HARRY C. McKOWN
THE STUDENT COUNCIL
McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
New York
.......... London
THE STUDENT COUNCIL
COPYRIGHT, 1944, BY THE McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publishers.
THE MAPLE PRESS COMPANY, YORK, PA.
TO THE GRAND OLD MAN OF THE PARTICIPATION MOVEMENT
Richard Welling
Preface
ALTHOUGH the basic ideas and principles of democratic government are centuries old, our American application is of comparatively recent origin and, despite the beliefs of the average man, our form of government is still on trial. At the present time it faces two kinds of enemies — external and internal, and the latter are as vicious and destructive as the former and much more difficult to fight because they are insidious. One type of these internal enemies is well known and widely recognized, gangsterism — political, industrial, commercial, and moral. A less well known and less widely recognized group is composed of such elements as fear, doubt, prejudice, smugness, cynicism, indifference to personal social responsibility, lack of civic consciousness, and a childish faith in human "saviors." A government which is "of the people, by the politicians, and for the pressure groups" is a diseased government. Armies and navies can crush external foes, but they cannot vanquish internal enemies. These must be conquered by education.
The fundamental assumptions of democracy are that men are competent to govern themselves and that their efforts will result in an organization "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Such an organization necessitates appropriate social and political ideals, understandings, and habits, and a willingness to live, as well as die, for the common good. These elements are not in the original nature of man. They must be developed, and, as will be shown later, this development conies most easily and surely through practice in a setting that resembles that of ultimate citizenship. Student participation in school government represents such a setting.
During the past two or three decades, student participation has spread so rapidly that it can no longer be considered as an innovation or an experiment. As pointed out in Chap. I, it is now to be found in practically all junior high schools, junior colleges, and colleges, in at least two-thirds of all senior high schools, and to a lesser extent in elementary schools. True, participation in these schools varies in purpose, form, and function all the way from hypocritical window dressing to plans in which the students assume real and vital responsibilities. But, at least, the plan has been accepted and is now well established.
The purpose of this book is to define the ideals and the place of student participation, to establish justifiable principles, and to provide definite suggestions for its organization, administration, procedures, and activities. In order to make the book immediately useful, theory has been kept to a minimum. In the establishment of basic ideals and principles, commonly accepted and used practices have been critically examined, and some of them have been thoroughly condemned, not on the basis of the author's personal opinion, but on the basis of logic and reflected school experience. Only through such critical examination can desirable improvement be made.
With few exceptions, identified practices of individual schools and councils have not been included because such inclusion is always excessively duplicative, detracts from the idea being presented, and tends to justify an item largely on the basis of its source. The practices of consciously or unconsciously accepting a procedure because it originated in a large well-known school, or refusing to accept it because it came from a small unknown school are all too common in our American system of education.
"School council" is a more accurate and desirable designation than "student council," especially in settings in which teachers are elected to represent the faculty. However, because the emphasis is upon student participation and also because the expression is so well known and widely accepted, "student council" will be used throughout the book.
Although it might appear at first glance that this book will be useful only in the upper grades and the junior and senior high schools, this is not the case. Because these settings, basically, are about the same as those found in the middle and lower grades, junior college, college, university, and professional and technical schools, as well as in youth groups, community centers, and similar organizations, the material suggested should be found valuable by those interested in these institutions and situations.
Every chapter of this book has been read by from three to five critics, and all these, with one exception, have had or are having direct firsthand experience with the student council plan. These critics are: Dr. Fred B. Dixon, Superintendent of Schools, East Lansing, Mich.; Adah H. Pratt, Council Sponsor, Elgin High School, Elgin, Ill.; Prof. Clifford E. Erickson, Northwestern University; Supt. Elden D. Finley, Community High School, Delavan, Illinois; Harold E. Gibson, Director of Admissions, MacMurray College, Jacksonville, Ill.; C. C. Harvey, Nyssa, Ore.; Prof. Edgar G. Johnston, University of Michigan; Prof. E. C. Kelley, Wayne University; Alice G. Langford, Secretary-treasurer, National Association of Student Councils, Fall River, Mass.; Frank Meyer, Council Sponsor, Junior High School, Grand Haven, Mich.; Allegra Nesbit, Guidance Director, Lew Wallace High School, Gary, Ind.; Sophia Pollack, Secretary-treasurer, National Self Government Committee, Inc., New York; Arthur Shirey, Council Sponsor, Senior High School, Anderson, Ind.; Adeline M. Smith, formerly of Bloom Township High School, Chicago Heights, Ill., and Acting President, National Association of Sponsors of Student Participation in School Administration, St. Petersburg, Fla.; Prof. Paul W. Terry, University of Alabama; Gertrude Thuemler, Dean, Arsenal Technical Schools, Indianapolis; C. R. Van Nice, Managing Editor, School Activities Magazine, Topeka, Kans.; and Richard Welling, Chairman, National Self Government Committee, Inc., New York. To these, and to the many unidentified helpers who have contributed to this book, and to the publishers for permission to quote from copyrighted material, the author expresses his sincere gratitude.
HARRY C. McKOWN.
GILSON, KNOX COUNTY, ILL.,
October, 1944.
Contents
PAGE
Preface. ....................... vii
Chapter I The Origin and Development of Participation in School Control 1
Chapter II The Objectives of Student Participation.......... 24
Chapter III Principles Underlying Student Participation........ 49
Chapter IV Types of Council Organization.............. 73
Chapter V Initiating the Council.................. 96
Chapter VI Constitution and Bylaws ................ 121
Chapter VII Nomination and Election Procedures ........... 144
Chapter VIII ( Internal Organization of the Council........... 164
Chapter IX Council Activities and Projects. ............. 189
Chapter X Financial Administration of School Activities. ....... 223
Chapter XI The Student Court................... 265
Chapter XII The Student Council Sponsor .............. 300
Chapter XIII Evaluating the Student Council ............. 316
Index ................... 347
THE STUDENT COUNCIL
Chapter I
The Origin and Development of Participation in School Control
ALTHOUGH the expression "student council" is of recent origin, the basic idea is centuries old. Naturally, the records of the development of this idea are scattered and incomplete, and consequently a closely connected story cannot be told. However, a brief discussion of some of the early examples will prove that the idea has been struggling for recognition from ancient times and will also lay a foundation upon which a description of the modern movement may be based. For our purposes here, that is all that is necessary.
The Origin and Development of Participation in Lower Schools.1 — Perhaps the conception of participation in school administration did not originate with Plato, since there are references to the "Irenes," or pupil companies under the direction of the older boys, in accounts of Spartan boarding schools, but at least our first definite descriptions date from this brilliant Athenian educator. Plato, Socrates's greatest disciple, was a wealthy citizen who, because of his interest in philosophy, forsook a political career. In 386 B.C., he gathered a group of young philosophers around him and established his "Academy," a unique institution in which the teachers and students together owned and operated the school's property, chapel, library, lecture and discussion rooms, and living quarters. In it the scholarchs, or student leaders, were elected every 10 days on secret ballots by the students themselves. This school soon became the pattern for many other institutions established throughout Greece by Plato's disciples and others. It is interesting to note that the Academy existed for more than 900 years. In A.D. 529, the Emperor Justinian, because of his zeal for Christian orthodoxy, abolished all Athenian schools — and appropriated their properties.
1 The expression "lower schools" refers to all types of institutions below the college and university. It should not be interpreted in its modern meaning.
Aristotle entered the Academy at the age of seventeen and studied and taught there until Plato's death 20 years later. Then he organized a similar institution, which he called the "Lyceum." In this he further developed and incorporated the idea of student participation, adding such offices as that of master of sacrifices and that of overseer of good order, to which the students elected their fellows. The main purpose of student participation in both the Academy and the Lyceum was educational; it was not, as it was in some of the later schools, for economy of administration. Aristotle, like his teacher, developed and supported in his writings the theory of education for cooperative living.
Following these beginnings in the development of the student participation idea came a long period that saw the decline of the Grecian state, the development of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity, and the barbarian invasions, a period of numerous, varied, and conflicting educational ideals and institutions, but a period in which the philosophy of the student council was apparently nonexistent.
However, with the Revival of Learning this idea again began to emerge. Vittorino da Feltra, "the first modern schoolmaster," who had taught privately at Padua and Venice and later at the University of Venice, in 1428 at the request of the Prince of Mantua established a court school. Da Feltra's educational philosophy and psychology were really quite modern. He believed in making education attractive and developed a curriculum for his "Pleasant House," as he called it, that was based upon natural interests and abilities, and built around active and constructive projects which, he held, would furnish an immediate introduction to a useful and happy life. To achieve this ideal of an education that would prepare for leadership in secular and religious affairs, da Feltra incorporated several radical features into the school's curriculum and organization. Among other things, in addition to a curriculum of the seven liberal arts, he stressed health and developed a program of physical activities and competitive sports. Naturally, such a program required student organizers, leaders, and officials. Later this student participation spread into other areas of student life and activity and finally grew into a rather modern form of "self-government." Incidentally, da Feltra was probably the first promoter of interscholastic athletics. His program of intrascholastic athletics was copied by other schools, and the natural result was a program of athletics and sports between these schools. Here again, the students assumed most of the responsibility for these events.
In 1531 at Goldberg, Germany, Valentino Trotzendorf organized a plan of participation that was built around a senate of twelve elected representatives, a larger council, and the necessary administrative and recording officers. Very formal and dignified court trials were held for students who were unmannerly at the table, tardy, unnecessarily absent, lazy, etc. Incidentally, Trotzendorf was a forerunner of Lancaster and Bell in that he assigned the older and more competent students to help teach the younger. As a result, graduates of his school were in great demand as teachers. In England, about 1700, Thomas Hill organized his school so that the students could participate in its administration. By the time of the American Revolution both Eton and Rugby had well-established plans. Undoubtedly there were similar organizations in various stages of development in other European schools.
A little more than a century ago three great educators, Rousseau, Froebel, and Pestalozzi, added impetus to the development of the student-council idea. In Book IV of "Emile," Rousseau discusses the proper education of the boy from fifteen to twenty, an education which, unlike that of the first three periods, one to five, five to twelve, and twelve to fifteen, designed largely for the purpose of discovering, understanding, and developing himself as an individual, is organized to train him through actual social settings and relationships for a life with others. In this setting the boy learns to follow, to lead, and to cooperate. In his new institution, the kindergarten, Froebel stressed the importance of social relationships and responsibilities by building his classroom into a miniature democracy, while Pestalozzi introduced a system of participation into his Institute at Bergdorf.
