Newspapers / Africo-American Presbyterian (Wilmington, N.C.) / April 7, 1932, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of Africo-American Presbyterian (Wilmington, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
‘AND YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH. AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.” —John viii, 82. VOL. LIIL CHARLOTTE, N. C., APRIL 7, 1932. f ,■ J \ NO. 14. HOW FAR SHOULD WE ALLY OUR SCHOOLS , WITH STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION By Rev. B. R. Smith, D. D. (Paper read at the recent Presbyterian Workers’ Confer ence, held at Johnson C. Smith University, February 2-5.) The subject of our talk is put in the form of a question, “How Far Should We Ally Our Schools with State Boards of Education?" It is not a ques ton of how far shall we ally our selves, but how far beyond their requirements shall we go. When we measure up and sim ply duplicate the work which the State is doing it is hard to justify the expenditure of the money of the Church, and cer tainly there can be no justifica tion in doing less than the State requires. Our schools and colleges should co-operate fully w'th State Boards of Educa tion and, in addition to meet ing their minimum require ments, they should so enrich the character of their work that both parents and students will know that they are getting ;nfinitely more. We have come to this conclusion in view of I bp following facts: First, the responsibility for the education of its citizenry has been definitely placed upon the States by the mandate of the people. Schools in America as in European countries gen erally arose as a child of the Church and the theory persist ed for centuries that education was not the responsibility of the State, but the business of ♦he family and the Chilrch. But in the growth of the na ; tion, schools have gradually . changed from an instrument of r the Church to an instrument 6f ‘ the. State. The principles of AtnerhHMJ. 44uaa&®*^rsuesteb*. lished upon the theory that a democratic form of govern ment depends for its value and effectiveness upon a citizenship educated sufficiently to under stand all of its affairs, private and personal, public and civic. In keeping with this principle, - each State has accepted the re sponsibility of the education of ;ts citizenry. Ths responsibility has been confirmed by the courts and sanctioned by the mandates of the people. Today education is the largest public enterprise in the United States and the country’s most impor tant business. More money is invested in the physical plants of education than in any other public undertaking. More mon ey is spent annually by cities, counties and States for school support than for any other public cause. With the problem of adequate rural education still to be solved, the enterprise is destined to become even larger. In view of these facts of State responsibility and State authority there is no oth tr course we can intelligently nursue than to co-operate with the State Boards of Education. Another ground for my be lief that we should co-operate to the fullest extent with State Boards of Education is their attitude toward private and denominational institutions. De spite occasional agitation here and there for State contro1 of all educational efforts and oc casional attempts to take over control of all school facilities below college grade, the Amer ican people have not been led to believe that such control is either necessary or desirable. On the other hand, the State departments have been accus tomed to regard private and denominational schools as use ful and meritorious. They recog nized their great work in the past as pioneers in education. Some of them realize that pri vate institutions are jin posi-. tion to give the . youth a train ing that public schools can not give. They know that the youth of today needs moral and reli gious instruction and that state owned institutions can not give .. it. Because of this they are seeking to co-operate with our private schools and encourage i (them in their program. Inas much as the boards represen tative of the authority of the State in educational matters are seeking to co-operate, with the view of making our work more effective, I see no reason why we should not co-operate. In fact, I think it is an oppor tunity to make our work even more effective. It is true that State boards, while showing a spirit of f-iendly co-operation, have in sisted that private schools meet the minimum require ments of their own schools. And this is at it should be. 1 think it is a legitimate require ment that all denomnational and private schools and colleg es be open for inspection by State authorities for approval as being approximately equal in sanitary arrangement, equip ment for instruction and in quality of work done, to the public schools of the districts. There is nothing inherently wrong in State formulation of standards and State supervise ion of all units of education. Our States have enacted blue skv laws and provided for cor poration commissions to pro tect the buyers of stocks and bonds, and the same idea might quite properly be applied to the buyers of the evidences of an pducation. I am well aware that this works a hardship