In addition, the parents, instead of
encouraging the schools to give homework and make
the students work hard at their lessons, often
oppose such policies because they no longer want to
be bothered with helping their own children in the
process of learning. Since the adult population in
America spends more and more of its free time in
play rather than leisure, they tend to think that
"school-work" should also be more like play instead
of leisure. The way in which the child's parents
misuse the time they have free for leisure creates
an atmosphere in the home which is the very
opposite of what is needed to encourage the child
in the difficult and arduous tasks of learning.
(8) What most Americans call: "adult education"
is either nothing but remedial schooling for those
who did not have sufficient schooling in youth, or,
worse, some form of avocational pursuit, such as
folk-dancing or basket-weaving. As a consequence of
this almost universal misunderstanding of the true
meaning of adult education, as the absolutely
necessary continuation of liberal learning in all
the years that follow school, American parents and
American educators misconceive schooling as if it
were the whole, or even the main part of education
when, in truth, schooling at its best is but the
beginning of the life of learning. Both the content
and methods of basic schooling are seriously
deranged when the purpose of schooling is
mistakenly thought to be the completion of
education and the mastery of the fundamental things
which should be learned.
(9) With the expansion of the school system and
the phenomenal increase in the number of teachers
and administrators required in it, the educational
profession has become organized like a labor union
or an industrial association and has come to use
all the public pressures which its power commands
in order to advance the interests of its members
rather than the common good of public education.
The "organized educators" of the country have, in
the last one hundred years, worked to increase the
number of schools, the number of teachers, the
salaries and tenure of teachers, etc., but they
have simultaneously opposed efforts to turn
American education from the path it has followed to
its present low state. The average American
teacher, who has been certified for the classrooms
of our public schools by a state normal school or
college of education, is not himself or herself a
liberally schooled individual; and those who do not
themselves have the light of liberal learning can
hardly be expected to lead others to it.
(10) Finally, while we progressively diluted the
liberal substance of schooling, we have
progressively extended the number of years it takes
a boy or girl to finish the first phase of
education with the attainment of a bachelor's
degree. We take more and more time -- to do less
and less. In addition to the serious educational
failure this indicates, it also results in the
prolongation of immaturity. In all past centuries,
men and women began a mature life before the age of
twenty, most of them much earlier, at sixteen or
eighteen. Since many of our children remain in
school long after that, they also remain immature
for a much longer period of their lives, and this
both delays and shortens the period of immaturity
in which the most important learning that human
beings can do must be done.
I would like to add a few brief comments to the
foregoing bill of particulars against American
education in this century.
I do not need to take your time to give you
evidence for most of the charges I have just
recited. Anyone who has children in the schools and
colleges of this country has all the evidence he
needs. I am sure you have heard your children, as I
have heard mine, refer to "solids" as if they were
a small part of the curriculum which any sensible
youngster should avoid like the plague. It would be
hard for them to imagine a school in which the
whole curriculum consisted of "solids" and in which
every student was required to work through a solid
course of study. Yet such were the schools and the
requirements in all the centuries prior to this
one.
You know as well as I do the range of vocational
or "lifeadjustment" courses which have been
introduced into our schools and colleges, and how
many children get nothing but such training after
the elementary years in which they learn a little
-- very little -- about how to read, write, talk,
or listen. But you may not realize why vocational
training and "life-adjustment" courses have been
substituted for liberal education. You may think
that the reason is the necessity to prepare most of
our children for the occupations or trades they
will engage in to earn a living.
If you think that, you forget that those of our
ancestors who engaged in servile work did so
successfully without the benefit of schooling, and
those of our ancestors who entered into the liberal
professions were trained for their vocations either
in actual practice or in post-graduate schools,
following the completion of liberal schooling.
You may also be unaware that vocational training
in school is for the most part totally useless. In
most of the trades or occupations into which our
children go, the training has to be done all over
again on the job; and nothing would be lost at all
if the ineffective manner in which it is done in
school were completely omitted. On the contrary,
much would be gained, for all that wasted time
could then be put to good use by the restoration of
the solid substance of liberal learning.
The real reasons for the rampant vocationalism
in our schools and colleges are twofold. The first
is that vocational training provided an escape for
the teachers. When, beginning in 1900, the teachers
were faced with the expanding and ever more
heterogeneous population in their classrooms, they
discovered that they simply did not know how to
give liberal schooling to all the children, half of
whom were below the average intelligence for the
population as a whole. Since all the children had
to be kept in school, and kept there for more and
more years, the teachers sought refuge from their
inability to do what should be done by substituting
for that something they found themselves able to
do. Vocational training was an expedient for the
teachers, not a necessity for the students.