Another type of student participation was that to be found in the monitorial schools. In 1797, Rev. Andrew Bell published a report of his work in using mutual or monitorial instruction in a school in India, and shortly thereafter Joseph Lancaster, working independently, incorporated such a plan into his school because he needed assistance and was too poor to employ it. The plan was simple; a monitor, one of the older pupils, was assigned as an assistant teacher to a group of ten or twelve younger pupils. As ultimately developed, the plan was a bit more complex, utilizing both conduct and teaching monitors. These monitors handled nearly all the detail work of the school, assigning pupils to classes, checking absences and the reasons therefor, examining and promoting the pupils, ruling the writing paper, assuming charge of slates, books, and other equipment, etc. In addition, a monitor-general acted as a sort of supervisor of all the other monitors. Obviously, the reason for this plan was purely economic; a very large school could be handled by one paid teacher and several unpaid monitors. The plan was widely copied in England and on the continent and even in America, as will be shown later. Although differing in purpose and organization from the participation plans discussed previously, undoubtedly this system did contribute much to the general development of the student-council idea.
Turning now to America1 we find in The Students' Gazette of the William Penn Charter School, July 23, 1777 (No. 7, pp. 1-2) an interesting account of how the boys "actuated by a noble principle and desirous to prevent the ill effects of internal broils, have established a constitution founded on their own authority." In this plan an "assembly" was chosen every month and was "empowered to make such laws as they shall think necessary or useful." Judges and other necessary officers were elected by the students. All offenders were tried publicly. Apparently the plan was successful judging by the statement, "Since this valuable institution has been adopted the absurd practices of fighting and calling names have visibly declined among the boys who now carry themselves toward one another with a delightful and polite behavior." Concerning the future value of such experiences the writer of this article states, "This will certainly be of great advantage to them hereafter, for when they are arrived at manhood and entered upon the busy scenes of life they will be useful members of society and qualified to serve their country in distinguished posts of honor and profit."
1 It is interesting to note that this plan is little mentioned in standard histories of American education. For instance, E. W. Knight's "Education in the United States" covers it with one sentence, while E. P. Cubberley's "Public Education in the United States" does not even mention it. Probably the first book on this topic published in America was Frederick S. Jewell's "School Government, a Practical Treatise," A. S. Barnes & Co., New York, 1866.
The influence of the monitorial schools in England was suggested in a previous paragraph. It is now pertinent to show how in America, where the plan was less hampered by tradition, conservatism, and religious limitations, its influence on educational thought and practice was still more pronounced. It will be recalled that this system of mutual instruction was proposed at about the same time by two men, Rev. Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster. However, because Bell was a clergyman of the Church of England and after the Revolution America wanted none of his doctrines, the plan in America became known as the "Lancastrian system." This was also due to the fact that Lancaster came to America in 1818 and spent most of the remaining 20 years of his life here organizing and promoting these schools.
The first Lancastrian school was opened in New York City in 1805, and the system was incorporated into the New York High School in 1825. Within a very few years the system had spread all through New England, as far south as Georgia, and as far west as Cincinnati, Louisville, and Detroit. Maryland instituted a state system of monitorial schools as did also Mexico for the state of Texas. This rapid development not only paved the way for the organization of a public education system but, more important for our purpose here, it paved the way for the development of student participation by demonstrating that, when properly selected, trained, arid supervised, students can actually handle many of the school's affairs. Although the monitorial system (1) was designed in order to provide an inexpensive schooling, and (2) was obsolete by 1840 as a result of an awakened sense of the state's responsibility for its schools, it did have considerable influence on the development of the student-participation idea.
In addition to its appearance in New England schools as indicated above, student participation was introduced into the New York High School in 1825; into the Temple School, Boston, by Bronson Alcott in 1834; into her Hartford, Conn., private school for girls by Catherine Beecher in 1830; into the Hartford public school in 1852; and into the Mattakeesett School, Duxbury, Mass., about 1840.1 These plans varied considerably in purpose and organization. The New York plan was an extension of the monitorial system; that at Boston included a provision in which the students elected a superintendent of activities; the first Hartford and the Mattakeesett plans rather closely resembled modern council organization even to a definite provision for the headmaster's veto: while the second Hartford plan was built around a student court and emphasized this phase of activity. In the 1860's John MacMullen developed a plan of participation in his New York City school, and Theodore Roosevelt and George Haven Putnam were elected to head the organization.
Dr. Bernard Cronson initiated "self-government" in the form of a "school city" in the New York schools in 1893 and made a rather startling success of it in School 69, and subsequently through his addresses, articles, and book2 was directly responsible for the organization of many similar councils in American schools. Incidentally, Dr. Cronson, a close student of failures as well as successes, put most of the blame of the former onto the fact that the councils were planned, organized, and "run" by enthusiastic principals and teachers and were not the logical outgrowth of felt needs in the schools. His criticism still holds today.
1 The students of this school occasionally even voted a shorter school day or a day's vacation. However, they more frequently voted themselves additional evening periods of instruction. Several pages of the minutes of this organization will be found in E. C. Kelley's unpublished doctoral dissertation, "An Evaluation of Student Participation in Government in American Secondary Schools," pp. 16-23, Northwestern University, 1941.
2 "Pupil Self-government," The Macmillan Company, New York, 1907.
Wilson L. Gill, another New Yorker, organized the Patriotic League of America in 1891, an elaborate scheme of self-government designed to teach citizenship. He later simplified it and introduced it as the "School City" into the Norfolk Street Vacation School in 1897. Later General Leonard Wood became interested in this plan, and as a result Mr. Gill went to Cuba to develop similar organizations there. In 1930 William McAndrew, formerly superintendent of schools in Chicago, stated that for 40 years he had had pupil participation in every school in which he worked. And, he added, "It worked." Throughout his life, McAndrew was continuously "pegging away at the practice," as he expressed it, by means of addresses, editorials, articles, forewords, activities, personal contacts, and other media.
In 1894 came William R. George's epoch-making experiment in self-government, the George Junior Republic at Freeville, N.Y. This was a sort of self-governing community patterned after the federal government. Originally designed as a summer vacation device for a group of underprivileged young folks, this Republic finally developed into an all-year plan.1 In a later extension (1916), Mr. George designed a plan to fill the gap between leaving-school and voting ages, sixteen to twenty-one, the "Junior City" of Ithaca, N.Y. This Junior City was organized like Ithaca, with a mayor, council, and other municipal officials. These young people attended the meetings of the city council and in other ways kept in close touch with the municipal authorities and their activities. Similar junior cities were later organized in other parts of the country.
1 GEORGE, W. R., "Junior Republic," D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., New York, 1910. A shorter account will be found in A. O. BOWDEN and I. C. CLARK, "Tomorrow's Americans," pp. 88-89, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1930.
In 1919, McClure reported a "brief summary of the rise and fall of public attention with regard to pupil self-government" as shown by the number of articles appearing in professional journals from 1900-1918. These articles were as follows: 2 in 1900-1904; 7 in 1905-1909; 27 in 1910-1914; 11 in 1915-1918. The author knows of no similar study since 1918. However, in order to obtain somewhat comparable figures for the last decade, he listed, by years, the number of articles quoted and referred to in this book. The totals were 92 in 1934-1938 and 126 in 1939-1943. The peak year was 1942 with 32 articles. These figures do not include all the articles published during these years, because quite a number of those read were not used in the lists of references. Hence, the above figures for 1934-1943 represent a minimum rather than a maximum record. The complete record would probably include from one-fourth to one-third more than were used. Referring again to the first study, two of McClure's conclusions were: (1) "The extended discussion accorded the plan indicates that it contains a certain element of success"; (2) "The recent slackening of public attention suggests the presence of some characteristic weakness so persistent as to register a large percentage of failures."1 In any case, the increase in number of articles in the last over the earlier period is significant.
1 McCLURE, W.: Morale by Rote, School Review, 27: 458-464, June, 1939.
Development of Participation in Higher Institutions of Learning. — For centuries participation plans have also been found in the universities. In an early day a university was merely an unorganized group of teachers around each of whom gathered interested students. Later definite authorization and organization became necessary, and buildings and accommodations were needed. These were supplied or promoted by the state, municipality, or church. Students came from all parts of the known world in response to the efforts of the sponsoring institutions in competing for famous teachers and large enrollments. By about 1200, university teachers and students became so numerous that they began to organize themselves into associations or guilds for protection against oppression of all kinds. The term universitas, from which our word "university" comes, was a Roman legal term corresponding to our modern word "corporation." As a result of this organization, the members of these guilds won practical respect in the form of special privileges and immunities such as, for example, exemptions from taxes and civil and military service, freedom from trial by civil courts, and the cessatio, the right to strike, in case of grievance, against either church or civil authorities.
By the very nature of the case, these privileges and immunities had to be conferred upon definite bodies, and a more exact organization became necessary. Students came from afar, and, because territorial lines were very indefinite, the most natural bases for the university's divisions were language and kinship. Hence the divisions took the form of "nations," each being duly chartered by the university's sponsor. Each of these nations elected, usually annually, a councilor or procurator, and these representatives, together with the heads or deans of the various schools elected by the teachers of these schools, named a rector of the university. This rector, generally elected annually, often was a student. The real governing authority of the university was, of course, the nations. In addition to electing the head of the university, and often the teachers, and even sometimes the town in which the university existed, the representatives decided upon policies, housing, routines, schedules, fees, and similar university matters, and handled all cases of discipline irrespective of whether the misdemeanor was against the "gown" or the "town." Here, indeed, in the fourteenth century, was a very powerful student council, and it was hardly "extracurricular" in any sense of the term.
Two early English colleges have left written records of the organization and activities of student participation plans. Winchester College in 1382 had a prefect system in which the older boys supervised the younger. This plan may have originated earlier than 1382, but at least it was used by this time. In Westminster by 1630 there was a system by which student officers or monitors with various types of specialized duties exercised considerable control over both the curricular and the extracurricular activities of the students. The chief monitor or monitor monitorum supervised the work of these monitors.
Probably the first example of student participation in American colleges was at William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va., in 1779, after the college had been in existence for more than three-quarters of a century. The political break with England and the emergence of the democratic ideal were undoubtedly responsible for this development. The students elected representatives to a central body and this handled lesser details of "general improvement," routine discipline. The plan was very simple, but it was a beginning. Probably it had some influence on its famous alumnus, Thomas Jefferson, who later organized the University of Virginia after an earlier movement to make a state university out of William and Mary College had failed.
In a way, the University of Virginia had its beginning when in 1803 the legislature passed an act incorporating the "trustees of Albemarle College," but it was not until 1819 that the university, under the leadership of Jefferson, a great champion of education, opened at Charlottesville. From its very beginning the University of Virginia was undoubtedly the most liberal institution of higher education in the whole world. It had an elective curriculum, freedom from religious tests and practices, equality of professors, rotating election of department chairmen, and other unorthodox policies and procedures. Little wonder that self-government was included, a system that went far beyond that of William and Mary College. This plan included an honor system for all examinations and control of nearly all student activities. It also handled ordinary cases of discipline.
In 1833, Oberlin College, named after a famous Alsatian churchman and philanthropist, was founded by John J. Shipherd and Philo P. Stewart at Oberlin, Ohio. This college was revolutionary because it admitted students of all races. It also provided for student cooperation in its management. Its critics laughed it to scorn and prophesied an early demise. However, these critics were wrong; Oberlin not only flourished from the start but became the pattern followed by many subsequently organized private and public institutions, notably the University of Michigan, established in 1837.
