Educational Wastelands

In 1952, Arthur Bestor, a professor of history at the University of Illinois, submitted a series of resolutions to the American Historical Association contending that educational theorists and school administrators devised programs of teacher training that degraded academic subjects. A year later, Bestor published these complaints in his book Educational Wastelands. Although Bestor's criticisms fit the views of conservative citizen's groups who disliked the progressive influences in schools, Bestor distanced himself from such reactionaries. As a young student, he had attended Lincoln School of Teachers College, Columbia University, one of the most progressive secondary schools in the country. Praising many of his former teachers, Bestor approved of the genuinely thoughtful progressive education he had received; however, he was disappointed when the faculty had introduced a course called social studies wherein students discussed social problems without the careful analysis typically found in historical studies. Bestor applied the name, regressive education, to this tendency to turn progressive education into anti-intellectual activities.

In Educational Wastelands, Bestor charged that two educational movements epitomized regressive education. One was life adjustment training. The other was the effort of the National Education Association's Educational Policies Commission (EPC) to spread comprehensive high schools.

According to Bestor, the life adjustment movement began in 1945 when Charles Prosser drafted a report of a conference of educators that claimed 60% of U.S. youth could not benefit from traditional academic or vocational training. To help this majority of students whom school programs had abandoned, the federal government appointed a commission on life adjustment education, and states such as Illinois offered curriculum programs that offered training in life situations such as selecting the family dentist, maintaining wholesome relationships, and improving one's personal appearance. Bestor noted that the life adjustment movement claimed it would offer solutions to these life situations, but he believed the claim was ironic. Disciplines such as history, sociology, and political science had arisen to offer sustained and objective critical inquiry to help people understand the sources of social difficulties, and life adjustment education disparaged such academic study.

Interestingly, historians disagree about the importance that the life adjustment movement had on curriculum. On the one hand, Diane Ravitch argues that the life adjustment movement exerted significant influence on teacher training, and the direction of that influence was anti-intellectual. On the other hand, Daniel and Laurel Tanner contend that there were only two commissions on life adjustment education, and these disappeared by 1954, shortly after Bestor published his book. According to the Tanners, the contribution of life adjustment education was to offer critics a label they could deride.

The other and more important object of Bestor's criticism was the EPC. Quoting a supplement of the 1944 report, Education for All American Youth, Bestor claimed the members of the EPC wanted schools to satisfy 10 common needs of youth. These included such needs as developing salable skills, maintaining good health, and understanding the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic country. These may be important needs; however, Bestor thought institutions other than schools should deal with them. For example, schools cannot ensure that children maintain good health, but schools can teach students to express themselves accurately in their mother tongues. Further, developing the ability to speak well could enhance people's opportunities for employment, at least indirectly.

...