But the teachers are not alone responsible for
the ersatz schooling that resulted from
vocationalism. The second reason for this
degradation of American education lies in the
attitude of American parents. You know as well as I
do that most parents send their children through
school and college -- and often make great personal
sacrifices to do so -- for the wrong rather than
the right reason. They want their children to get
ahead in the world by beating their neighbors in
the competition for jobs and salaries. There could
be no worse reason than this for putting a child
through school or college.
Unfortunately, this egregious misconception of
the purpose of schooling is not limited to the
parents. It is now shared by many educators
themselves, and by almost all of the children. The
reason given by the schools for offering so wide a
variety of vocational courses, the reason given by
parents for insisting upon them, and the reason
given by the children for selecting them, is
throughout the same misguided notion that the
purpose of going to school is earning a good
living, not learning to live well.
Nor do you need evidence from me about the
progressive relaxation of the standards in our
schools and colleges. You know how little homework
your children are now required to do; and if you do
not already know it, you can easily discover for
yourself that most high school and college students
do not spend forty hours a week studying, in class
or out. It would not hurt them at that age if they
were to spend forty-eight or fifty-six hours a week
at the tasks of learning.
Since learning is a liberal, not servile,
pursuit, and since it is the essence of leisure,
there is no ground for reducing the time of study
to the five-day week and the six-hour workday.
But even those of you who realize how little our
children work, and how little is expected of them,
may not be cognizant of all the reasons for the
relaxation of educational standards. One of them,
of course, is the fact that under our present
system of extended, compulsory education, the
standards must be set so low that no child need be
expelled from school for failing to meet them. Nor,
with the overcrowding of our classrooms, can any
child be held back. They must all be promoted each
year to make room for those one year behind
them.
But these are not the only reasons for our
current educational practices. In the last fifty
years, the mental hygienists and psychiatrists have
come into the picture and made concern about the
emotional frustration of the child paramount above
all educational considerations.
Children must not be allowed to compete for
grades in order to prevent any of them from
developing a sense of failure. Children must not be
disciplined, for that might also lead to emotional
disorders on their part. Above all, children must
never be asked to do anything they cannot do easily
and painlessly; they must learn effortlessly and
with a euphoric sense of success in everything they
undertake.
This may not prepare them for all the pains and
difficulties, and often the failures, men must
reckon with in the strenuous effort to lead the
good life; but that does not matter, for the
American ideal is not the good life anyway, but
having a good time, full of assorted pleasures day
after day.
Just as we cannot blame the vocationalism of our
schools on the teachers, since we, the parents, are
more responsible than they for making our schools
nothing but a means to success as measured by
money; so we cannot put the whole blame for the
relaxation of standards on the psychiatrists. The
American people as a whole is responsible for the
inverted scale of values which dominates our
schools, as it dominates American life. Instead of
subordinating play as something which, in addition
to being pleasant, serves the useful purpose of
refreshing us for the arduous tasks of labor and
leisure, we as a people think that work is for the
sake of play, and that leisure is nothing but a
round of diversions, amusements, and
recreations.
We talk of the pursuit of happiness, which our
forefathers understood to be the effort to achieve
the highest excellence of which human life is
capable; but what we really mean is the pursuit of
pleasure. That is mainly what we want to use our
wealth for; and that is how we use our free time.
In the last hundred years, as the amount of free
time has increased progressively with the amazing
increase in our productivity, the two things that
have followed the same path of accelerated growth
are the school system and amusement industries. The
growth of the one might conceivably have checked
the growth of the other; but it appears to have
done the very opposite.
We are not merely devoted to play but we are
given to the adoration of childhood, probably
because it is that part of human life which is
least serious and most playful. Harboring a secret
desire to be as carefree as children, we make every
effort to see that our children remain as carefree
as possible. With such sentiments or dreams about
the idyllic world of childhood, we oppose those
features of schooling which would make our children
grow up more rapidly by suffering the pains and
hardships, and having to surmount the difficulties,
that are as inseparable from genuine learning as
they are from all the other serious business of
life itself.
Excepted from a lecture "Liberal
Education in an Industrial Democracy", a series for
the Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company in San
Francisco (1957).