Frances E. Willard, best known for her work as secretary of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and later as president of the World's Woman's Christian Temperance Union, was a very practical-minded and energetic advocate of the student-council idea. After graduating from the Northwestern Female College at Evanston, Ill., in 1859, she taught for a number of years and in 1871 became president and professor of aesthetics at her alma mater, by then called the Evanston College for Ladies. Student participation was an important phase of her program, something quite unusual in a women's college. In 1873 her college was incorporated into Northwestern University and she resigned her position, largely because her ideas of democratic education conflicted with those of the president and trustees. However, she always retained her interest in the subject and in later years never failed to express her views at every opportunity and to voice her satisfaction at reports of successful student participation. To her sturdy pioneering can be credited, to some extent at least, the participation plans now found in nearly all women's colleges.
Additional examples of participation in higher institutions might be offered, but enough have been presented for our purpose here. From these early beginnings the practice has grown until now in practically all colleges and universities there are to be found three areas of responsibility, (1) the administration, legally responsible for policies, finances, properly, personnel, and publicity, (2) the faculty, responsible for instruction and contributions to existing knowledge, and (3) the student body, through its representatives responsible for the organization, promotion, and handling of the many so-called "extracurricular" activities.
Quite obviously, student participation in the colleges has had a tremendous influence on practice in the secondary schools and, more recently, in the elementary schools. It was natural that the teachers in these schools should reflect in their work the ideals and practices of their alma maters.
The Modern Development of Participation. — Despite the facts already presented, it must not be assumed that all schools of an earlier day had student councils. Undoubtedly many schools about which we have no records did have them, but it is also certain that many more schools did not have such an organization. Several studies have been made which indicate that although the movement originated centuries ago its greatest growth has been quite recently.1 A few examples of these investigations will illustrate.
1 Probably the first national survey in this field was that of J. M. Brewer, reported in Educational Review, May, 1909.
In 1926, C. R. Dustin, in a study of 81 student councils in 35 cities, reported that about one-half had been in existence more than 5 years, the oldest for 13 years.2 The same year E. U. Rugg reported that an investigation of 191 councils showed 68 per cent had been organized for 5 years or less and 32 per cent for more than 5 years, the median being in the 4-year group.1 N. R. Ringdahl in 1927 discovered that more than one-half of the 171 schools included in his survey had organized their councils since 1920.2 In 1935, Galen Jones found that the median date of the organization of 132 councils was 1924, and that none of them existed before 1900.3 H. C. Lent's 1938 investigation of 160 councils disclosed that the median age was 9 years, that the oldest had been in existence for 25 years, and that nine had been operative for at least 15 years.4 The same year H. E. Patrick reported the median age of 74 councils to be 10 years.5
2 DUSTIN, C. R., An Investigation of the Scope, Working Practices, and Limitations of Pupil Participation in Government in the Secondary School, School Review, 34: 341-342, June, 1926.
1 RUGG, E. U., Student Participation in School Government, Chap. XI, "Twenty-fifth Yearbook," Part II, p. 133, National Society for the Study of Education, 1926.
2 RINGDAHL, N. R., High School Student Councils, School Review, 36:
329-337, May, 1928.
3 JONES, G., "Extra-curricular Activities in Relation to the Curriculum," Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935.
4 LENT, H. C., The Status of the Student Council in the Class A and B Junior and Senior High Schools of Michigan (unpublished master's thesis), University of Chicago, 1939.
5 PATRICK, H. E., Pupil Participation in School Administration and Government in Eighty Secondary Schools (unpublished master's thesis), University of Chicago, 1938.
There are still other similar studies, but enough have been reflected to show that by now more than 50 per cent of American secondary school student councils date from about 1925.
The Present Status of Student Participation. — How many student councils are there in the elementary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools, junior colleges, colleges, and universities in America today? We have no accurate answer to this question, but we do have bases for rather intelligent guesses. Rugg6 found in 1926 that of 191 schools selected at random, 90 per cent reported some form of student participation. In the study referred to on the previous page, Jones in 1935 discovered 132 councils in 269 secondary schools. In the 1939 Brogue-Jacobson investigation for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1,608 of the 1,992 schools that responded to a request for information (on a form enclosed with the regular mail of the Association) showed that 81 per cent had some form of student participation.1 As a result of a questionnaire sent in 1940 to 5,000 schools of all types from the elementary school to the university, 1,801 replies (1,431 from junior and senior high schools and junior colleges) in which 1,549 schools had student cooperation were received. E. C. Kelley in 1941 reported that of 1,904,775 students in schools from which replies to his form were received 91.9 per cent were under some form of student participation.2 Of course, these and similar surveys have the weaknesses of (1) inadequate sampling, and (2) inaccurate representation; some schools having plans do not reply. However, they do represent some basis up6n which a rough estimate may be made. Brogue and Jacobson suggest that "recent studies indicate that from two-thirds to three-fourths of all the schools have some form of student participation in school government."3 We could easily guess that practically all junior high schools and junior colleges have student councils. These estimates may be a bit high, but if participation is to be found even in one-half of the secondary schools and colleges, probably a low estimate, and if it is recalled that very few of these plans were in existence 25 or 30 years ago, it will be seen that the movement has had a most remarkable development.1 In any case, this much is certain, student participation is now established in American schools.
6 Op. cit., p. 135.
1 BROGUE, E. B., and P. B. JACOBSON, "Student-council Handbook," National Association of Secondary School Principals, March. 1940.
2 KELLEY, E. C., Student Cooperation — A Report of Student Government in the High Schools, National Self Government Committee, Inc., 1941. Mr. Kelley points out that because the mailing list was composed of school officials who at some time showed interest in student cooperation, it is "therefore more favorably disposed toward this goal than a list of all schools would be."
3 Op. cit., p. 16.
1 Data on the growth of associations of student councils would represent additional evidence of this remarkable development. For instance, the first convention of the Illinois Association of Student Councils, held in 1936, showed an attendance of 25 delegates from five schools. At the eighth annual convention, held in Chicago in 1944, 1,048 delegates were registered on the first day of a two-day session.
Factors Responsible for the Recent Development of Student Participation. — In addition to the influences of successful participation in earlier schools and to the permanent establishment of the democratic ideal in America, together with an increasing recognition of the responsibility of the school for preparing more directly for active citizenship, several other factors gave impetus to this movement.
1. Local, State, and National Organizations. — In 1903, Charles W. Eliot, then head of the National Education Association, asked Richard Welling, long a vigorous advocate of the participation plan, to address the Boston meeting of the Association on the subject of self-government as a means of civic training. This address resulted in such a flood of correspondence that the "School Citizens Committee," composed of well-known and highly respected educators and laymen, was formed. The original title, "School City Plan," was later changed to "Self Government, Inc.," and still later to "National Self Government, Inc."2 For 40 years this committee has promoted conferences, meetings, and special lectures, published and distributed books, pamphlets, articles, and reprints, arranged and staged public debates, forums, and demonstrations, and given counsel and support. It organized, sponsored, and paid for the first course in extracurricular activities, "Teacher Training Course on Pupil Government as a Training for Citizenship," at New York University in 1910. During all these years Richard Welling, the winner in 1912 of the Owen Johnson Prize for the best essay on the topic, "How to Democratize the College," has been the efficient chairman of this committee. He was described years later by William McAndrew as "a well-known New York attorney, untiring wheelhorse in every campaign for good government since his graduation from Harvard, and intimate of Roosevelt, Strong, Goddard, Jerome, Low, Waring, Mitchell, and every New York fighter for a decent city."
2 The address of this organization is 80 Broadway, New York, N.Y.
The story of Welling's long fight for a more universal recognition and acceptance of the participation idea makes most interesting and inspiring reading.1 Influenced by the writings of Aristotle, da Feltra, Catherine Beecher, Bronson Alcott, John MacMullen, and William R. George, and by personal contacts with William McAndrew, Oswald Schlock-low, Adeline Simpson, and Edwin Goldwasser — all pioneers in student participation — Welling persisted despite great opposition in his efforts to develop further this plan. His ideas were called "visionary" and "impractical" and he himself (a lawyer) "just an interfering layman who could not understand curricular demands." In order to ground himself more thoroughly in professional education, Welling attended New York University afternoons and evenings for 2 years, acquired a Master of Pedagogy degree, and then, for experience, taught in an East Side evening school. American education, especially that part concerned with the development of its major objective, good citizenship, owes much to the enthusiastic, tireless, and patient efforts of this eighty-six-year-old master teacher.
In April, 1927, while a student council adviser at the Roosevelt High School, Minneapolis, N. Robert Ringdahl conceived the idea of a nation-wide organization; and, as a direct result, the first meeting of the Conference on Student Participation, planned for 75 persons and attended by 250, was held in connection with the June, 1927, Seattle meeting of the National Education Association. Ringdahl was elected the first president of this organization. Regular meetings were held at all subsequent conventions of the National Education Association until 1942. In 1941 the name of the conference was changed to the National Association of Sponsors of Student Participation in School Administration.
1 See Welling's autobiography, "As the Twig Is Bent," G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1942.
In 1931, student leaders, encouraged by Dr. Willis A. Sutton, Superintendent of Schools, Atlanta, Ga., organized the National Association of Student Officers which later was renamed the National Association of Student Councils. This organization also held its meetings in connection with those of the National Education Association. It was inevitable that the National Association of Sponsors of Student Participation in School Administration should very shortly assume sponsorship of the National Association of Student Councils. At Denver, in 1942, executive action was taken by these two organizations to have the National Association of Secondary School Principals become the sponsor for the National Association of Student Councils, and terms of understanding were formulated and approved in 1943.1
1 A description of the plan of organization and operation will be found in Aiding Youth in Secondary Schools, Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 28, No. 120, pp. 71-74, February, 1944. The address of this association is 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
In addition to the above, there are a number of other organizations that promote council interests and activities. Some of these are affiliated with the national associations. These organizations may be classified as local (New York City, Detroit Metropolitan Area), district (Illinois, six districts plus the state organization, border cities of southeastern Michigan), state (Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia), and regional (Northwest Federation of Student Councils, Central States Federation of Student Councils, Southern Association of Student Government, New England Regional Association). Another somewhat similar form of educational setting is the "student leaders' conference" held annually by a number of colleges and universities.
These organizations have established and maintained an excellent and functional medium for the exchange of helpful ideas. Their meetings have resulted in clearer objectives, greater knowledge, and increased enthusiasm, all of which together have meant a broadened scope and an augmented importance. The attendant publicity of their activities has also added to participation's friends and supporters. Not a small part of their contribution has been the development of self-confidence. In short, these organizations have exerted a powerful and wholesome influence.1
1A brief description of some of these organizations, and an excellent discussion of "suggestions for convention programs'' will be found in Brogue and Jacobson, op. cit., Chap. VIII.
