Conant Lauds Public School System

The following are excepts from an address by President Conant before a meeting of the American Association of School Administration, delivered in Mechanics Hall, Boston, Monday, April 7.

Tonight I should like to try to place in perspective certain features of our American system of tax-supported schools. As educators we may be well aware of the fact that our system is essentially unique in several respects, but people are inclined to take for granted certain assumptions that underlie the development of our public schools. They realize all too little what would be the consequences of drastic alternations and are, therefore, too complacent about some types of hostile criticism; they are too little willing to make the sacrinces required to maintain our schools as effective instruments of our democracy. Those involved directly with public schools themselves are at times perhaps unaware of certain challenges and reluctant to make adjustments required by those challenges.

According to my view, the doctrine of equality of which De Tocqueville wrote so long ago in his report on America has come to mean in the United States not parity of status for adults but equality of opportunity for children. The vast expansion of secondary education in this nation has created a new engine of democracy; it is of the utmost importance how this engine is to operate in the future. If we so desire, it can be used to restore fluidity to our social and economic life each generation and in so doing make available for the national welfare reservoirs of potential talent now untapped. At the same time, by stressing the democratic elements in our school life and the comprehensive features of our organization, we can promote the social and political ideals necessary for the harmonious functioning of an economic system based on private ownership but committed to the ideals of social justice.

We desire on the one hand to provide through our schools unity in our national life. On the other we seek the diversity that comes from freedom of action and expression by small groups of citizens. We look with disfavor on any monolithic type of educational structure; we shrink from any idea of regimentation, of uniformity as to the details of the many phases of secondary education. Unity we can achieve if our public schools remain the primary vehicle for the education of our youth, and if as far as possible, all the youth of a community attend the same school irrespective of family fortune or cultural background. Diversity in experimentation we maintain by continued emphasis on the concept of local responsibility for our schools.

Local Control

Diversity in American secondary education is assured by our insistence on the doctrine of local control. We have no restrictions on the variety of approaches to secondary education presented by our thousands of local boards. Indeed, to an outsider I should think our diversity would look like educational chaos. But this is a characteristic of our flexible decentralized concept of democracy. The time may conceivably come when a state or the Federal Government may jeopardize this concept, but as far as secondary education is concerned. I do not detect any danger signals in that direction now. The NLA threat which was real in the 1930's has almost been forgotten.

I do believe, however, that there is some reason to fear lest a dual system of secondary education may in some states, at least, come to threaten the democratic unity provided by our public schools. I refer to the desire of some people to increase the scope and number of private schools. At present the proponents of such a movement are often not outspoken in their demands, but a dual system of schools with tax money flowing in some form to private schools seems to be a possibility in some peoples' minds. In this connection I think it is only fair to insist that the criticis of our public schools should make clear their stand on two important points. To each one who attacks our public schools I would ask the simple question: "Would you like to increase the number and scope of the private schools?" If the candid answer is in the affirmative, I would then ask a second question: "Do you look forward to the day when tax money will directly or indirectly assist these schools?" If the answer is again in the affirmative, the lines have been clearly drawn and a rational debate on a vital issue can proceed.

Needless to say, I would find myself on the opposite side from this hypothetical candid critic of public education. But what I am more concerned with in the year 1952 is to make the hostile critics of the public schools in the United States show their colors.

I am well aware that in several English-speaking nations public funds are used to assist church-connected schools. This is the practice in England, Scotland, and to some degree in some Australian states. Whether the state and the church or churches can develop a working arrangement that prevents a state control of the church or church control of the state is another story. My concern is with the United States. We do not have and have never had an established church. To my mind, our schools should serve all creeds. The greater the proportion of our youth who attend independent schools, the greater the threat to our democratic unity. Therefore, to use taxpayers' money to assist such a move is, for me, to suggest that American society use its own hands to destroy itself.

There is no use for us who are emotionally committed to public schools as schools for all to denounce or bemoan the growth of private schools. The founding of a new independent school in a locality is a challenge to those connected with public education. Granted the "snob aspect" of some of these new independent schools, nevertheless, I feel sure in many cases they would never have come into existence if the management of the local high schools had been wiser. Education is a social process. This is a free country and people will not be pushed around by educators. What is required is for those concerned to improve the high schools; public school administrators must recognize the validity of some of the criticisms now directed against them in terms of the failure of the high school to provide adequate education for the gifted.

By organizing our free schools on as comprehensive a basis as possible, we can continue to give our children an understanding of democracy by practicing it in school. Religious tolerance, mutual respect among vocational groups, belief in the rights of the individual are among the virtues that the best of our high schools now foster.

The growth of free public high schools in this country would indicate to me that public opinion in the United States has been committed to a single, not a dual system of education. The history of the rest of this century will prove whether or not the commitment is irrevocable. The verdict will depend, I believe, in no small measure on whether the comprehensive public high school can win a wide support. In short, can we have both unifomity and diversity in secondary education? My answer is that we can. The answer of this audience of school administrators, I feel sure, is that we must.