William Lawlor, "The School in Society" (1929)

[450] The services of financial experts need not be requisitioned to have us realize that society has spent fabulous sums in an honest effort to educate her citizens. In her endeavors to provide suitably for the physical, mental, aesthetic and moral wants of youth she erects and maintains at tremendous expense, schools not only for normal children but for the sub-normal and the abnormal ones—the physically handicapped: the blind, the deaf, the under-nourished, the mal-nourished, the crippled and the speech defectives. It is interesting to recall that many hundreds of years ago Plato, in his famous work, The Republic, wrote: "It is by education that ideal society once established is to be maintained"—a sentiment practically re-echoed by H. G. Wells' recent declaration that, "Education is the one instrument by which civilization can forestall catastrophe". Modern society feels strongly that her preservation and advancement will be effectively accomplished if the schools will but succeed in inculcating in their human charges not only a vivid appreciation of society's needs but also the definite realization of the obligation which rests upon adolescents of appropriately equipping themselves to the end that these needs may be adequately fulfilled. There is nothing new in this philosophy. Man has ever tried to adapt himself to the problems arising out [451] of the peculiar circumstances of his environment. The difficulty, however, is and always has been to determine precisely what it is that constitutes society's greatest needs. The varied conclusions which have been arrived at on this point by the peoples of all nations and through all ages have been the direct resultants of the diversified ideas and ideals which peoples have entertained concerning life's values. Primitive man acutely feeling the need of self-preservation concerned himself primarily with securing food and personal protection. His training was simple and individualistic. To the Spartan military prowess was supreme—hence Spartan boys were trained solely for the state. The Athenian held that culture and beauty were the great desiderata of life; and he educated his progeny accordingly. The epicurean with his hedonic [sic] notions of things and the stoic clinging to an entirely different philosophy sought, each in his own way, to accomplish his pet objectives. Were you to-day to ask a mechanic, a merchant, a professional man and a scholar to indicate present society's greatest needs, each being dominated by his personal appreciation of life's real meaning would undoubtedly proffer an answer quite at variance with those submitted by other members of the group. Secular educators to-day, however, appear to be in perfect agreement that man's greatest need is "social adaptation". In up-to-the-minute educational books and periodicals, the much used expressions: "Trained for social efficiency", "Educate children for social service", "Education seeks the harmonious adjustment between the individual and society", "Socialize the individual", plainly show that present-day school leaders believe that the chief objective in the educative process is the felicitous adjustment of man to his social environment. Irving E. Miller in his book, Education for the Needs of Life, very categorically states that: "It is the function of education to assist pupils in the attainment of right judgment, appreciation and control of social values".

As Catholics we cannot but disagree with the dictum that social functioning is the chief purpose of the educative process. Though in no sense underestimating the important part which social values play in the scheme of things human, nevertheless, [452] we know that man's greatest need in life is that which vitally concerns his immortal soul, namely, the attainment of eternal salvation. For this was man created; for this was he redeemed. Now it is the duty of the Church, and especially through the instrumentality of her Catholic school to assist the human soul, in every way possible, to realize its destiny. It is well to note, however, that this soul-saving educative scheme of ours very specifically embraces other objectives—social, cultural and vocational. In training a child to love God and his neighbor, to be honest, chaste, and obedient to lawfully constituted authority, we feel that we are contributing to society a service than which there is no greater. Realizing that "Knowledge is power", we aim to impart solid intellectuality, not by attempting to stock youthful minds with a host of cold and unrelated facts, but by presenting to children a well-organized curriculum of fundamental subjects on which alone it is possible to erect the superstructure of genuine culture. Our educational intent, vocationally, is not to fit pupils for specific trades or professions, but rather to awaken an appreciation for vocational activities and to train children so that they may be prepared to make speedy and efficacious adjustment to whatever occupation they may choose to make their lifework. Our general method of approach to the maintaining of pupil discipline in the classroom is along traditionally rigid and straight-laced lines.

But a world preponderatingly [sic] non-Catholic cares little about our educational philosophy and still less about our pedagogical methods of exemplifying it. Being in no way constrained to concern themselves with professedly moral or spiritual considerations in their teaching work, secular educators distinctly visualize the existence of an ever-increasing materially-minded civilization and simply do what they can to meet its urgent demands. Nor is it an easy task which besets them. We live in a country as plastic as it is mobile. New factors are constantly arising and functioning, while old ones recede, disintegrate or disappear. Nothing has contributed so much to the growing complexities of our social order as has industrialism. The home, at one time, was the industrial center. When  machine power was introduced, however, the industrial center shifted from the home to small mills. Nor [453] has power machinery confined itself to the factory—it has found its way into practically every avenue of business, and is accomplishing with marvelous accuracy the work of brawn and brain alike. Increased land, sea and air facilities of transportation became necessary to handle the ever expanding volume of machine products, and almost over night, have these agencies sprung into being. By reason of these available means of quick communication peoples from all quarters of the globe have been brought into close relationship with one another; and a higher standard of living has made what was considered a luxury yesterday a necessity to-day. To keep abreast with such dynamic conditions, Kilpatrick, in his Education for a Changing Civilization makes a strong plea for such an educational policy as will correct what he terms "The intellectual-moral lag behind material advance". And the school, he maintains, must grapple with the problem alone; because the home and the community have ceased to be contributing elements. In other words we are told that the only possible solution of this vexing problem is to work on the principle that "the school is life and not a preparation for it. And as such it is our solemn duty to have children live actual life experiences in the process of which there will be formed habits, attitudes and skills which are essential to adult life in a forward looking nation." To this end there is recommended a rather flexible curriculum; and it is almost needless to say, that ardent advocates of some phase or other of the "life experience" idea have succeeded in somewhat crowding, if not confusing the scholastic program. Subjects formerly regarded as ideal for sharpening the intellect and the memory are often taboo now—the argument being that mere faculty training gained in one subject too frequently is incapable of being carried over into other fields or experiences. The watchword of the moment, therefore, is "nothing in the curriculum that holds forth no actual life value". Pupil passivity, as it is commonly referred to, is no longer in good form. Seething activity on the part of school children is the thing that is now called for. The newer notions of things educational demand that pupils walk about, talk, whisper, etc.—the inference being that [454] when children are noisy they are profitably busy, and that when they are huddled together in whispered conversation they are de facto discussing vital subjects. Perhaps they are. The teacher, on the other hand, is supposed to play a far less conspicuous part in classroom affairs than was her wont in times gone by. The children are not expected to take her "say so", nor for that matter, any one else's; they are to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. The suggestion sounds well enough but the plan is not without its difficulties especially when we consider that adolescent minds are involved. Kilpatrick says that authoritarianism or the practice of yielding submission to traditional authority, has been steadily on the wane, and that consequently, educational changes are positively demanded. It is recommended that pupils govern themselves without the aid of magisterial direction. But is there not danger that this business of self-activity and self-efficiency may produce self-centered creatures—children feeling that they are a law unto themselves—and thus defeat the purpose of our experiment to socialize the individual? To sum up then, let it be stated that there is and always will be honest differences of opinion as to the best manner in which schools may discharge their obligations to society. That there is room for improvement in present policies and management of schools nobody with even a slight acquaintanceship with the matter will attempt to deny. Of course, we Catholics, if for no other reasons than financial ones, are absolutely constrained from adopting educational practices which the State may deem expedient to put into use. But what about other things which, to many, may appear to be merely matters more or less fantastic? How far can we or should we go with them? Perhaps a middle course would be best to follow.

---

Source: William F. Lawlor, "The School in Society," National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 26, no. 1 (Nov. 1929): 450–454.