2. The Development of Extracurricular Activities. — Although many of our modern extracurricular activities such as competitive athletics, clubs, debating, literary programs, special day celebrations, dramatics, and music, were to be found in the schools of ancient Greece, some of them, such as the yearbook, handbook, point system, thrift, and home room, are of very recent origin. In any case, the movement in America fully to recognize, organize, correlate, and capitalize these activities is only about three decades old. Since about 1910 they have multiplied and diversified until now the average school has a startling array of these settings and opportunities. This is proof that school people have found them to be educationally worthy.
The student council is usually considered to be one of the most important of these activities, if not the most important, because increasingly it has assumed responsibility for the development, supervision, correlation, and financing of them. Clearly it is provident that the council and these activities developed together, because they represent a perfect field of endeavor for it, and it, in turn, represents a nourishing and unifying force for them. In fact, it is quite improbable that there would have been a great student-council movement today had there not been a correlational development in the general-activity field.
3. Leadership. — Another influence responsible for the rapid recent development of participation is to be found in the many courses in extracurricular activities established in colleges and schools of education throughout the land. The great pioneer in this field was Elbert K. Fretwell, then professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and now (1944) Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America. For more than 20 years, his classes were the mecca for teachers and administrators interested in the field, and his addresses, writings, and contacts, as well as the efforts of his students, many of whom like the author taught similar courses in other institutions later, all reflect leadership that has paid prodigious educational dividends. Other well-known teachers and writers in this field, Roemer, Allen, Terry, Johnston, Draper, Wilds, Jordan, and Roberts, to mention a few, have also helped to make for substantial progress of the movement.
4. Literature. — Still another influence is to be found in the literature published. In 1925 there was hardly a book in the general field of extracurricular activities.1 During the following decade a dozen books, each of which includes a discussion of the council, and more than twice this number of books dealing with specialized activities, appeared. Several cities and states have published outlines, monographs, and bulletins for distribution to their schools.1 An examination of the periodical literature reveals only forty-seven articles published from 1900-1918, but at least 218 from 1934-1943.2 For several years, School Review has published an annual descriptive bibliography prepared by Paul W. Terry. Further, there is a monthly magazine, School Activities,3 which is devoted to this general field, and another, Student Life,4 composed almost entirely of student efforts, relating partly to council interests and activities. The Clearing House5 publishes numerous articles that concern general and specialized activities. The Councilor4 is a four-page monthly issued jointly by The National Association of Student Councils, and The National Association of Sponsors of Student Participation in School Government. All this literature together has carried the story of the student council to the four corners of the nation.
1 In 1917, the author wrote a master's thesis in this field, and the expression "extracurricular" does not appear in it. In those days the term was "extra-class."
1 Among those which the author has seen, one of the best is "Democracy in Action" (38 pp.), Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, 1941. This board also issues a more inclusive general treatment (107 pp.), "Youth Learns to Assume Responsibility: a Handbook on Experiencing the Ways of Democracy in Schools," 1944. Both these publications could be imitated with profit by any state or school system.
2 See p. 9.
3 1515 Lane Street, Topeka, Kans.
4 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
5 207 Fourth Avenue, New York, N. Y.
5. The Junior High School. — The high school has long been dominated by its traditions and by the college and, similarly, the elementary school has long been dominated by its traditions and by the high school. The net result has been a rigid educational structure in which change has always been slowly and grudgingly made. Then about 1910 came the junior high school, a new institution without traditions, loyalties, or organized dominations, one which welcomed change and encouraged the expression of the more progressive policies both curricular and extracurricular. As one result, the junior high school today probably has a better organized and articulated program of extracurricular activities (from an educational, not a public-show, point of view) than either the elementary school or the senior high school. Few are the junior high schools that do not have some form of student participation. Naturally, the junior high school's success with the council has had a wholesome and stimulating effect on both the elementary school and the senior high school.
The Modern Trend in Participation. — In completing this brief presentation of the origin and development of student participation, it is only logical to point out that in recent years has come a change in thinking about and planning for it. The ideals of such pioneers as Cronson, Wilson, and George found expression in the form of "republics," "states," and "cities," in which self-government was the predominant idea. Because experience was limited, most of these plans were rather complicated, and because school administrators were generally fearful or antagonistic, nearly all these plans were unsuccessful. These failures, although discouraging to enthusiastic and sincere originators and supporters, were really a blessing in disguise, because they demonstrated the necessity of recognizing limitations, proceeding slowly, and building soundly.
As a result, since about 1915, the trend has been away from imitative and complicated "self-government" plans and the use of this inaccurate and somewhat odious expression, toward the simpler and more practical "participation in school control" idea and more accurate and attractive designations such as "student council," by far the most popular of all titles.1 This newer concept, as will be shown more in detail in Chap. II, recognizes important limitations in student experience, judgment, and maturity, as well as in areas of responsibility, and further, its designation does not imply conflict with those in authority. "School council" has replaced "student council" in many schools, especially those in which teachers as well as students are elected. In such cases, the former designation is, of course, more accurate than the latter. However, the term "student council" is still used by some schools in which teachers are elected to membership.
1 As a matter of fact, there probably never was "student self-government" in any schools except the universities of the latter Middle Ages.
It is interesting to note that recently the expression "student cooperation" has become increasingly common in the literature of this field. Perhaps "cooperation" is a smoother and more desirable term than "participation," a bit closer and warmer in its connotations. However, at the present time, at least, plans of cooperation are probably little or no different from plans of participation. In any case, these terms have all but crowded the expression "student self-government" out of professional literature.
SELECTED REFERENCES
An Annual Conference of Student Councils, School Review, 46: 321-323, May, 1938.
BAKER, G. E.: Student Councils in Illinois, School Review, 48: 771-780, December, 1940.
BOWDEN, A. O., and I. C. CLARKE: "Tomorrow's Americans," Chaps. II-IV, VII, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1930.
FINDLAY, J. F.: Student Government, Medieval, Colonial, and Modern Style, School Activities, 11: 315-316, 350; 368-370, April, May, 1940.
GIBSON, C. S.: A Project in Citizenship, Clearing House, 7: 351-353, February, 1933.
HARTSHORN, C. B.: A Study of Pupil Participation in Iowa High School Government, School and Society, 38: 379-382, Sept. 16, 1933.
JACKSON, N. A.: Pupil Government in Secondary Schools, Education, 42: 197-210, December, 1921.
MCCLURE, W.: Morale by Rote, School Review, 27: 458-464, June, 1919.
SHELDON, J. A.: Pupil Participation in School Control in High Schools of Iowa, School Review, 43: 189-197, March, 1935.
Chapter II
The Objectives of Student Participation
IT HAS already been suggested that the student council is now well established in American schools. Obviously, it is only a part of a school's offering, hence, to understand it, it is necessary to examine the generally accepted objectives of education in order to appreciate just how this particular part fits into the scheme of things. Further, because education is based upon or built around certain methods of instruction, it is necessary to examine these also in order to understand how council procedures exemplify or utilize them. The first two sections of this chapter will provide these preliminary discussions.
The Main Purpose of Education. — It is a truism to state that a society organizes and supports a school system in order to perpetuate itself by training individuals for future successful membership in it. This membership in a democracy we call citizenship. Never has it been more important, and never before has there been such an insistent demand for this type of training by the schools. A brief glance at our educational history will show the reasons for this great present demand and so set the stage for a consideration of the means of meeting it.
In an earlier day, formal education, almost entirely private in organization and support, was largely concerned with religious and moral codes, creeds, and sanctions. Later, when the state began to organize and support a system of education these earlier emphases were to a considerable extent crowded out by a new emphasis, mental training. Because these mental activities were easily defined, classified, arranged, taught, and evaluated, the graded school with its very definitely organized curriculum emerged and before long became solidly established in America. It was bookish and "cultural" in nature and even in its more practical fringes of physical, social, and civic instruction its work was so academic as to be largely nonfunctional. In this century-long era the subjects were considered to be the most sacred things in education. "Passing on the noble heritage" became the school's slogan, and scholarship its ideal.1
About thirty years ago came (1) a new educational philosophy which held that the most important thing about the school is the child, not the subject, (2) a new educational psychology which emphasized the importance of individual interests, abilities, and differences, and (3) a happy combination of these two which stressed the advantages of "doing" over "learning about." During this same period the demand for a more useful schooling became so great that traditional education could no longer resist it and new ideals, subjects, motives, activities, materials, and methods came into the school. These centered about such areas as health, leisure, and vocation, all more or less included in the general category of good citizenship. So today it is widely recognized and accepted that the primary function of the school is to "turn out good citizens."2
1A number of investigations have been made of the relative later success of high school "scholars." One of the best of these is that reported by J. R. Shannon, The Post-school Careers of High School Leaders and High School Scholars, School Review, 37: 656-665, November, 1929. Three of his conclusions were: (1) "In general, it seems that the scholars are least successful in post-school life"; (2) "It seems that whatever it is that is necessary for success in high school is not the factor that is requisite for success in life"; and (3) "Whatever is required to excel in the extra-curriculum life of the high school seems to be the same thing that contributes most to success later."
2 Descriptions of distinctive programs of civic education will be found in "Learning the Ways of Democracy," Educational Policies Commission, National Education Association, 1940.
However, in reality, the school cannot turn out good citizens because its students are not yet legal members of society; not yet being of age they cannot vote, they cannot own property, they cannot be taxed, and they cannot bring suit in court. In short, because they are minors they cannot become full-fledged citizens of their country. Obviously, then, the only thing the school can do is to give them training through subjects, opportunities, settings, and activities that will fit them for successful adult life.
Essentials of Effective Civic Education. — There are three elements that are absolutely essential to any kind of effective education: pertinent knowledges, worthy ideals, and functional habits. A brief discussion of these will indicate their importance and relationships and also their place in a system of student participation.
Pertinent Knowledges. — These are basic to all learning and to all living, but they do not, as many individuals apparently believe, constitute education; by themselves they are only a type of ornamentation. All the facts in the world have never, in and by themselves, accomplished anything; a knowledge of how never constructed a table, built a bridge, painted a picture, planted a tree, or wrote a poem. Knowledge is valueless until it is used. Similarly, a knowledge of how the good citizen acts and behaves does not mean that the individual possessing such information will choose to act accordingly. Knowledge of law is certainly no guarantee of its observance. It is only the foundation upon which intelligent observance may be built. Long ago John Dewey expressed this idea in these words: "There is nothing in the nature of the ideas about morality, of information about honesty or purity or kindness which automatically transmits such ideas into good character or good conduct."1
1 DEWEY, JOHN, "Moral Principles in Education," p. 1, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1909.
In order to acquaint its pupils with the American way of life, the school has long stressed the importance of pertinent information. Through its various courses it has given the pupils a knowledge of our social inheritance, our heroes, inventors, authors, musicians, and statesmen, as well as important events now reflected in our schedule of holidays and anniversaries. Similarly, the school has taught the details of our democratic organization, its elements, relationships, responsibilities, traditions, and customs. All these are essential. However, far too often these important knowledges have been colorless and non-vital because they were acquired through the medium of formal school "work"; they represented lessons to be mastered, papers to be written, and examinations to be passed. Further, in many instances the pupil did not associate them with his own life because they stressed mystical and mythical elements and represented heights to which he could not aspire. Some of them were practically useless, especially those relating to civic and political organization, because they were not always accurate; they represented the ideal but not always the actual as the pupil knew it.