upon church supported institutions, but this t^t-l^chdd should be deprived 01 what tne State thinks he should have. Inasmuch as it is the purpose of the State boards to improve the character of our work and bring it up to required stand ards, we should accept the challenge and do our best to give as much as they give and more. Another reason for coopera 'ion with State boards of edu cation is that they have been the life and saving of Negro schools and colleges. Until very recently it was the only recog nized rating agency that would consider Negro schools and col leges. There are some States now that have no provision for rating Negro colleges. The rat ing “of our institutions by State boards worked a great hardship upon our institutions and some were closed entirely. On th other hand, some of *hem put forth a major effort to meet the State requirements, securing better equipment, im proving their courses of study and thus greatly improved the quality of their work. Furthermore, the American public has been trained to ac cept the rating of the various State boards as final in deter mining the worth of institu tions and the character of their work. Patrons of our schools desire to know if they are ap proved by the State. If they are not rated by the State they are under-rated by the public and the enrollment is invariably de creased. The primary consider ation in the program of any institution is the need of the community and the pupils. We should have confidence in our program to prepare students for future service. To do this our schools must co-operate with State boards and meet their requirements. Regardless of the thoroughness of our work and the preparedness of our graduates the State will not permit them to teach. If they expect to continue their educa tion they will be embarrassed upon entering higher institu tions and will, perhaps, lose -i year in the transfer. With State approval these difficul ties are removed. The question might be asked iq all fairness, “Have we a moral right to maintain our institutions, spending money for equipment 4Rd teaching, taking the pre cious time and money of stu dents, and at the saime time riot, giving them what they need?” There is still another reason why we should endeavor to meet State requirements in the conduct of our schools and col lgees, namely, that they are operated under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church. The Presbyterian Church has al ways stood for the highest and best in education. The people take for granted that if an in stitution is supported and con trolled by the Presbyterian Church, and especially the Northern branch, it is the best, and they never question the quality of the work. In view of this, we should give not only what the State requires, but more Long before the States caught the vision of their duty and responsibility in education, the Church was emptying its coffers, and sending consecrat ed men and women into the cause of education for the un derprivileged. We are indeed rroud of the record of our Church. At the same time we have a reputation which we must protect and live up to. We have always contended for the best in education and we should be content with no less now. The quality of our educa tional work should never be questioned. When students and parents give up the public schools for private institutions il is not "because they think they are getting less or the same advantages offered by the State, but infinitely more. When we receive students we should feel that we are giving them more. ill uuvoccU/iiig tlicit mi ui uui $rt\Wtkshatdd endeavor - to meet State requirements and have their work approved, I am not unmindful of the misgiv ings in the minds of the Church and the difficulties con fronting our Board. In the first place, the high cost of meeting State standards makes it almost prohibitive for schools under our Board. New laboratory and library equip ment must be purchased, the length of the term increased, qualified teachers must be pro vided and given adequate sala ries. With the benevolence of the Church in arrears what shall we do? Perhaps a greater mind than mine will have to an swer this question, but I am convinced of one thing, that it would be better to sacrifice the school than the pupil. The of ficials of the Board, Dr. Gaston and his associates, I know are eager to improve the character and standard of our work, and, if left to them, every school would be a standard school a,nd every college “A” class. With them as with other churches, it is a question of funds. Yet someting must be done. I sug gest the following: 1. Eliminate scnools, par ticularly the parochial, wher ever the State, county or city has made provision for the children of the community. I know there are some rural communities where there is still little or no provision for our group. Schools in these communities should he contin ued But where we are merely duplicating the work of the city or county they should be closed and the money used to support schools that are meeting a de finite need in the community. Another method of meeting this condition is consolidation. There is still a place for our boarding high schools and col leges and there will be for some time to come. But