reason, beauty, and errors of pragmatism

Much of the written history of Catholic schooling focuses on how its institutions developed in interaction with a politically dominant Protestant America. In some cases, Catholics directly imitated public initiative, often shaping schools out of a desire to accommodate. Sometimes, however, they took a different course in sharp rejection of the dominant culture. The debate over high school curriculum in the first quarter of this century exemplifies this dynamic.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Catholic secondary schooling, like public secondary schooling, was limited to a relatively small percentage of the population. As opportunities for Catholic secondary schooling expanded, a more comprehensive educational philosophy, with an expanded life studies curriculum, was increasingly espoused as an alternative to the academic curriculum found in the older boys' preparatory schools and girls' academies.

In considering a new high school curriculum, Catholics were responding to movements in the larger society. The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, published in 1918 by the National Education Association (NEA) conceived of the high school as a more universal institution with a different, more vocational, emphasis. Although some Catholic high schools embraced the philosophy of the Cardinal Principles, this bulwark of the contemporary comprehensive public high school was eventually rejected by Catholics owing to the interaction of several forces.

Much of the vigorous debate among Catholics [hark! did I just read the words "vigorous debate"?] about the purposes and methods of their high schools was played out in the proceedings of the National Catholic Educational Association. In the spirit of pragmatism, voices were raised in favor of eliminating Greek from the curriculum, reducing the amount of Latin, and adding commercial and vocational courses. Considerable discussion ensued about the merits of the classics and about the need for more industrial training to better prepare future workers.

The reaction against these pragmatic voices was vigorous and forceful. Critics argued that the classics were the languages of Western civilization. Their study had moral and aesthetic value; they provided intellectual discipline and encouraged inventiveness.^* The overwhelming response from NCEA members was that the study of classical humanism served every student well.

This rejection of life studies and vocationalism was predicated on fundamental philosophical premises. Developing the student's ability to reason was a central tenet of Catholic educational philosophy, beginning with the Ratio Studiorum and further affirmed in Neoscholastic thought...Such intellectual development was deemed necessary in order to grasp fully the established understandings about person, society, and God. Although universal secondary education had expanded the base of people to be educated, the purpose of education should not change. Practical education deviated too far from the central moral aims of schooling.

Institutional status and social class dynamics were also at work in the debate. The NCEA had grown out of the Association of Catholic Colleges of the United States, and these institutions of higher education exerted a major influence on Catholic secondary education through the 1920s. The colleges maintained close relationships with the boys' preparatory schools and girls' academies and tended to deprecate the weak academic programs in parochial and diocesan high schools. The latter schools were determined to prove their worth before the Catholic educational elite: the higher educational institutions. To secure such recognition and respect, diocesan schools increasingly put the college-preparatory curriculum first, with life studies offerings becoming ancillary. Catholic colleges themselves added to this pressure in 191 by instituting strict academic admissions requirements, including 16 credits in specific academic subjects.

The value of education as a vehicle for social mobility was also increasingly apparent to both Catholic educators and immigrant parents. This idea was raised in early discussions of the Association of Catholic Colleges, as leaders "cried out that Catholic youth should not be the 'hewers of wood and drawers of water,' but should be prepared for the professions or mercantile pursuits." The classical curriculum was the curriculum for the attainment of status. Catholic educators were urged to point out to parents the greater earning power of students who finished high school. An academic education in high school and then college paved the way for social position, the professions, and Catholic leadership in society.

Last, Rome placed its seal of approval on a conservative educational philosophy in 1929 in a statement by Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (On the Christian Education of Youth). Arguing that true education is directed toward the ultimate ends, Pius XI cautioned against errors of pragmatism in the curriculum. The Church was a conserver of humanity's cultural heritage.^** Though supporting efforts to discern what is of worth in modern systems, Pius XI cautioned against "hastily abandoning the old, which the experience of centuries had found expedient and profitable." Two important features were signaled out and affirmed by the Pope: the teaching of Latin and single-sex rather than coeducational schooling.

Although Catholics made some accommodation to the philosophy of the Cardinal Principles, they never moved as far or as firmly in that direction as did the public schools. The end result was to reaffirm the position articulated at the third Baltimore Council in 1884: "The beauty of truth, the refining and elevating influences of knowledge, are meant for all, and she [the Church] wishes them to be brought within the reach of all. Knowledge enlarges our capacity both for self-improvement and for promoting the welfare of our fellow men; and in so noble a work the Church wishes every had to be busy." Catholicism's uneasy relationship to secular society thus continued. Much but not all of the modern world could be embraced by Catholic liberals. Practical concerns would increasingly enter its debates and be given their due, but ultimate principles could never be compromised.

Catholic Schools and the Common Good by Anthony S. Bryk, Valerie E. Lee, & Peter B. Holland
p. 30-31

The Church was a conserver of humanity's cultural heritage.

reason

beauty

errors of pragmatism

It is inconceivable that a public school would speak of conserving humanity's cultural heritage. When I read this passage, I think I should forget about the public schools and put my energies into figuring out how I can help save urban Catholic schools.


^* Howard Gardner agrees.