Appropriate Ideals. — A mental image or notion of the thing to be accomplished is the second essential element in the production of good citizenship or anything else because it supplies the motivation and also the standards by which achievement is evaluated. Of course, the clearer this mental image is the more easily will it become a reality. In an earlier day the school attempted to instill ideals directly by means of a memorization of mottoes, maxims, slogans, pledges, oaths, creeds, and similar material, and this method is still used to a considerable extent.1 Perhaps the use of these devices can be justified in the lower grades, provided they are meaningful, because these younger boys and girls lack the knowledge, experience, and maturity necessary for a recognition and appreciation of the many implications of an indirect presentation of the same idea.
1 It is the basis of a great deal of our present-day advertising, much of which is insulting to human intelligence. This is true especially of political advertising. Consider, for example, the compliment which the use of such slogans as "Keep Cool with Coolidge" and "Who but Hoover?" pays to a nation of supposedly sensible voters.
However, this so-called "direct method" of establishing ideals fell into disrepute because it was ineffectual.1 It represented formal lessons to be learned and recited instead of personal lessons to be applied and practiced. It lacked emotional appeal. Very often it was meaningless to the individual because it concerned the ideals of distant adulthood and not those of immediate childhood. Undoubtedly, too, often the individual understood the meaning of the ideal but for various reasons did not accept it as a guiding principle in his life.
1A discussion of the direct and indirect methods of moral instruction — materials, advantages, disadvantages, and suggestions for use — will be found in H. C. McKown, "Character Education," Chaps. VI-VII, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1935.
What is said here is not an indictment of ideals, which are absolutely necessary, but is rather an indictment of the belief that because an individual knows an ideal he invariably reflects it in his thoughts and actions. Here again, a knowledge of an ideal is no guarantee of its acceptance. It is only the basis upon which acceptance can be and must be built.
Functional Habits. — The third essential of effective civic education is a set of habits which capitalize the knowledges and ideals in observable and positive actions. Good citizenship, like good reading, singing, swimming, or automobile driving, is composed of a group of highly specialized actions all properly integrated and correlated and directed toward the achievement of the appropriate ideals. It is important to note that there can be no good citizenship without these habits, just as there can be no good reading, singing, swimming, or automobile driving without the corresponding habits.
Until very recently the conscious development of actions through habit-forming activities was almost entirely neglected in moral instruction, character education, citizenship training, or call it what you will. This neglect was due largely to the assumption that the impartation of pertinent knowledges and the instillation of worthy ideals would inevitably result in the establishment of properly functioning habits. It is downright amazing that any educator of any age should make this assumption, an assumption which he did not make in the teaching of reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, or any other subject. In these he very carefully provided for the practice which resulted in the proper habits.
With the modern increasing emphasis upon "doing" there has come a decreasing emphasis upon "being." In the progressive schools of today practicing the doing of the activities which the good, the honest, and the courteous individual does has replaced the earlier sermonics about being good, being honest, and being courteous. And this is the result of a logical recognition that the "being" is merely the end-product of the "doing," that one cannot "be" good, honest, or courteous except by "doing" the activities which together represent these. This idea is being reflected more and more in the replacement of the expression "the ideals of good citizenship" with ''the habits of good citizenship," or "the ideals and habits of good citizenship," and this is a thoroughly logical and justifiable development.
Knowledges, ideals, and habits are equally essential to good reading, walking, kite flying, book writing, piano playing, window washing, or any other activity, including good citizenship; not one of them can be omitted. If the individual has the knowledges and the ideals but not the habits he is as functionless as a stationary locomotive. If he has the knowledges and the habits but not the ideals he is an automaton, a mere machine always acting in a predetermined manner. If he has the ideals and the habits but not the knowledges he is only an animal with no understanding or appreciation of the reasons why of all things. In the latter two instances he is incapable of intelligently adapting himself to a new situation.
Further, an individual lacking any one of these elements could not be said to be even moral. In the first illustration the individual lacks habits, and these are basic to morality. Morality also implies a conscious choice between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, and neither the automaton nor the animal could make such a choice. To repeat, in a program for the development of good citizenship there must be adequate provision for the developing and utilizing of all three of these elements.
How Is Participation Concerned? — Recognizing that the traditional school's program of citizenship training was weak because it lacked provisions for practicing the necessary habits, the pioneer educators of the present century began to call for a setting within the school which resembled, to some extent at least, that in which the child would find himself when he became an adult. The very logical theory was that living successfully in his "here and now" would fit him for successful living in a somewhat similar setting later, and that under such conditions worthy school membership would become a functional preparation for worthy adult citizenship. For instance, years ago Dewey stated, "The school cannot be a preparation for social life except as it reproduces, within itself, typical conditions of social life," and "Except so far as the school is an embryonic typical community moral training must be partly pathological and partly formal. The child ought to be judged by the same standards in the school, as the adult in the wider social life to which he belongs."1 And again, "The school must be a community in all which that implies."1 In this same vein Kilpatrick says, "The effective school in a democracy must give its pupils an intelligent understanding of the issues of democracy, make them well-disposed toward democracy as a way of life, and make them skillful in the cooperative activities through which democracy must function."2
1 DEWEY, op. cit., pp. 1, 14.
1 DEWEY, J., "Democracy and Education," p. 416, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1916.
2 From notes taken by the author in Dr. Kilpatrick's classes.
Cubberley, in discussing the relationship of the school to a democratic government, writes, "Responsibility for good government under any democratic form of organization rests upon all, and the school should give preparation for the political life of tomorrow by training its pupils to meet responsibilities, developing initiative, awakening social insight and causing each to shoulder a fair share of the government of the school."3
3 CUBBERLEY, E. P., "An Introduction to the Study of Education," p. 159, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1925.
The philosophy of student participation embraces the "embryonic community" idea, providing for common interests and activities and motivated cooperation through natural settings and opportunities. Thus, as will be shown more in detail in the following pages, all three basic elements of any education, pertinent knowledges, worthy ideals, and functional habits, are also basic elements in this practice school of democracy. This is ample justification for the student council.
Specific Objectives of Student Participation. — What is meant by objective? An examination of investigations of the purposes of student participation in school administration, as stated by those directly interested — administrators, teachers, and students — reveals a great deal of confused thinking which, of course, might be expected due to the recency of this development. For instance, some individuals state these purposes in the form of more or less general objectives such as "to train for citizenship," "to develop intelligent leadership and followership," and "to give functional training in self-government," while other individuals indicate such objectives, usually designating them as "specific purposes," as "to promote noon-hour activities," "to seat pupils for formal assemblies," and "to supervise corridor traffic." Consequently, for our purpose here it becomes necessary to define the term "objective."
As used in the following pages, an objective represents a rather general and inclusive ultimate end to be attained, such as "intelligent leadership and followership," "increasing self-direction," and "respect for law and order." Under this definition such objectives as "promoting noon-hour assemblies," "seating pupils in formal assemblies," or "supervising corridor traffic" are not objectives at all; they are merely activities through which it is hoped the ultimate ends of wholesome noon-hour recreation, efficient auditorium seating, and orderly passing will be achieved.
Although at first glance this discussion may appear to be space-taking quibbling, a little more reflection will show that it implies a most basic concept, the difference between getting things done and getting things done with educative results. The council is not primarily, as has often been suggested, an administrative device. The school's administration can discharge most of the council's responsibilities more quickly and efficiently than it can, in exactly the same way that the teacher can solve the students' problems, write their themes, perform their experiments, and take their examinations more successfully than they. This is but another way of saying that very often working through the council represents a slow and indirect method of getting things done.
The main purpose of the council, like the main purpose of all other justifiable activities about the school, curricular or extracurricular, is to educate those who participate, either directly or indirectly. Naturally, the council's activities are important; if there were none of these there would be no council. It is also important that they be successfully carried out, but far more important, the members of the council and the students who elected them must profit educationally through these activities and projects. If no such profit results, the time and efforts spent on council activities are time and efforts wasted.
This point is worth emphasizing. Specifically, this means that such activities as "promoting noon-hour activities," "seating pupils in formal assemblies," and "supervising corridor traffic," are not ends in themselves but are the media through which the ultimate objectives are achieved. This holds true for all student activities. All of them must be justified solely on the basis of their direct and indirect educational contributions.
Basic Elements of Good Citizenship. — If the primary function of the school is to develop good citizenship, then the primary function of any and all of its parts is to assist in this development. Hence, assisting in the development of good citizenship is the primary function of the student council plan.
Now any thing, be it a definite object such as an automobile, painting, chair, garden, or book, or a less definite quality or trait such as courtesy, loyalty, sincerity, cheerfulness, or neatness, is composed of basic elements properly proportioned and articulated. Naturally, the way to produce this thing is to make and coordinate the elements which compose it, or which are responsible for it in its final form.
Good citizenship, too, is composed of elements which must be produced and articulated. Among the most important of these are (1) a knowledge of the theory of democracy, (2) sentiments of law and order, (3) intelligent respect for authority, (4) increasing self-direction, (5) leadership and followership, (6) cooperation, and (7) morale. Undoubtedly there are other important elements because citizenship is a many-sided and complicated structure.1 However, a discussion of these seven will show the pattern which a program of civic education must follow, and will indicate also some of the possibilities of the student-participation approach.
1 In her article, What Constitutes Good Citizenship?, School Review, 32: 534-536, September, 1924, Retha E. Breeze reported that an investigation of the opinions of four hundred men and women appearing in "Who's Who in America" resulted in a list of 212 different traits, thirty-eight of which were mentioned at least five times.
1. A Knowledge of the Theory of Democracy. — As was pointed out earlier in the chapter, the public school has always imparted the knowledge of how a democratic form of government is organized and how it functions, or how it is supposed to function. It was also suggested that much of this information is academic and bookish because it concerns the interests and activities of adulthood. Naturally, this weakness in our program must be strengthened, and it can be, by supplementing theoretical instruction with practical application.
The student council represents an excellent device through which important knowledges of democracy can be made meaningful, colorful, and vital, not only because it is based upon democratic principles and procedures but, just as important, because its interests and activities are those of student life. Participating in an election campaign, evaluating the qualifications of candidates, voting, representing a group, discussing proposed policies, serving on committees, discharging assigned responsibilities — these and similar activities represent a practical and firsthand experience with democracy which gives real meaning to it.
2. Sentiments of Law and Order. — Everyone from birth till death, yes, and even before birth and after death, is ordered by established customs and legal enactments. The individual cannot eat his dinner, walk down to the corner, drive his car into the garage, or answer the telephone without observing or violating law and order. Because man's very existence depends upon law and order it is regrettable that this expression has become so formal and that often, apparently, it implies unpleasantness, restraint, and control, instead of reasonable mechanisms for establishing social welfare.