in the interest of economy and great er efficiency some of them could well be consolidated. In New Orleans two colleges of different denominations met their financial problems by con solidating. In Marshall, Texas, two of, the oldest institutions in the State for our people, one Baptist *nd the other Method ’c"t’ are meeting their problems this year by consolidating cer tain departments. The an nouncement has been made that these two institutions will affiliate -and have one summer school. If these colleges of dif ferent religious groups can see their way in the interest of economy and efficiency to con . o consolidate, why not consol idate schools of the same de jimniatioH for the same reason9 Tt would surely be better for the ttiiuonts and the Board to have a few well equipped institutions at strategic points than a larg er nmnbfi maintained on a lower scale 0f efficiency. There is still another way. In Texas several of the white denominational colleges which fiund it* almost impossible to Erep up; with the State’s pro yram haye been turned over to tile State to be operated as State institutions. If the prop erty ceafees to be used for edu cational purposes it goes back to the original owners. But the point is that these Churches thought it decidedly better to transfer; these schools to the State than to run them on an inferior scale. They realized uhat the greatest interest in the educational equation was the student;' AuuLiier piuii wmcn win neip solve this problem is for the Nation^ Board to grant a larg er percentage to the Division for Colored People. I am glad Dr. Mtitfse is here and I hope he will 'give his moral support to thisj suggestion. So I repeat that wpile the cost of meeting State |equirements makes it almost* prohibitive with our limitecf resources, the situation can be'improved by eliminating schools? which are merely du plicating work in their commu nit i es ./consolidating at strategic -peintii^rning school&.vosm tiL the States, and by granting a larger percentage from the Na tional Board for the Division for Colored People. Aside from the cost of main tenance in meeting State re quirements, there is, perhaps, another reason that our Board has some misgivings in regard to co-operation with State Boards; namely, the possibility of over standardizing and State interference with the Church’s program of religious education. I am a firm believer in religious education, and if I thought State co-operation would limit our work in this field I would be forever against it. But I do not think there is any cause for alarm. There are oniy two States in which there ‘sc-erns to be a tendency to limit the sphere of Church schools. An amendment to the Michigan constitution was proposed to abolish all private institutions. This amendment was voted down in 1920 and 1924. At the general election in 1922 the people of Oregon adopted an initiative bill which provided that all private and parochial schools should give way to pub h'c schools. This case was final ly carried to the Supreme Court which in 1925 declared the law unconstitutonal on the ground that it interfered with the liberty of parents and guar dians to direct the upbringing and education of children un der their control. This decision is a bulwark of defense against unwarranted intrusion by the State in the program of private institutions. Again, most oi me have certain required subjects which must be taught in pub lic. schools and private schools seeking their approval. To this there can be no objection. The rest of the curriculum is elec tive. The trend of education is to offer many electives in order that students may take cours es best adapted to their present and future needs. In the high schools of Texas there are more than thirty-one electives. With this tendency toward electives it is evident that schools may teach almost any (Continued on page 3) THE MEAGER CONTRIBUTION TO LEADER SHIP IN WASHINGTON By Dr. Carter G. Woodson Mordecai Johnson is having trouble with his educational leadership in Washington, but he should not consider his case exceptional. All men who have trie^ to do things in Washing ton have had the same experi ence. You always find here a number of persons who, al though they have never done anything themselves, neverthe less belittle and oppose what you are doing until they secure a following large enough to block the path of progress. For the support of his leadership Johnson, like others, must look beyond the borders of the Dis trict of Columbia. Washington is a job-seeking nrd job-holding center. The people of the District of Colum bia have no time for any such thing as an educational pro gram. Nobody here quarrels about one's not knowing suffi cient for a position. The chief «omplaint is that John is re ceiving more than James cr <hat William should not Jiave been advanced before Henry was rewarded. The people eo not feel any need for an effi cient school system or a great uriversity What they want is .on increase in the number of available jobs, higher salaries for the job-holders, easier ways of securing such jobs, and ad ditional opportunities for spending the money thus earhed. To insist upon high standards, vipe scholarship, and creative work makes an educator un