John Dewey as administrator: the inglorious end of the Laboratory School in Chicago

Abstract

The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago founded by John Dewey in 1896 is considered as one of the most innovative schools of progressive education. Its history, and specifically its sudden end, is still of general interest. In sympathy with Dewey, most historians tend to put the main blame for the tragedy on University President William R. Harper who—by refusing financial and organizational support—seemingly harassed Dewey out of office. A new look at archival sources reveals a different picture. The main point of contention was not bureaucratic matters between Dewey and Harper but irreconcilable differences between Dewey’s wife Alice and the faculty of the school who complained bitterly about her social and administrative incompetence as principal pushing the school on to the brink of disaster. Because of the extreme pressure exerted by trustees, colleagues and faculties, Harper could not help but ask Alice Dewey for her resignation. Given his own inability to manage business affairs, Dewey quit his job, too, in April 1904. Without his wife as principal, he saw no chance of realizing his educational ideas and left Chicago with a sigh of relief, freeing him forever from the unloved burden of administrative duties.

Keywords:

• administrative change
• educational experiments
• history of education
• Laboratory Schools
• school reform

Acknowledgements

The research for this paper was generously supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG), Bonn. I am deeply indebted to the curators of the archives and special collections at Cornell University, the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, and the University of Wisconsin. Sincere thanks also go to several anonymous reviewers, Walburga Meintrup of the Katholische Universität Eichstätt, Hein Retter of the Technische Universität Braunschweig and Craig Kridel of the University of South Carolina.

Notes

1. For a biography of Harper, see Goodspeed (1916), Wind (1987), for the relationship between Harper and Dewey see McCaul (1959), Tanner (1997, pp. 15–17), Benson et al. (2007, pp. 14–20). Since Judy Surrat’s (1971, p. 467) entry in Notable American Women, the opinion prevails that not Harper but Dewey’s wife Alice was the co-founder of the Laboratory School; the evidence presented, however, is scarce or not existing.

2. Hall (1892–1893, p. 369). For Parker and the Cook County Normal School, see Campbell (1967), for a comparison of Parker’s and Dewey’s personality and educational ideas see, for example, Marler (1965, p. 200–248) and Dykhuizen (1973, pp. 93–94), for the origin of the slogan ‘learning by doing’ see http://www.mi-knoll.de/53664.html, accessed 10 June 2014.

3. Dewey to Alice Dewey, 1894.11.20 (00233), The Correspondence of John Dewey (2005). This resource is electronically recorded and easily located by letter number. Apparently, Fred (*1887) and Evelyn Dewey (*1889) attended the Parker School just for four months since they stayed with their mother from May 1894 till June 1895 in Europe (cf. Melvin 1946: 323).

4. Dewey (1972b, p. 435), Annual Register, University of Chicago, July 1898–July 1899, 185, Dewey (1976a, p. 317).

5. Dewey to family, 1894.11.22 (00236), University of Chicago Board of Trustees to whom it may concern, 1896.05.12 (10281), Dewey to Harper, 1896.12.09 (00554), 1899.03.06 (00590), 1899.03.08 (00591), University of Chicago Friends of the Elementary School to Harper, 1899.05.31, John Dewey Papers Box 3, Folder 1 (Southern Illinois University Special Collections Research Center), Dewey to Harper, 1899.03.07, William Rainey Harper Papers, Box 4, Folder 24 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago).

6. Harper to E. A. Turner, 1899.08.15 (00616), University of Chicago Board of Trustees, Minutes 1899–1900, Vol. 2, 306 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago), Dewey to Harper, 1898.06.23 (00581). For various lists of students see Katherine C. Mayhew Papers, Box 18, Folder 1 (Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library), for Paul Harper see Frances Baur Henkel to Dewey, 1949.10.28 (11872).

7. Dewey to Jane Addams, 1899.04.26 (00626), Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees [Chicago Institute], 1900.07.30, 1901.01.13 Anita McCormick Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 2 E, Box 11, 13 (Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison), Newman Miller to Harper, 1900.06.23 (00604).