Naturally, where there is law and order there must be discipline to prevent breakdown and resulting lawlessness and disorder. In general, discipline may be of two kinds, external, which is based upon fear, and internal, which is based upon pride. Two illustrations will show the difference between these. Suppose a policeman, noticing an individual walking on a protected spot of grass, bawls at him, "Get off that grass or I'll put you off." This individual will probably get off the grass, realizing that if he does not the officer will put him off bodily. In short, he fears the officer. Probably he does not even reflect on the matter of his violation and resents being spoken to in such a manner. Now suppose that instead of an officer this individual's best friend sees him and says, "Jim, you should know better than to stand on that grass." He will get off the grass, this time without resentment, because he recognizes the impropriety and because he likes and respects his friend and wants his friend to continue to like and respect him. The first illustration represents the poorest of disciplines, while the second reflects the best.
It is well to remember, also, that externally and arbitrarily set rules and regulations often represent challenges. In the first illustration above the unexpressed attitude of many an individual would be, "I'll stand on this grass all I want to, and you can't stop me." Some of these individuals, after the officer had walked away, might even stand on the grass again in order to prove to themselves, and perhaps to their friends, that they were independent. How many are the teachers and administrators who have found that making threats in classroom and assembly hall have only increased their troubles, all because some students accepted their challenge and very likely "got away with it," to the further detriment of good order.
Another illustration. Several years ago the author, while visiting a school in which it was reported sentiments of law and order had been developed to a high degree, decided to make a test. He walked down the corridor while classes were passing, took a sheet of paper from his pocket, glanced at it, crumpled it up, threw it onto the floor, and walked straight ahead. In an instant there came a decided tug at his sleeve and he stopped and turned to face a somewhat irritated boy, perhaps a seventh grader, who said to him, "Mister, we don't do that in our school." Note that he did not say, "Mister, the principal does not allow that in his school." It was "we" and "our." Needless to state, this school passed its examination with flying colors.1
In no way whatever does this mean that school authorities should surrender their legal and moral obligations for effective discipline; in fact, they could not, even if they wanted to. Such an attempt was the weakness of the older forms of "self-government," a weakness which the newer conception of participation in control obviates. However, it does mean that wherever expedient, that is, wherever possible, wise, and justifiable from an educational point of view, the students should help to set the goal of efficient self-discipline and make serious attempts to achieve it. In such a setting the student has a clear conception of the laws needed, helps to set them, and because he has had a voice in making them, he is vitally interested in seeing them observed.
1A description of a plan in which every pupil of the school shares direct responsibility will be found in M. W. Wallace, Every Pupil a One-semester Sponsor, Clearing House, 17: 212-214, December, 1942.
Here is another most important area of student-council relationships. The promotion of systematic street and corridor traffic, of good order in the assembly and at games, of courtesy at parties and other social events, and safety on the playground and about the school, as well as the promotion of neatness and the proper use of school materials and equipment, to mention a few possibilities, all represent fields of council activity in which thoughtful respect for law and order can be functionally developed.
3. Intelligent Respect for Authority. — In every group there is recognized authority. This authority may vary all the way from a common acknowledgment of the relative importance of some bigger, more assertive, or older boy in an unorganized group of children to a formal acceptance of the laws and officers of some organized adult body. Certainly it must not be thought that all authority is in the form of regulations; some of it is in the form of traditions, customs, attitudes, and beliefs which have become established. For instance, the criminal's contempt for the "stoolie" or "stool pigeon," a fully completed development of the child's attitude toward the "snitcher" or "peacher," is based upon authority, even though unorganized and uncoded.
Authority may be accepted blindly or intelligently. In the case of the very small child it must be accepted blindly because he is too young to understand the reasons for it.1 When this child becomes old enough to understand and appreciate these reasons, authority becomes more meaningful and his acceptance more intelligent. Such acceptance does not spring full bloom into being; it grows gradually and slowly.
1 "Of all the undemocratic traditions in school and home, the hardest to escape is the worship of obedience as a virtue," is the opening sentence of H. S. Tuttle's article, Obedience: a Necessary Convenience, in The Elementary School Journal for February, 1943, pp. 343-346. This is an excellent and interesting article, which any teacher can read with profit.
Although intelligent respect may imply, to some extent, a questioning attitude toward authority, or the wisdom of its promulgations and actions, yet it does not mean that its every order should be debated and discussed by those for whom it is designed, because there would never be time enough for such logical reasoning. Intelligent obedience must imply some considerable respect for the purposes, abilities, and sincerity of those in authority. On the other hand, knowing something about the reasons for certain regulations and customs should mean that the individual will all the more appreciate the necessity for them and have a further interest in helping to observe them.
Further, intelligent respect does not mean usually that the individual debates the matter and then decides for himself just what he shall do. He must understand that authority was originated because it appeared to be logical and necessary, and then later it became permanently accepted because it appeared to be successful. Too, he must appreciate the fact that democratic authority was established on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number and that even though occasionally it may restrict him, yet in the long run it will be beneficial to him. In other words, he must be led to realize that he himself cannot enjoy freedom and safety except through such established authority.
But intelligent respect means more than these attitudes toward authority, it means also that the individual should obey sincerely and conscientiously to the best of his ability. This is an important point which unfortunately is not often found in the discussions of this subject.
Specifically, just how is student participation concerned? It should be clear that the student who has seen corridor traffic become more orderly, recreation schedules become better organized, courtesy become more evident, assembly programs become more interesting, and financing become more successful through the efforts of his elected representatives in the central organization, can not only understand and appreciate the part played by the council, but can also get a thrill from helping to elect it and to support its policies. Because he recognizes himself as a part of the school's democracy instead of an isolated individual, his obedience to the rules of his governing body, even in those matters in which he may personally disagree, will tend to be all the more complete, because he appreciates the necessity for such rules for the good of the school as a whole. It would not be too much to expect that because of this direct and personal interest, his own observance will be pretty sincere and conscientious. What else is intelligent respect for authority?
4. Increasing Self-direction. — The life of the individual falls easily into two different stages or periods, childhood and adulthood. In fact, these are two different worlds because they represent such completely dissimilar settings. The first is the world of autocracy and the second the world of democracy. In childhood the individual is controlled and dominated by his parents, and rightly so, because he lacks the knowledges, ideals, and habits which make for social competency and independence. In adulthood he possesses these essential elements which make for self-direction.
However, it is quite impossible for the individual suddenly and successfully to step from the restricted world of childhood to the unrestricted world of adulthood. The learning, accepting, and practicing necessary represent a slow process of work. Assuming that social adequacy comes automatically with physical adulthood is as stupid as assuming that the individual can write legibly merely because he has attained physical maturity. Such an assumption and procedure, or rather lack of procedure, will always result in failure.
An excellent example of such failure is to be found in the case of the boy (or girl) who has been babied and over-mothered by fond but unintelligent parents and who suddenly finds himself away from home for the first time, say at college, where he is on his own. It is well known that those students who "break" first are the pampered pets who have never been allowed to grow up, who have never been allowed to develop self-reliance. They cannot live happily and successfully in an adult's world with only a child's training.
Training for effectual social living may come very naturally and easily through a miniature society in which the individual learns the pertinent knowledges, accepts the worthy ideals, and actually practices the habits necessary for successful membership. The student council idea is built around these three processes; through them the student becomes increasingly self-directive, irrespective of whether he is a member of the central body or only of the general organization that sponsors and supports it.
Further, this school setting provides for increasing self-direction, or development, in the matter of individual interests and abilities. One student has an interest and some native ability in originating, another in organizing, another in executing, another in expressing, another in publicizing, and another in evaluating, and the discovery and development of these potentialities are basic responsibilities of successful student cooperation because successful student cooperation depends upon them.
5. Intelligent Leadership and Followership. — In every group, from a disorganized and frenzied mob to an orderly and dignified legislative body, there are leaders, those who give direction to thought and action; and it is reasonable to state that the more intelligent and resourceful the leaders are, the more successful will their groups be.
In an autocratic setting leaders come into power because of tradition, custom, parentage, friendships, political favoritism, or some other influence that does not necessarily guarantee wise leadership. In a democratic setting, theoretically at least, leaders come into power through election, direct or indirect, on the basis of a recognition of their abilities. Naturally, then, because of their strategic positions it is of utmost importance that they be carefully selected. Successful democracy depends upon skilled leadership and this, in turn, must rest upon intelligent followership, the source of its authority and support.
Intelligent followership implies a double responsibility; first, a wise selection of leaders and, second, sincere and successful attempts to follow their leadership. Because this second responsibility was discussed in the previous section, only the first will be reflected here.
In order to avoid having leaders selected on the basis of friendship, sympathy, obligation, or for other purely personal reasons — all of which represent the lowest bracket of voting purposes because none of them comprehends the real objective of office holding and therefore none of them guarantees success in office — it is essential that the electors shall be trained to appreciate the importance of a deliberate and unbiased evaluation of the candidates' qualifications, and further, to vote upon the basis of the results of such reflection. Definite suggestions for this training will be found in Chap. VII.
Intelligent leadership and followership, like all other characteristics of good citizenship, must be developed; they do not spring unprompted into being. Because the school enrolls all the children of all the people, it is only logical that it should accept a considerable share of this responsibility. Nearly thirty years ago Thorndike suggested this when he raised and answered the very pertinent question, Is not special training in judging the qualities of leaders worthy of a place in democratic education?1 In just what settings in the school are these qualifications developed? To some extent the various subjects help to provide the bases of knowledge and ideals, and in a very limited way in specialized vocational and recreational fields, provide opportunities for some practice, but in the general area of democratic participation little is scheduled or accomplished through the curriculum.
1 THORNDIKE, E. L., Education for Initiative and Originality, Teachers College Record, 17: 405-416, November, 1916.
Here again, the council idea provides natural settings for training in both leadership and followership. These are functional settings because they concern the student and his activities. For instance, an elected leader who is autocratic in his methods, arbitrary in his decisions, careless in his commitments, and erratic in his judgments will soon discover that he must improve or he will be replaced; and the follower whose home room, class, activity, or school suffers from his vote or his ineffectual attempts to follow good leadership will soon recognize that the fault is his own. In both cases it is almost inevitable that the student shall recognize the disastrous consequences of his unwise or careless efforts. And, just as important, later he will have other opportunities in which he can do something about it.1
6. Cooperation. — This is another important element of democratic living which must be developed because, although in man's original nature there is a desire to associate with others and share in their activities, there are no fully developed skills which result in effective cooperation. Cooperation means combined efforts for the common good. The cooperator will, usually, benefit from the united effort, but for the moment at least the immediate objective is a benefit for the group.