popular in the District of Co lumbia. He had better keep the noise^ess-terMKc-QfJiia -wayjth ft he may draw his own salary and enjoy it in peace as long as be can. If he starts too many reforms here and disturbs the well established agents for the distribution of local patronage he cannot long endure. A great university, therefore, is impossible in Washington either among the whites or blacks. I am surprised to see such a thing undertaken with the aid of politicians. I was sor ry indeed when I heard that a useful and promising young man like Mordecai Johnson had decided to throw away valua b’e time trying to plow in the sea. John Hope, at Atlanta Uni versity in Georgia, has a much better atmosphere in which 1o develop an institution of learn -ng. How many persons do you find in Washington who are stu dying physics or mathematics, for example, to learn about the subject all that men now know about it and to add to such knowledge by some great dis covery? Such persons would be more acceptable here if they would forget research and spe cialize in auction bridge. To proceed otherwise will bring upon them the stigma of being freaks. George Washington Carver would be laughed at up and down the streets of Wash ington. This situation explains way nothing outstanding has been achieved by the one hundred and thirty-two thousand Ne groes in the District of Colum bia. Those who have done well developed in other parts. Yet cur trouble is due to an influx. We have too many leaders from without Practically all persons in the foreground here were brought to the city to be re warded in some way because of their successful leadership in smaller communities. We have, therefore, many who try to lead and few who desire to follow. Here these politically se lected Negroes have seen the “best” produced in the country. They have seen legislators and diplomats come and go, and a few of them in menial capacity have walked and talked with Presidents of the United States. Their time, thdh, has been consumed large ly |n admiring the great things beijjig done by others of a dif ferent rat es; and, developing an inferiority complex, they have always mocked any Negro who has come to town with the pre sumption that he can do some thing. When I arrived in Washington in ’09 and began my researches in Negro history the people here laughed at me and espe cially at my “hayseed” clothes. At; that time I did not have enough money to pay for a haircut. I went to a barber shop and had the work done before T informed the tonsorial artist as"to my impecunious condi t on. He became enraged and wanted to pound me, but I was 01$ of the chair then; and he decided he had better exercise a little patience until I could pay the bill. I borrowed some money from Wilson Bruce Ev ans and L. Melendez King, how ever, and paid this bill and oth er bills. That barber and I have become the best of friends, r When I in poverty had the “audacity” to write a book on the Negro the “scholarly” peo ple of Washington laughed at it. When I started the Journal of Negro History in January 1916, a representative of this same group, expressing an opinion of Kelly Miller, made fun of me in public soon there after, saying: “I have known you as an au thor, and now I g reet you as an editor; but you must remem WMa^nes do not reach the second issue.” That man is now dead but the Journal of Negro History is in its seventeenth year. This mag azine, however, is not well sup ported by persons of African Mood. Readers of the white race are more interested in it than we are, and do more for this work than we do. Thousands of our highly educated Negroes d0 not know that such a maga zine is being published; and they would not take the time to read it, if they had the op portunity. The people in the District of Columbia, as a large majority, dnd no need for such an ef fort as that of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. Most of them do not know what I am doing. A Washington teacher whom I taught in 1915, thinking that I am still marooned at the same pi ace, recently asked me how 1 *.m getting on at the Armstrong High School. A small numDer, nowever, have always stood by this work and have thus enabled the staff to make some headway in writing and popularizing the history of the Negro that the rare may not become a negli gible factor in the thought of the world. Kelly Miller’s pre diction of failure, supported by that of W E. B. Du Bois, therefore, has not yet come to pass They could not see how fhe thing could be done. I have seen too much of our people in the District of Colum bia to become discouraged by anything which may happen here. When I first heard Ro .and Hayes in Washington he did not please his audience at all. The lady whom I accompa nied to the recital tried to point out all his defects, saying that most of the time he was off the key. I did not know enough about music to under stand whether he was on or off, but even at that time he im pressed me as being the prince of singers; and the world since then has so acclaimed him. Some years ago Richard B. (Continued on page 4)
Africo-American Presbyterian (Wilmington, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 7, 1932, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75