Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2017
Although the relation between the public schools and the public is one of the persistent themes in American educational debate, the character of this relation is far from self-evident. In part, the problem lies in the two broad styles of discussion concerning the publicness of public education: The public is sometimes viewed as a whole, as the raison d'être, source of virtue, mainstay of support (or rightful mainstay which sometimes withholds its support) for the public schools; and sometimes the public is viewed in a fragmented fashion, as a series of groups, either totally comprising the public or over and against the public as a whole. This second conception is particularly prominent in the puzzled and defensive rhetoric of educators who see the public school as a citadel under constant attack from a series of pressure groups.
1. No single group of educators has had a claim on this style of argument, nor has it always been simple to draw such lines; one is reminded of Horace Mann's effort to include the lessons of religion while excluding the pressures of religious sects on the schools, or Dewey's effort to incorporate experience of the industrial world while fighting against control of school policy by the business community.Google Scholar
2. Myron Lieberman is the major contemporary proponent of this position. Lawrence A. Cremin in Transformation of the School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1961, p. 226) has noted that educators rarely bring together questions of “a more effective populism reflected in a more representative [school] board, and a more effective professionalism reflected in a well-organized, scientifically trained teaching group.”Google Scholar
3. Tellingly, Myron Lieberman's chapter on relations with the “public” in The Future of Public Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) deals exclusively with local forms of pressure.Google Scholar
4. Neal Gross, in his study Who Runs Our Schools? (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), is careful to distinguish between the perceptions of administrators and those of others concerned (e.g., local businessmen), but at the same time, by placing the locus of conflict on the community level, Gross seems to accept part of the administrator's own interpretation. Only toward the end of the study does he bring in broader elements, such as the administrators' education. A far more obvious case of accepting the traditional educational formulations is seen in Orville G. Brim's summary and program for educational sociology, done under the aegis of Russell Sage (Sociology and the Field of Sociology, New York: 1958). As one instance, Brim accepts the old either-the-school-shapes-the-public or the-public-shapes-the-school argument and quickly settles it by opting for the public (society) and his profession (a scientific sociology).Google Scholar
5. Hovey Calhoun, Daniel, The American Civil Engineer: Origins and Conflict (Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1960).Google Scholar
6. For example, Samuel Merrick, who founded the Franklin Institute in 1825, pointed to the low esteem in which “mere mechanics” were held in the eye of the (middle-class) public. See, Commemorative Exercises at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia: 1874). For a fuller discussion of mechanics and mechanical engineers in their relation to the development of industrial education see Fisher, Berenice M., “Industrial Education in the United States,” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1965).Google Scholar
7. The two best sources for tracing mechanical engineering attitudes toward their profession in relation to science and business are the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Google Scholar
8. The writings of Frances A. Walker, who was in great part responsible for the development of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reveal the basic arguments of engineering education. See, for example, Discussions in Education (New York: 1899).Google Scholar
9. With the sponsorship of the American Bankers Association, Edmund J. James of the Wharton School began to promote business education in the 1890's. See James, Education of Businessmen (New York: 1892).Google Scholar
10. See, for example, Smith, Oberlin, “The Engineer as a Scholar and a Gentleman,” Trans. A.S.M.E. (1890-1891), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
11. See, Alden, George I., “Technical Training at the Worcester Free Institute,” Trans. A.S.M.E. (1884-1885) pp. 510–56, and Woodward, Calvin M., “The Training of a Dynamic Engineer in Washington University,” Trans. A.S.M.E. (1885-1886), pp. 742–83.Google Scholar
12. See the discussions following the Alden and Woodward papers, op. cit. Google Scholar
13. Fisher, op. cit. Google Scholar
14. The turning point in the educational argument of the mechanical engineers is marked when their elder statesman Robert Thurston joins in the call for lower school technical training. See “Technological Schools: Their Purpose and Accomplishments,” Proceedings of the National Education Association (1893), pp. 534–49.Google Scholar
15. Excellent examples with regard to the problems of these two groups can be found in George Tayloe Winston's biography of Daniel Thompkins, A Builder of the New South (Garden City, N. Y.: 1920) and The Post-War Outlook for Negroes in Small Business, the Engineering Professions, and the Technical Vocations (Howard University Studies in the Social Sciences V, No. 1) (Washington, D.C.: 1946).Google Scholar
16. See the Proceedings of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations and the various histories of agricultural education by Alfred C. True. The interpretation, however, is based on my own unpublished work on the education of American farmers.Google Scholar
17. For example, see Venn, Grant, Man, Education, and Work (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965).Google Scholar