1 Two good investigational studies of student leadership are G. C. Bellingrath, "Qualities Associated with Leadership in the Extra-curricular Activities of the High School," and M. Brown, "Leadership among High School Pupils," published, 1930 and 1933, by the Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Is the student taught cooperation through his academic courses? Hardly. In fact, cooperation in English, algebra, history, language, and other subjects is usually frowned upon, the emphasis being, as almost every student has heard time and again, "get it yourself." Even in those subjects in which cooperation is talked about and the ideals set, such as some social science courses, very few are the opportunities in which actual practice is possible. We are not contending that anything else is desirable or possible, we are merely pointing out that as at present organized the curriculum offers very few opportunities for the functional teaching of cooperation.
In the extracurricular field there is an entirely different story. Note, for instance, that a dramatic cast, music organization, athletic team, assembly committee, or newspaper staff requires successful cooperation. Each member must practice it in order to retain his position and standing. Through the student-council organization, which represents all these and many other activities, there are hundreds of opportunities, large and small, for the practice of this important element of good citizenship.
However, there is another phase of cooperation. Far too many discussions of this topic stop with student-student cooperation; too few of them reflect student-teacher cooperation. This, too, is highly important. One of the unfortunate features of traditional school organization, especially in the large and highly departmentalized school, is that it separates the student from his teacher. In it the student learns to know his teacher only as an assignment-maker, a task-setter, a recitation-hearer, and an examination-giver, and rarely does he learn to know her as a well-educated, high-idealed, warmhearted, honest-to-goodness human being. It is quite probable that what he might learn from her personally is as important as the facts that he picks up in her classes. The other side of the picture is just as true; only rarely does the teacher get to know the pupil personally.1 The result is that in many schools there are two more or less conflicting bodies, the student and the faculty, each of which knows relatively little of the interests, ambitions, and problems of the other. Further, there are often strong emotional reactions, fears, prejudices, and jealousies which make for anything but a unified and harmonious school.
1 Developing desirable pupil-teacher relationships is one of the important objectives of the home room plan, another miniature democracy. For a detailed discussion of this purpose see the author's "Home Room Guidance," pp. 25-32, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York; 1934. See also G. T. Lewis, Friendliness through Home Room Advisers, School Review, 48: 55-59, January, 1940.
There are many opportunities in the extracurricular field for the development of better student-teacher relations and mutual cooperation, especially where the council promotes, unifies, and coordinates these activities, because each of them is usually sponsored by a teacher. In these nonacademic settings the teacher is no longer a task-setter, nor the student a task-doer; rather they work together for the common good, the students furnishing the drive, the student contacts, and the execution, the teacher providing the experience, the administrative contacts, and the judgment.
7. Morale. — Closely related to cooperation is group spirit or morale, which was once defined by a boy as "the feeling a team has when it knows it is good." Morale is essential to any kind of organized effort. An army without morale would be little better than an unorganized mob, and a school in which each teacher and student bustled around to his individual classes with little or no interest in his institution as a whole, not feeling himself as a vital part of the school, would not be a school worthy of the name. It would be as colorless as a factory in which the employees were war prisoners.
Two elements are basic to morale, something to be proud of or loyal to, and a feeling of personal responsibility. A team whose record was poor could never have group spirit, and neither would it if its record were good but unfelt by its members or those closely associated with them. Every student in the school can thrill to his team's record even though he does not play on the team because he participates indirectly as a member of the school which his team represents. This idea of personal feeling is basic. If, in a school assembly, the cheerleaders arose and called for a yell for algebra, they would be laughed off the stage; but if they called for a cheer for the algebra team, they would get a rousing response. Not one of us has ever heard a cheer for football, but all of us have heard hundreds of cheers for football players and teams. Football is not "our" game, but the team is "ours."
The function of the student council is this connection is to develop and coordinate opportunities for many different kinds of participation, not only in games, competitions, programs, public events, publications, and similar activities but also in such projects for the common good as orderly corridor traffic, safely on the streets, neatness of lockers, thrift in the use of materials and equipment, courtesy to visitors, and friendly aid to new students. Every one of these activities originated and promoted for the school as a whole represents a morale-developing setting.
Conclusion. — It must not be assumed from the presentations of this chapter that the author believes that the student council offers the one and only medium through which good citizenship can be and is developed. He believes nothing of the sort. Other school and outside-of-school settings also contribute to this training, and should continue to do so in an increasingly effective manner. But he does believe that such a group properly organized and supervised offers the best of these opportunities because its objectives are educationally justifiable and its methods and procedures are psychologically sound. It is a motivated and functional miniature
democracy, one which represents student interests and activities and all students, and a plan which more closely resembles adult democracy than anything now to be found inside the school. It is, in short, a practice school of democracy, a laboratory for citizenship.
SELECTED REFERENCES
BARNES, M. C.: The Value of the Student Council at East High, Waterloo, Iowa, School Activities, 10: 400-401, May, 1939.
BOWDEN, A. O., and I. C. CLARKE: "Tomorrow's Americans," Chaps. I, III, VI, XIV, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1930.
BROGUE, E. B., and P. B. JACOBSON: "Student-council Handbook," Chap. II, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1940.
CHARTERS, W. W.: "The Teaching of Ideals," The Macmillan Company, New York, 1927.
COE, G. A.: "Educating for Citizenship," Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1932.
DIEMER, G. W., and B. V. MULLEN: "Pupil Citizenship," Chap. I, World Book Company, Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York, 1930.
DOUGLASS, H. R.: Citizenship and the School, School Activities, 10: 332-334, April, 1939.
ESTVAN, F. J.: Democratic Processes in School Life, Elementary School Journal, 43: 143-150, November, 1942.
FAUST, R. M.: Pupil Self Direction, Clearing House, 8: 51-55, September, 1933.
FISHBACK, E.: An Elementary School Builds Citizenship, School Activities, 12: 195-196, December, 1940.
FRETWELL, E. K.: "Extra-curricular Activities in Secondary Schools," Chap. IV, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1931.
GILCHRIST, R. S.: An Evaluation in Terms of Pupil Participation, Clearing House, 7: 358-363, February, 1933.
GRAYBEAL, L. B.: Re-examining Our Democratic Concepts, School Activities, 14: 123-124, December, 1942.
HALL, D.: Democracy Begins at Home, Journal of Higher Education, 11: 360-362, October, 1940.
JARNIE, L. L.: Students Take Part in Policy Making, Clearing House, 13: 223-225, December, 1938.
JOHNSTON, E. G.: Internes in Citizenship, School Activities, 9: 61-62, 75-76, 103, October, 1937.
KELLEY, E. C.: Utilizing Student Power, Journal of the National Education Association, 25: 217-218, October, 1936.
KIRBY, B. C.: Pupil Participation in School Life, School Executive, 56: 151-152, December, 1936.
KIRKENDALL, L. A.: Is Your School Council an Effective Instrument of Democracy? School Activities, 14: 83-84, 86, November, 1942.
Leadership in Democratic Living, Teachers College Record, 40: 561-649, April, 1939.
MORGAN, R. E.: School Activities for School Morale, School Activities, 13: 331-336, May, 1942.
———— : Student Democracies Can Function, School Activities, 12: 219-220, 234, February, 1941.
O'BRIEN, F. P., and I. M. SHEPPARD: What They Say about the Junior High Council, School Activities, 13: 339-340, May, 1942.
REAVIS, W. C.: Training in Cooperation through Participation in Solving Secondary School Problems, School Review, 50: 629-635, November, 1942.
RINGDAHL, N. R.: What Outcomes May Be Expected from Pupil Participation? School Activities, 7: 3-5, January, 1936.
ROEMER, J., and C. F. ALLEN: "Readings in Extra-curricular Activities," Chaps. I, II, VI, Johnson Publishing Company, Richmond, Va., 1929.
SALTZER, C. E., and J. H. HUSBAND: Student Government in the Guidance Program, School Activities, 14: 113-114, November, 1942.
SCOTT, M.: Creative Democracy, School Activities, 12: 301-302, April, 1941.
SMITH, W. R.: Educational Bases for Participation in School Control, School Activities, 5: 3-7, February, 1934.
STRANG, R.: "Group Activities in College and Secondary School," Chap. I, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1941.
TERRY, P. W.: "Supervising Extra-curricular Activities," Chaps. II-V, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1930.
VINEYARD, J. J., and C. F. POOLE: "Student Participation in School Government," Chap. I, A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, 1930.
WELLING, R.: Building Character for Democracy, Better Schools, January, 1942.
WILSON, H. E.: "Educating for Citizenship," McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1938.
WYMAN, L. K.: "Character and Citizenship through Student Government," John C. Winston Company, Philadelphia, 1935.
———— : Meeting the Challenge of the Times, School Activities, 9: 395-396, 442, May, 1938.
Chapter III
Principles Underlying Student Participation
THE policies relating to good organization and administration of student participation can be suggested in a consideration of the principles underlying them. Although the types of student-council organization vary widely, all of them rest upon about the same basic ideas. Those discussed in this chapter are based upon both logic and experience and reflect the opinions of directors, sponsors, and teachers who have had and are having successful experience with the student council plan.1 Only the more general principles will be discussed here. Those relating more particularly to the initiation of a new council, sponsorship, constitution, organization, discipline, and financing will be found in the presentation of these topics.
1 There are, of course, some differences of opinion concerning these principles. The Harvey-Allen and Kelley articles listed in the bibliography — both good — should be read together because the second is a "reply" to the first.
1. The School Must Feel a Continuous Need for the Council. — The principle that participation should grow out of the felt needs of the school, instead of being forced upon the school, is presented on pages 97-106 in connection with the general discussion of how to start a council. However, this principle is as important after the council has been established as it was before it came into being. The feeling of need must be continuous because if the school comes to the point where it feels no need, there is no need, and so no justification for participation. In such a setting the council is merely an ornamental nonfunctional organization which enjoys the respect of no one about the school. The proper maintenance of this felt need requires constant study and adaptation as will be explained in detail later.
2. The Entire School Should Be Represented in the Council. — Generally speaking there are two main plans by which members are elected to the council — by such definitely organized groups as classes and clubs, and by the units of the school as a whole.1 Usually in the latter type of organization the members are elected from the smaller unspecialized groups such as the home room.
1 In some schools the council members are appointed by the principal and teachers. This form of organization violates the basic principles of democratic government and so will not be discussed in this book. The other forms will be presented more in detail in the following chapter.
The chief disadvantages of the first plan are the dangers that (1) not all students will be represented because not all of them will belong to the organizations allowed representation; (2) those who belong to more than one organization will be represented more than once; (3) petty politics will develop; and (4) the larger organizations, usually represented by more members than the smaller, will benefit at the expense of the latter. In a way the last two possibilities are but natural because in electing a representative a group obligates him to work for it. In such a setting the test of his value as a representative is to be found in the extent to which he is able to get concessions and favors for his group. In case of conflict, for instance, he could hardly be expected to vote against the wishes of his organization. The emphasis here is upon getting instead of upon giving. In short, under this plan there is a serious possibility of loyalty to group overshadowing loyalty to school.