8. Katherine Camp to Elizabeth F. Camp, [1897].03.23, Mayhew Family Papers Box 9 (Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library).

9. Katherine Camp to Elizabeth F. Camp, [January, February 1897], Mayhew Family Papers Box 10, Mead to Dewey, 1899.06.23 (00262), The University of Chicago: The University Elementary School, 1900–1901, p. 2 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago).

10. The University of Chicago: The University Elementary School, 1900–1901, pp. 3–4. For an advertisement of the school see, for example, Chicago Daily Tribune, September 21, 1900, 7.

11. To set the record straight: Runyon was a teacher for history at the Laboratory School since 1898. Her article ‘A day with the New Education’ (1900) was a ‘popular account’, in fact a fictitious story, written at the request of George Vincent, colleague of Dewey, son of the Chautauqua Institute founder and father of a Laboratory School student. Runyon was never married nor had she any children. See Runyon to Nellie Griffith, 1927.01.31 (08292), Fallace (2011, pp. 35–36).

12. Contrary to occasional claims, for instance Smith (1976, p. 81), Dewey welcomed his new colleague. See Dewey to Parker, 1901.02.15 (00710).

13. The University of Chicago: The Department of Education. Announcement [Summer 1901], 2 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago).

14. Dewey to Harper, 1901.04.13 (00720).

15. Locke to Harper, 1901.03.08, Office of the President, Box 29, Folder 11 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago).

16. Moore to Harper, 1901.04.23, and the remaining letters, except for Myron T. Scudder, 1901.04.19 (00734), Herman T. Lukens, 1901.04.20 (00735), George A. Luckey, 1901.04.22 (00736) in Office of the President, Box 40, Folder 4.

17. Parents Association of the Laboratory School of the Department of Education, 1901–1902 (08292), Mayhew/Edwards unprinted manuscript, Chapter II, The History of the School, Katherine C. Mayhew Papers, Box 12. Cf. George H. Mead to Helen C. Mead, 1901.05.16, quoted in Durst (2010, p. 129).

18. William Kent et al. to Harper, 1901.04.23, Harper to Kent et al., 1901.05.01, Office of the President, Box 29, Folder 11, Mrs William Kent to Anna C. Edwards, 1933.02.18, R. H. Edwards Family Papers, Box 44, Folder 1 (Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library), Blaine to Harper, 1901.04.30, Office of the President, Box 30, Folder 3, Young to Trustees of the University of Chicago, 1901.07.07, University of Chicago Board of Trustees Correspondence 1890–1913, Box 3, Folder 1 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago). See also Chicago Daily Tribune (1901a).

19. Dewey to Harper, 1901.11.08 (00732). Alice Dewey’s income was actually higher because the family claimed a $150 tuition remission for their two youngest children. Cf. Smith (1976, p. 84).

20. Alice Dewey to John Dewey, 1894.11.16 (00230), Savage (1950, p. 275f.), Joseph Ratner to Frances Davenport, 1946.04.05 (19419), Henry N. Castle to Samuel and Mary Castle, 1893.06.10 (14129).

21. Lucy S. Mitchell: Oral History, conducted by Joan Blos and Irene Prescott, 1962.08.29, 84 (Rare Books and Manuscripts, Butler Library, Columbia University), Alice Dewey to Richard Edwards, no date, Edwards Family Papers, Box 44, Folder 7 (Alice Dewey signed this letter self-mockingly with ‘The Admiral’). Cf. Mitchell (1953, p. 254) and Ryan (1995, p. 155).

22. Dewey to Harper, 1901.07.22 (00724), Suggestions and Statements Made by Mrs Mary Root Kern, 1927.01.12, Edwards Family Papers, Box 44, Harper to Dewey, 1901.08.02 (00725).

