Evening star., 1949-03-30

Progressive Education Criticized Again
TO the Editor Of The Star:
It is interesting to view George Frederick
Millers letter c'Progressive Education Not
So Bad"-The Star, March ID in the light
of the letter from p. E. ("Wants Schools
Revised"-The Star, March 19.
The latter obviously is a mother. And 1t
is my guess that the former probably has
no children in school-and possibly is
teacher. although I concede that 1t would
be q bit tactless for teacher to proclaim
that nearly all schools are In charge OF
teachers and officials who are OF superior
intelligence, highly educated. have spent
years in intensive study of education" (Come
to think of it, though. such an attitude does
seem to coincide with the reception given
Mrs. P. E. when she attempted ito solve
very simple situation involving my teen-age
child" doesn't it?)
Whereas this mother is primarily con-
cerned with the education Of her child. Mr..
Miller hopes for the perpetuation OF cult
the practice OF progressive education" (the
principal of the school which my children
once attended referred to it not long ago as
"our religion'). Mrs. P. E. wants results;
Mr.. Miller wants the continuation OF a
philosophy of experimentation. pollced by
pouncing supervisors, regardless OF what 1t
does to the children.
AS Mr. Miller notes. this philosophy is
based upon theories advanced nearly 50
wears ago by Prof. John Dewey but he fails
to mention Cor does not know that these
theories were later adapted to serve their
own purposes, whatever they might have
been, by a small group Of radical educators
at Teachers College, Columbia University
and foisted upon the schools Of the nation
(see "Congressional Record" June lS, 194S.
Education for the New Social OrderD.
In closing his letter. Mr.. Miller dons the
cloak Of authority and advises "unlniormeo
and confused" parents not to worry ABOUT
their children's education for mo matter 10
what system of instruction they are ex-
posed they usually become successful adults
How should his readers interpret that state
ment-that the children will successfully
attain the age of 81? Or is he satisfied
that to become a successful adult, thorough
and effective training in the fundamentals.
the indispensable tools of the art OF learn
ing, as a primary objective Of the functions
Of the school, Is not necessary?
If so, I respectfully suggest that in ad-
dition to the theoretical writings of Dewey,
Comenius. Rousseau land why my old friend
Jean Jacques, I'm sure I don't know, Pes
talozzi and Froebel, which Mr.. Miller recon-
men0S. the 'unlQ1OTMcQ dllU COH1uScO pal =
ents also read some up-to-date writings
showing what the practical results OF the
progressive system" have actually been (e.
e., DR.. William c. Bagley. Columbia Uni
versity; Prof. Samuel Mckee, jr, Columbia
University; Prof. Henry Grattan Doyle,
George washington University; Miss Milli-
cent Mcintosh, Dean Of Barnard College;
DR.. Henry Link and host OF others TOO
numerous to list). In the process they will
also learn why so many colleges throughout
the nation have had to lower their stand
ards; why so many remedial centers have
sprung up everywhere; why private and
parochial schools have ever-growing wait
ing lists: why so many teachers have aban-
doned their profession dow salaries by no
means are the sole reason); why juvenile
delinquency has increased so alarmingly lin
Bethesda alone last month police rounded
up over 40 teenagers whose family back
ground is hardly illustrative Of the bad
social environment" to which juvenile de-
linquency is frequently so lightly and glibly
attributed). They will also learn why edi-
torials such as The Stars Fighting the
Reds with Facts" March 19, stressing
the need for objective education, have
become necessary. They will also learn
why it was pertinent for Mrs. P. E. to re-
mark Let's run the schools for the students,
not the big wigs" ROBERT B. PARkE.