The second plan, election by unspecialized groups, avoids the difficulties and dangers suggested above. All the students are represented because all of them are in home rooms. In it the student represents his whole school instead of a particularized section of it and consequently sees all of its activities in proper perspective as elements of the entire picture. Under this plan attention can be centered on the weak places in the schedule, and unbiased efforts be made toward the development of a well-balanced and closely articulated program.
In some schools there is a provision for "honorary membership" in the council. For instance, famous alumni, soldiers, sailors, guests, speakers, and even the superintendent, principal, supervisor, or other administrative officers or respected retiring teachers are elected honorary members. There is nothing to be said in favor of this practice, and there are several things to be said against it: (1) the council is a working and not an honoring organization; (2) such members can never be, in a real sense, members of the council because they represent no school group or interest and attend few or no council meetings; and (3) it violates the basic principle that every member should assume some definite responsibility. This practice is a pretty gesture of affection but it is illogical, unnecessary, and confusing.
3. The Faculty Should Be Fairly Represented. — If the council is to represent a genuine cooperative school effort, then teachers as well as students should be elected to it. The usual practice is for the principal to appoint a sponsor, and while this plan has some obvious advantages, yet it really does not represent the ideal. Far too often the students consider an appointed sponsor a sort of spy or "wet blanket" whose duty it is to guide and control the council in accordance with the wishes of the administration, and this conception may not be entirely inaccurate. In any case, under such a plan the attitudes of both sponsor and council can hardly be one hundred per cent harmonious.
Logically, if the council is to represent the whole school, and the faculty is a part of the school, then the faculty members should be elected the same as the student members. In fact, there is no more justification for the principal appointing the faculty members than there is for the teacher appointing the student members. An equitable representation of the faculty, on perhaps a teacher-faculty ratio somewhat similar to a student-body ratio, through a regularly held election, adds to dignity and importance, and helps to prevent misunderstandings and petty jealousies. This subject will be discussed more in detail in Chap. XII.
4. The Average Student Should Feel His Representation. — It is but natural that the student who feels that he is represented in the council will have a more wholesome attitude toward it and a greater interest in its policies and programs than the student who does not so feel his representation. In plans in which specialized groups elect representatives to the council, the student who is not a member of any of these organizations will not be represented, and he need not be expected to be vitally interested in the council or its activities. For him there is actually little or no participation in administration; the setting is not wholly democratic. Nor does a palliative plan of allowing the election of a few members "at large" add much to such a student's interest. Usually the smaller the group represented the greater is the probability that its members will feel their representation, and, just as important, their own responsibility, and it is easy for the individual student to initiate an idea or action for consideration through his representative.
5. The Average Student Should Feel His Own Responsibility. — This principle grows easily out of that suggested immediately above. In many a school the average student's actual connection with the council appears to cease after he has cast his vote because he has no opportunity to assist in the development of school policies or plans. These he leaves to the body he helped to elect. Even listening to the reports of his representative as to what the council did at its meeting leaves him relatively unconcerned because he had little or no part in discussing the various items before the council acted upon them. Such a rubber-stamp state of affairs is not conducive to the development of school or any other kind of democracy. The council member should represent not merely his group but the thought of his group. In order to develop this essential felt responsibility in the school citizen, the council should encourage the discussion of pertinent problems in the home rooms or other groups represented, and, if practicable, in separate groups, even classes in civics and problems of democracy. The purpose of participation is to educate electors as well as electees; and this purpose will not be achieved unless suitable opportunities are provided for it.l
6. In General There Should Be No Restriction on Council Membership. — There are a number of possible restrictions on council membership, the principal ones of which are sex, marks, approval, reelection, and tax. A brief discussion of the first four will indicate the attitude which should be taken against all restrictions.2 A complete general policy regarding these restrictions, applicable to all schools and to all situations, cannot be handed out by the author or anyone else, but enough of the implications may be indicated to assist a school to outline and define a justifiable policy.
1 An excellent article to read in this connection is R. W. Hallett, The "Gripe" Session; Home Room Bill of Rights, Clearing House, 16: 198-202, December, 1941.
2 A discussion of the tax limitation will be found on page 241.
Sex. — Should there be a requirement that a certain proportion of the council members be boys or girls? The author can see no justification for such a limitation. Certainly sex itself is hardly a factor in determining ability to represent a group successfully. But even if there was such a restriction, how could it be enforced? For instance, if boys and girls were in the same groups, say home rooms, who would say which rooms were to elect girls and which boys? On the basis of what kind of democracy would he say it? This is rarely a problem because it usually solves itself, but anyway the above point is worth making.
Marks. — This restriction on council membership splits very easily into two parts: (1) should passing marks in all subjects be required? and (2) should higher than passing or average marks be required?
The usual arguments for the first type of restriction are that (1) the student who is not "up" in his work is not a good, completely respected school citizen and should not be allowed to hold a citizen's position of honor; (2) if he is "down" he may be motivated to get up, if he is not allowed to hold office; and (3) if he is down he should give first attention to his academic work. Probably there is considerable logic in requiring the council member to discharge satisfactorily his first major school responsibility, that of carrying his regular academic load successfully. We do not allow the athlete to represent his school if his work is unsatisfactory, so why should we allow the student who is not passing in his subjects to represent his group?
Should the council member be required to maintain a higher average than that represented by merely passing marks? The first argument for this practice is that the members will be more respected, a statement certainly not true or vital enough to be worth serious consideration. The second argument is that there is a high correlation between scholarship and leadership; consequently, limiting membership to the scholarship group will ensure a high quality of leadership in the council. It has long been assumed by classroom teachers that this scholarship-leadership correlation is high. This assumption has been proved fallacious but is still tenaciously held by these teachers, apparently because they are unfamiliar with the investigations, or are too deeply set in their ideas to change. There is no justification for requiring a better than passing or better than average mark for council membership. It is not required in any other activity in the school except the honor club, a highly specialized group in which the qualification for membership is scholarship, so why should it be required in council affairs?
Approval. — Some schools have a plan whereby a student must have the approval of his home room teacher, his adviser, the dean, the council sponsor, the principal, or the entire faculty before he is allowed to become a candidate for council membership. The theory is, of course, that the approver knows the student and can best decide whether or not he is suitable material for this body. The implication naturally is that student electors are incompetent, and that an inefficient council would result if there were no such restriction. This plan is entirely illogical and undemocratic. Really, it is but a reflection of the fears, jealousies, and misinformations of the faculty.
Moreover, such a plan is unsound educationally because it represents a denial of opportunity to learn. To take an extreme case, let us suppose that there was no such restriction and as a result the council was totally incompetent. Naturally, those who elected the council would suffer, and it is quite likely that in a very short time they would realize that they themselves were to blame. Further, it is reasonable to believe that at the next election they would be much more careful in their selection of members. This would be a most excellent lesson in practical citizenship, a lesson which would never be learned if the approval of candidates was required.
Reelection. — Should reelection be allowed? Here again the author can see no justification for restriction. Except in rare instances such limitation is not a part of the machinery of American democracy. A senator, representative, judge, mayor, or even the president can run for office as many times as he wishes. Certainly in no other activity in the school is such a limitation practiced; the athlete, actor, newswriter, or musician can belong to his organization for the full four years if he is "good enough to make it." In all likelihood, because of the frequent changes in the personnel of groups, reelection will rarely become a problem.
In summary, these limitations on eligibility for council membership or office holding are unjustifiable because they represent (1) faculty, not student body, ideals (and usually fears) which are the outmoded academic conceptions of the purpose of the school; (2) an unfair discrimination against such council membership or office holding, a discrimination which is not practiced against other school memberships and activities; and (3) faculty pressure to determine who shall represent the students. In a school with such restrictions the participation plan is only deceptive window dressing, it does not represent genuine democracy; it is, as Kelley aptly says, "a semblance of democracy without the fact."1 In his investigation Kelley found such limitations present in nearly three-fourths of the 1,431 councils studied, and in 96.5 per cent of the councils in schools of more than 3,000 students.2 Here, indeed, is one of the weak spots in our present plan of participation.
1 KELLEY, E. C., "An Evaluation of Student Participation in Government in American Secondary Schools" (unpublished doctoral dissertation), p. 122, Northwestern University.
2 Ibid., p. 105.
7. Each Member of the Council Should Assume Some Definite Responsibility. — The council which has no responsibilities will soon disintegrate. It can never have self-respect and morale because these are built through the successful discharge of duties. In exactly the same way the individual member of the council must have responsibilities in order to maintain his interest, self-respect, and morale. He must feel a personal challenge.1 Nor should this be a difficult problem despite the fact that occasionally there are members who, because of timidity, a feeling of incompetence, or a lack of interest, hesitate to accept personal responsibility. Certainly most of the members of a council will recognize their opportunities and want to shoulder responsibility. In the council and its subdivisions there are places for many helpers and many different kinds of skill. An important duty of the council is to ensure that these abilities are discovered and properly capitalized.
1 The importance of accepting responsibility and a method of accomplishing it are described by F. B. Dixon in his article, Why Not Develop a Bill of Duties?, School Activities, 14: 13-14, September, 1942. See also, R. Fulton, Taking the Lag Out of Our Great Object, Clearing House, 17: 92-94, October, 1942.
8. Each Committee or Subgroup Should Be Held Strictly Accountable for Its Particular Responsibility. — A committee without a definite responsibility is a handicap to any organized body because it will soon either (1) lose interest and spirit, or (2) impatient for action, trespass on the areas of other groups. This point cannot be overemphasized; the job first, and then the committee to do it, instead of the reverse. One good method of keeping committees alert is to require a report from each once a month or oftener. Any self-respecting committee will strive to have something worth bringing to the attention of the council and will consider a statement such as "the committee has nothing to report" as evidence of its own failure. A staggered schedule of these reports, so that not all of them come at every meeting, will help to prevent this order of business from degenerating into pure routine. Further, such a plan will bring a wholesome spirit of competition into the picture.
9. The Council Should Be Neither Too Large Nor Too Small. — This is a somewhat witless statement, but the idea is important. A large council tends to be unwieldy in organization and scattering in its efforts because of the difficulty of handling discussion and business in an orderly manner, and of educating the members so that they will act most intelligently on the various items under consideration. The usual plan of superimposing a council-of-the-council or an executive committee arrangement has several weaknesses and disadvantages. Further, the larger the council, the greater the possibility and the probability that some of its members may be underloaded — some may even become "sleepers" — and a council member with no definite responsibilities is a liability to the participation plan.
On the other hand, especially in the case of the medium-sized and large schools, if the council is small, (1) the represented units will have to be so large that their members may not feel their representation, (2) some valuable student ability will go uncapitalized, and (3) the council members will probably be overloaded.
To summarize, the council should be large enough to provide felt representation, to include a variety of interests, abilities, and competencies, and to furnish an equitable load for all of its members; and be small enough to handle its business with efficiency and dispatch. This problem of proper size must, of necessity, be settled by the individual school.
10. The Duties and Responsibilities of the Council Should Be Specifically Defined. &#