23. Dewey to Harper, 1901.09.16 (00727), Dewey to Jackman, 1901.09.26 (00729). Another point of contention between Dewey and the Parker School faculty was how much space Dewey’s secondary schools should get in the new Emmons Blaine Hall. See McCaul (1961, p. 156f.).

24. The University: The Laboratory of the Department of Education, 1901–1902, 3 (Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago).

25. University of Chicago Board of Tustees, Minutes 1900–1901, Vol. 3, 408. For Flora Cooke and the Francis Parker School see Kroepel (2002).

26. Jackman to Harper, 1903.05.04 (08284). For other illustrations of the ‘administrative chaos’ during Dewey’s tenure relating to Jackman, budgets, circulars and rooms, see McCaul (1961, pp. 181–182, 202–203) and Smith (1976, p. 84), relating to the editorship of the Elementary School Teacher see Smith (1976, pp. 94–96), and relating to the employment of Julia Bulkley as predecessor and colleague of Dewey see Cruikshank (1998). For an appreciation of Jackman see, for example, Butler (1907).

27. Katch’s (1990, p. 240) listing contains 58 elementary students; if we include the two kindergarten groups that are left out in this account we get about 80 children.

28. O’Connor to Dewey, 1902.03.03 (01485), Dewey to O’Connor, 1902.03.07 (01487).

29. For example, Alice Dewey rebuffed groups of normal school students and their professors from Illinois and Indiana in such a way ‘that they left in indignation’. See Smith (1976, p. 98) and John W. Cook to Jackman, Blaine Papers, Box 327, Folder Jackman. It is worth noting, too, that in 1894 the Deweys decided not to live near Hull House and its socially underprivileged neighbourhood if nothing else because they wanted their children to go to school with boys and girls who came from ‘good homes’. See John Dewey to Alice Chipman Dewey and children, 1894.08.05 (00169).

30. Dewey to Georg Kerschensteiner, 1909.07.29 (03303). For a dissenting opinion see, for example, Rugg (1947, p. 556), Good and Teller (1973, p. 363), Jackson (1998, pp. 171–176).

31. Registration in Elementary School 1902–1903, Office of the President, Box 30, Folder 3, Dewey to Harper, 1902.07.01 (01530). The increase of Alice Dewey’s salary was financed by pay cuts for four teachers to be hired.

32. Report of Mrs Blaine’s Talk with Mr John Dewey, 1903.04.17 (08088).

33. Besides Alice Dewey, the teachers who stayed on were Elsabeth Port (primary school), Lilian S. Cushman (art), Mary R. Kern (music), Anna T. Scherz (German) and Harry O. Gillet (mathematics). See Annual Register of the University of Chicago, 1901/02, 1903/04.

34. Report of Mrs Blaine’s Talk with Mr John Dewey, 1903.04.17 (08088), Report of Conversation between Miss Rice, Miss Baber & Mrs Blaine, 1903.04.17 (08087). For a biography of Zonia Baber, see Schultz and Hast (2001, pp. 55–57), for Emily Rice who was a distant relative of Dewey’s father and was perceived as having considerable ‘administrative skills’ (Dewey to Alice Dewey, 1894.11.01 (00218)) see Cooke and Wygant (1931).

35. Report of Conversation between Miss Rice, Miss Baber & Mrs Blaine, 1903.04.17 (08087). Probably, this incident solves the riddle repeatedly discussed why the personal friendship between Young and the Deweys cooled off in 1904, cf. Lagemann (1996, p. 180), nevertheless they occasionally kept in touch: Young (1916) reviewed Dewey’s Democracy and Education and John Dewey (1906) and Alice Dewey (1908) published occasionally in Young’s Educational Bi-monthly.

36. Report of a Conversation between Mr Dewey and Mrs Blaine, 1903.04.27 (08091), Report of a Conversation with Miss Rice and Mrs Blaine, 1903.04.27 (08089), Report of Mrs Blaine’s Talk with Mr John Dewey, 1903.04.17 (08088), Dewey to Blaine, 1903.04.30 (00855), Report of Conversation between Miss Baber and Mrs Blaine 1903.05.03 (08093).

