Comment

In a famous passage in The Souls of Black Folk, W. E. B. DuBois declares, "I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls."⁴⁹ The passage envisions an educational paradise, where access to the best of Western knowledge and culture is open to all regardless of race, color, or creed. But DuBois did not believe that access alone was enough. He saw the primary goal of education as encouraging young people to embrace "ideals, broad, pure, and inspiring ends of living, not sordid money getting, not apples of gold."⁵⁰

Arthur G. Powell envisions education in a similar way. He longs for high schools that celebrate the liberal arts and the intellectual values embodied in them. It is impossible to quarrel with that goal. Who in education would not be thrilled at the prospect of large and increasing numbers of young Americans reading and enjoying great literature, seriously debating vital issues in history and philosophy, or understanding and considering the consequences of new discoveries in the sciences? Who would not want young people to develop a love of the liberal arts so deep and abiding that it would sustain and challenge them throughout their lives?

Despite this worthy goal, Powell's essay troubles me in several ways. His breezy overview of the history of the American public high schools misses or misconstrues how and why high schools have largely abandoned their mission of providing access to the liberal arts. Consequently, he underestimates how hard it is to challenge the anti-intellectual character of the high schools, and he overestimates the degree to which the current academically focused reforms have succeeded in reshaping the institution. Finally, Powell fails to consider the enormous challenge the country faces in finding and preparing the kind of teachers he believes could inspire students to embrace the liberal arts and make high schools avenues to the life of the mind.

Powell devotes a considerable amount of his essay to a reevaluation of the work of Charles W. Eliot, the president of Harvard University who chaired the Committee of Ten in 1893. Eliot has become an important figure in the current debate about what the nature of high school curricula should be. Powell is correct that a growing number of current historians view Eliot and members of the committee as important but unappreciated educational leaders who advocated both equity and excellence. Specifically, these historians applaud the conclusion of the Committee of Ten report that urged all high school students to follow a rigorous liberal arts curriculum regardless of their backgrounds or their future educational or vocational plans.

Powell does not directly challenge this view of Eliot. Instead he argues that current problems with the American high schools arose in part because Eliot and the committee failed to adequately defend the cause of liberal arts education in three crucial ways. First, he claims that Eliot and the committee believed only a small number of young people could benefit from a strong liberal arts education. Second, neither Eliot nor the committee provided a strong intellectual argument to counter progressive educators' attacks against the liberal arts in favor of social efficiency, particularly vocational education. Third, neither Eliot nor the committee explicitly urged high schools to promote the life of the mind as opposed to the mere mastery of academic subject matter. Each of these criticisms is only partially accurate, and their inaccuracy contributes to the broader problems I have with Powell's essay.

In 1893, when Eliot and the other members of the committee issued their report, none of them believed that the high school would become a mass institution. How could they? At the time, despite the rapid growth of the institution, only about 6 or 7 percent of American fourteen- to seventeen-year-olds were enrolled in high schools. Nevertheless, the fact that the committee believed high...