37. Blaine to Dewey, 1903.04.28 (00844), Blaine to Harper, 1903.04.30 (00857), Report of a Conversation between Mr Dewey and Mrs Blaine, 1903.04.27 (08091), Blaine to Dewey, 1903.04.28 (00845).

38. Dewey to Blaine, 1903.04.30 (00856), 1930.04.30 (00855), Report of a Conversation between Mr Dewey and Mrs Blaine, 1903.04.27 (08091), Report of Conversation between Miss Baber and Mrs Blaine 1903.05.03 (08093).

39. Baber to Blaine, [Spring 1903], Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 1 E, Box 27.

40. Blaine to Harper, 1903.04.30 (00857), Report of Conversation between Miss Baber and Mrs Blaine 1903.05.03 (08093), Baber to Blaine, [Spring 1903], Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 1 E, Box 27. Cf. Rice to Blaine, 04.05.1903, Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 2 E, Box 17.

41. Report of a Telephone Conversation from President Harper, 1903.05.05 (08094). Dewey to Harper, 1903.06.** (00866), University of Chicago Board of Trustees, Minutes 1902–1904, Vol. 4, 290.

42. Dewey to Blaine, 1903.10.04 (00860), Rice to Blaine, 10.05.1903, Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 1 E, Box 218, Folder John Dewey. There is no official report of the University Elementary School for 1903–04, Jackman to Harper 1904.11.25, Office of the President, Box 30, Folder 3.

43. Jackman to Trustees of Chicago Institute, 1904.04.23, Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 1 E, Box 327; cf. Smith (1976, p. 97). It should be mentioned that, graduate students of the School of Education praised Alice Dewey for her teaching abilities. See Martin (2002, p. 208), Frank P. Graves to Harvey Carr et al., 1904.06.06 (01184).

44. Harper to Dewey, 1904.02.29 (00925). For an extended interpretation of the letter, see McCaul (1961, p. 203).

45. The assumption Harper had wanted to have a talk just before a difficult operation contradicts a statement made by Goodspeed (1916, p. 199) that the operation took place in late February or early March 1904.

46. Alice Dewey to Harper, 1904.04.05 (00931).

47. Jackman to Cyrus Bentley, 1904.04.13, Blaine Papers, McC Mss. 1 E, Box 327, Dewey to Harper, 1904.04.06 (00954), Harper to Butler 1904.05.05 (08290). Smith (1976, p. 99) contends that Dewey as Director of the School of Education accumulated a deficit of $120.000. But that seems not to be the case, see Storr (1966, p. 334).

48. Dewey to Harper, 1904.04.11 (00956), Judson to Harper, 1903.**.** (08283). Regarding the Judson memo, the year given by the editors of the correspondence is wrong. As the context indicates, the undated piece was not written sometime in 1903, but in April 1904.

49. Harper to Alice Dewey, 1904.04.39 (00922).

50. Dewey to Harper, 1904.05.10 (00921).

51. Dewey to Alonzo K. Parker, 1902.07.25 (00765), Harper to Dewey, 1904.04.07 (01174), Dewey to Harper 1904.04.11 (00920).

52. Dewey to Manny, 1897.01.**? (01871), see also Manny (1917, p. 216f.). Dewey to Blaine, 1902.08.04 (00776).

53. University of Chicago Board of Trustees, Minutes 1900–1901, Vol. 3, 226, Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Chicago Institute, 1902.05.07 (08086).

54. Dewey to Cattell, 1904.04.12 (00989), cf. Dewey to Harris 1904.04.25 (00936).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Knoll

His primary areas of scholarship are history of education, curriculum and instruction, school administration, comparative education. His most recent publications in English are ‘From Kidd to Dewey: The origin and meaning of “social efficiency”’, Journal of Curriculum Studies (2009) and ‘“I had made a mistake”: William H. Kilpatrick and the Project Method’, Teachers College Record (2012).